Thank you Dr. Emoto - not for this though.

After I stopped laughing hysterically, I decided I absolutely had to repost this from Pharyngula.

A way for us to help heal the Gulf
Yesterday we received a letter from Dr. Masaru Emoto, who many of you will recognize as the scientist from Japan who has done research and publications about the characteristics of water. Among other things, his research reveals that water physically responds to emotions.

Right now, most of us have the predominantly angry emotion when we consider what is happening in the Gulf. And while certainly we are justified in that emotion, we may be of greater assistance to our planet and its life forms, if we sincerely, powerfully and humbly pray the prayer that Dr. Emoto himself has proposed.

"I send the energy of love and gratitude to the water and all the living creatures in the Gulf of Mexico and its surroundings. To the whales, dolphins, pelicans, fish, shellfish, plankton, coral, algae, and all living creatures . . . I am sorry. Please forgive us. Thank you. I love you. "

We are passing this request to people who we believe might be willing to participate in this prayer, to set an intention of love and healing that is so large, so overwhelming that we can perform a miracle in the Gulf of Mexico.

We are not powerless. We are powerful. Our united energy, speaking this prayer daily ... multiple times daily ... can literally shift the balance of destruction that is happening. We don't have to know how, we just have to recognize that the power of love is greater than any power active in the Universe today.

Please join us in often repeating this healing prayer of Dr. Emoto's. And feel free to copy and send it around the planet. Let's take charge, and do our own clean up!

David Anselmo

Glenwood Springs

I do thank Masaru Emoto. It was after watching "What the bleep do we know?", particularly Emoto's claims to do with the impacts of emotion on water crystals, that I was pushed to do my first skeptically driven research. Of course, I quickly discovered what a bunch of bunk the claims were and how pathetic that entire movie is.

So, in a way, Emoto is responsible for launching the skepticism within me. Thanks "Doctor!"

Anyway, I hope you, too, had a good chuckle at the 'clean the water with good energy' nonsense.

The new atheist creed.

It's not a creed of the "new atheists," a term which I find so vague and politically pre-charged it was rendered useless before even becoming widely used, it's a new creed that's been generated by the Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen. Let's have a look.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Lots of good ideas in there. It's probably come the closest to being succinct statement that I would actually support as umbrella for my personal perspectives. There's just a couple potential problems with it.

I know what radical theists might say: Why, if you don't believe in religion, is it so prominently featured in the first article of the statement? I don't want to strawman theists, (their arguments are usually weak enough as it is) so I'll admit many of them won't be stupid enough make this case, because it's total rubbish. It does seem to me to be deliberately stirring the pot on the part of the atheists, maybe they did it on purpose. No objection from me though.

My main gripe is that despite the occurrence of several articles trumpeting equality and universal rights, the authors still can't help sneaking in an exception for religion.

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders)

What? No! Not 'other than for religious leaders!' Why do they get an out? Honestly, if an atheist wants to head up a religious organization, but is completely qualified to do so, why shouldn't they be able to? Indeed, reports of clergy losing their faith are becoming more frequent. Are the authors suggesting these people should then be fired for their lack of belief, despite their demonstrated expertise in religion? Similarly, if a theist wanted to head up an atheist organization, they should be free to apply for the job and should be duly considered. Exceptions to non-discrimination policies should not be made, period. Discrimination is a difficult enough concept to evaluate. Let's not make it more complicated by allowing different gradations of acceptability for similar scenarios.

Oh, facebook.

While writing the last post, I was having this discussion on facebook, which is turning out to be quite the undertaking. Names have been removed for confidentiality. Irrelevant posts have not been included. All posts have been reproduced as written.

Poster1 Status:

Can we quit making excuses for the G20 police force. Anyone who looks at the videos can clearly see they were way out of line charging a group sitting and singing the National Anthem, and kettling inoccent Torontonians in the rain for hours.

We have every right to be at a major intersection in our city.

Me:

Uhhh, you mean the videos where people were unlawfully obstructing traffic?

Poster2:

Pseudosociophy... i can't believe you're serious.... The police in riot gear were completely obstructing spadina avenue, every intersection south of queen, and also were set up to the west and east of spadina on queen in full formation, as you can see. You obviously weren't there, which is why you don't know what you're talking about, but the police had traffic at a standstill for the entire weekend south of queen and anywhere people chose to congregate.

[At this point the Poster1 commented that he thought I was joking.]

Me:

I wasn't joking.

I have no intention of defending or condemning the actions of police or protesters, and definitely not via comments on facebook.

Sufficed to say, I've not heard a compelling criticism of police conduct during the protests, nor a rational justification of protesters who choose to break the law. So, for now, I'll reserve judgment and apply the same scrutiny to *both* sides of the conflict.

If anyone is really interested in discussing the behaviour of protesters and police during the summit, let's have a group meet and talk it through, I'm sure it would be an enlightening event.

Poster1:

Pseudosociophy you were honestly upset that people were unlawfully, obstructing traffic flow at Queen and Spadina? Honest?

I hear college street was a mess today due to Brasil winning their soccer game. Why don't we send in the riot officers? I guess you're never in Kensington on a Pedestrian Sunday or involved in a critical mass.

The videos speak for themselves about police conduct, nothing needs to be said.

Me:

I never said I was upset about people obstructing traffic flow.

You're oversimplifying the scenario by comparing it to farmer's markets, soccer fans and church services.

I'm sorry if your mind is closed on this issue, I think it would be a great opportunity to explore social conflict and activism from opposing viewpoints.

Poster3:

Interesting Pseudosociophy...."A sitter on the fencer."

There have been many a valid and compelling criticism around the conduct of both protesters and Police. It is often those that take no stand and claim to be neutral on a subject, that add to the never ending injustice that is oh so EVIDENT.

I guess we are just closed minded, and slightly off kilter for taking notice of what is ACTUALLY OBVIOUSLY happening. Oh, and of course posting such thoughts here ion facebook for all to see.

Suggesting that you are sorry for somebody for having a closed mind(or really just having a strong opinion) is really arrogant.

Me:

@Poster3 I'm not really a "sitter on the fencer" as such. I'm contesting the validity of the criticism. I never claimed to be neutral, just undecided pending compelling evidence coming in - there's a huge difference. I'm not staying undecided as an ideology, I just find the criticisms of police conduct and statements of protester righteousness weak and unconvincing. What I'm disputing are people's interpretations of, as you put it, what is actually obviously happening - I disagree that it's obvious. If I hear a solid argument or see good evidence I assure you, I will be swayed by it.

I've purposely not expressed my opinions on the subject because I'm genuinely interested in hearing others opinions. However, instead of presenting rationale for their beliefs, people have chosen to attack my unwillingness to conform to their personal opinions instead. Being closed minded and having a strong opinion are not synonymous. Either one can exist without the other. I never said I was sorry for Poster1 having a strong opinion - that *would* be terribly arrogant of me. What I actually meant, even if it was ill phrased, was that I was sorry, not for Poster1, but for the missed chance. I see the opportunity to exchange controversial ideas with intelligent peers as being highly beneficial no matter what the outcome, especially on a topic as heated as this one.

Finally, I apologize, mostly to Poster1, if my comment came across as arrogant. (The miscommunication is precisely why I avoid online debates in public forums.) I'm friends with Poster1, (not just on facebook) and know him to be a intelligent guy who seeks out new information and opinions to improve his understanding of things. I guess I was surprised that this topic was not available for discussion is his mind. In any case, I offer this whole-hearted public apology to Poster1:

I'm sorry if I offended you, I meant no personal disrespect.

[I have to admit - I fixed a typo in this response. I couldn't bare posting again.]

Poster1:

No one's upset, I realize lots of what I said has came from an angry perspective and I value your input Pseudosociophy

[Poster1 is really a stand up guy!]

Poster3:

Fair enough Pseudosociophy....It seems by your comments that you were not in the thick of things....I just found your comments to be making light of very serious injustices that are happening. The comments were too cut and dry. True, you did not state an opinion and yes,being closed minded and having a strong opinion are obviously not synonymous.

"instead of presenting rationale for their beliefs, people have chosen to attack my unwillingness to conform to their personal opinions instead."

Some need not state an opinion to be making a statement. Based on the way you presented originally and based on some of the other comments here, I was not alone in the way I internalized your comment.I really don't think I need to present any rationale...as I was under the assumption that most observing the news, walking the streets and some of those including myself who were forced by cops to stand in the rain for over an hour against common will should speak for itself( and I was not even protesting, I was just passing by an area where there were peaceful protesters). You can also read in the paper or watch the news to hear the hundreds of eye whitness' and those that came forth to speak of the brutality. I guess I should have included that in my opinion.

I am not attacking based on any unwillingness to conform, and really did not see my comment as an attack. I apologise if that is the feeling it gave you. As a person that was directly affected by the miss conduct...I was sad to read about your indifference as it seemed to me at the time. Maybe I was wrong in my assessment.

I do admire the fact that you are open to hearing others, and that you were interested in what others opinions were over your own. I guess you are not arrogant...but with the way you worded things, I will admit that I jumped to my own conclusions...I aplogise for that, and for offending you if in fact I did.

TO END: We all love Poster1 right?? Can't we all just get along....lol

Best to you Pseudosociophy!

I briefly responded, reiterating my un-desire to discuss further over facebook. I was more polite than I'd like to have been. Essentially, Poster3 admitted to having misrepresented my argument and assuming I held an opposing viewpoint. This is the problem with argumentative dialog - unless both sides are versed in logic and have a genuine desire to seek out the bare facts, nothing is accomplished.

In conclusion, the whole thread ended up fizzling on the topic at hand - I don't think anyone is actually interested in meeting up in an environment where their ideas are open to scrutiny. Shame. I still learned something about how to deal with arguers who aren't willing to objectively evaluate their own ideas though, so it wasn't a complete loss.

G20 Aftermath

Here in Toronto we've just wrapped up the G20 police-car-burnin', window-smashin' weekend. There are many issues abuzz, and while they seem to be going largely unreported in the rest of the world, they're all the rage here; so I'm going to weigh in.

First off, I like to acknowledge that there seems to be almost no criticism of the G20 itself anymore. Torontonians seem to have gotten all of our rotting on the actual summit out of the way leading up to the event, so now our attention can be focused on other issues, namely:

1) Those damn protesters and;
2) Those damn police.

The Protesters

I'm not going to waste much time on the violent protesters; these people are clearly idiots. (Incidently, many people have spent time on condemning the acts of the outspoken few, to which I respond; well, duh.) I do, however, have several beefs with the non-violent protesters.

The main issue is that protesters in Toronto don't seem to really understand what 'peaceful protest' means. While we do live in a free, democratic country and are afforded the rights of free speech and assembly, there are limitations to those rights. These limitations generally exist to inhibit the ability of any person, or group of people, to infringe the rights of another person or group. I think, therefore, that it's fair to say, once you infringe on another person's right, aka commit an illegal activity, you forfeit your rights. Obstructing traffic is illegal because it affects other people in a negative way. So, if you choose to sit down in the middle of the street in protest, you're gonna get your ass whooped. (Or at least the get shit scarred out of you.)

Furthermore, protesters need to stay focused. Protesting doesn't mean getting together with your friends and causing shit. Protesting conveys message which is politically or ideologically important to the protester. This does not include standing around and antagonizing police officers. Antagonizing cops is a bad idea for two reasons, 1) They're human and eventually they'll break, and if there's a conflict (for whatever reason), 2) you're gonna lose. I'm not condoning police brutality at all, who would? It's still best to not try and get under the skin of a group of people who are under a lot of stress and armed to the teeth.


The Cops

By in large, I thought the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) did a fantastic job. There have been reported (and youTubed) incidents with individual police officers and at the holding facility, but I'm not convinced it makes a strong case against the police force as a whole.

Here's my case:

The police publicly stated that their priorities on the first day of the summit (Saturday), were, in order 1) Protect the G20 security perimeter, 2) Protect human life and, 3) Protect property. Many criticisms have come to the police for not stopping the 200 or so violent protesters who laid waste to Yonge street during the first gambit of protests. There are two very good reasons for not stopping them. Firstly, it almost certainly would have resulted in casualties, if not death. Secondly, it would have required the ISU to pull a large portion of riot officers from away from large groups to deal with a relatively small one. By doing that, they would have compromised their exterior perimeter and had to mount their defense right at the interior security perimeter. (If you don't understand why that's bad, you need to read the Art of War.)

On Saturday evening and Sunday, things were different. Police had encountered massive public condemnation of their slack procedures. More importantly, they now had that caveat, so important to police legalities: reasonable and probably cause. By virtue of the rioting that took place on Saturday morning and afternoon, police now knew it was a reasonable premise that, left unchecked, protesting crowds would escalate in to violence. So they began to take precautionary measures. Among these measures, they choose to stay to the letter of the law, arresting people for legal violations, euphemistically, that would normally be overlooked. There were definitely some innocent bystanders who were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately for them, it was their choice to be their when the curtain fell, and so they must bare the consequences. To an riot officer, there is only us and them. I challenge anyone, in real time, to face a potentially hostile crowd of several hundred and reliably pick out which among them is most likely to commit a crime next. [Door opens to racial profiling and various other forms of prejudice.] The police did the only reasonable thing they could do, detain everyone, analyze the situation, arrest likely suspects, release the remainder.

And it's not a violation of human rights, since all of them were committing a crime anyhow.

I must say, having witnessed some of the crowd dispersal first hand, when the police moved it was organized, ruthlessly efficient, effective and, it seems, executed with the highest regard for human safety. Mind you, I didn't witness all situations, so there may be scenarios I'm not aware of, but I haven't yet seen evidence of them.

As for the incidents with individual police officers, I wasn't there. Sure, some of them were caught on video, but they seem to be carefully edited so only the actual altercation is shown. There's no context to protester or police behaviour or verbal exchanges between them, so I remain undecided on the subject until further evidence come in.

I think the main problem with criticism of the ISU in this case was a lack of seeing the human aspect of the unit. Yes, it's a paramilitary operation that has objectives and carefully designed methods of achieving them; but it's run and consists entirely of humans. Humans, like the protesters, who react, adapt, doubt, make mistakes and, especially when on the front lines, get tired. When faced with an authority figure who is stifling one's personal freedoms, perhaps it's best to first off, see them as a human being, then consider how their actions might be aiding the great good.

I can't believe Portugal won the World Cup.

Oh, wait. They didn't. (Not at the time of writing anyway.)

They advanced out of the preliminaries.

I didn't mind so much being woken this morning by screaming fans. Apparently it was a good game.

However, here we are 7 hours after the game is finished and my neighbourhood is still gridlocked. People continue to drive up and down the street screaming, honking horns, waving flags, obstructing public transit, wasting gas......

Did I mention that this has been going on for 7 hours?

It's pathetic.

I lived in the same neighbourhood when Italy won the World Cup and the massive victory celebration scarcely lasted for 7 hours. (Although it did completely shut down the street for several hours.)

I'm in awe that so many people have nothing better to do than waste fuel, time, energy and money by causing such a disturbance over a relatively mundane accomplishment. It's not even the quarter finals yet.

And don't give me that "national pride" bullshit. I didn't see anyone fanatically celebrating for their countries during the Olympics. (The neighbourhood has representative groups of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Argentinian and Brazilian.) I willing to wager good money that asking any of the horn-honking crusaders what the latest contribution of their country to the United Nations has been, I'd receive little more than a blank stare. This is not about nationalistic pride. It's about soccer and a fanatical obsession with it.

It's not like the people celebrating here actually did anything significant either. They didn't play. They couldn't even be bothered to go to the actual game. From walking by many a sports bar during games, I can safely say many of them didn't even pay much attention to the game while it was on television.

Here's their contribution: a) Buy a jersey. b) Sit around and wait for the opportunity to get in a car, drive around and advertise what a GREAT fan they are in the most idiotic fashion possible. (It really does seem to be a competition sometimes.) c) Fulfill deep seeded desire for idiocy.

HONK.

I'll say this as simply as I possibly can.

If you litter, you're an asshole.

No excuses, no exemptions. Carry your trash to the nearest bin and toss it in.

This isn't about the environment; after all, the trash is going to end up somewhere. It's about social responsibility and everyone doing their part to not make anyone's day to day life more unpleasant than it has to be.

If you disagree, please respond with your address and I'll start using your front lawn as my personal landfill site.

You are not helping me.

I love it when "nutrition experts" - self appointed, mostly - pass on the ole' chestnut of wisdom to "avoid too much of x."

How is this helpful in any way?

"Too much" of something is, by definition, too much. You can have too much of anything - water, salt, skittles, physical activity, in-laws - anything! I've never once heard anyone say, "I'm going to try to have too much of this," or, better yet, "I'd like a little bit more than too much, please."

By saying, "Avoid having too much fruit in your diet," a nutritionist is simply using a vague description of a non-quantifiable amount to sound like they know what they're talking about.

Why is that?

Maybe it's because they were educated in a barn.

It's not as implausible as it sounds. Up here in the Great White North, there is no federal standard for the title of 'Nutritionist'. According to the Dietitians of Canada (seems like a good source): "The term Nutritionist is not protected by law in all provinces..." And, in fact, the Ontario College of Dietitians clarifies the issue (for Ontarians) further, saying: "...people do not require any training to call themselves a nutritionist." Consider the number of nutritionists out there spewing forth advice on what you should and shouldn't put in your body.

That is to say that there's nothing stopping me from opening a "Nutrition College," spending all the course time teaching students to horse-back ride, and then issuing one hundred percent authentic pieces of paper saying "Certified Nutritionist."

I'm sure that most nutrition institutions aren't so malicious and disingenuous. But the point is - they could be. And you'd never know.

The problem here is that nutritionists then go out in to the world and tell other people what's healthy and unhealthy for people without, necessarily, having the slightest clue what that science behind their advice is. I've heard nutritionists say things that are blatantly contradictory to peer-reviewed research papers, and people believe them. It's frightening.

So next time someone tells you what to eat, or not eat under the authoritative guise of being a 'nutritionist' - be wary. Especially if they're using vaguely ambiguous terms that could mean anything. Or nothing.

Draw Muhammad Day

Here's my contribution.For anyone who misunderstands the point of 'Everyone Draw Muhammad Day':

This is not about islamophobia. This is not about repressing anyone, or their ideas. This is about standing up to those who would attempt to wield such repression against others. I heartily acknowledge that there are many Muslims whom are peaceful, loving, social people and may be offended by today. They are unfortunate victims caught in the crossfire of universal rights and religious bigotry. I, nor anyone else participating in today, should feel cause to apologize. There is no more need to apologize for causing offense to religious ideals than there is to apologize for causing offense to any other brand of fiction. Similarly, no religious adherent should ever apologize for their personal belief.

Free speech is for everyone.

Censorship is bull$#&!.

Lars Vilks was just attacking during a speaking engagement in Uppsala.

Over a cartoon he draw portraying Muhammad with the body of a dog.

In 2007.

Two points to make here to Muslim extremists: 1) No one but you cares what your bronze age story book says - learn to deal with it. (Note: 'Dealing with it' does not include killing/intimidating everyone who disagrees with you.) 2) The cartoon was drawn three years ago, get over it!

Here's the cartoon:
And here's a video of the attack:



He drew the cartoon as an editorial on freedom of expression and had a bounty of up to $150,000 placed on his head by more than one source. Does anyone else see the irony here? Couldn't that money be put towards, oh, I don't know, feeding starving Muslim children?

I really didn't want to have to hate you.

I run.

I enjoy running. I find it therapeutic, and apparently, it's good for you.

Running Room felt like a good find. They promoted running, provided education about running and had a good, inexpensive in-house line of clothing.

That was before.

I didn't mind so much when their popularity increased and they jacked up the price of all their clothing so it was as expensive as the name brands. It's a business; if they want to market to the boutique running crowd, so be it. I was a bit disappointed to once again being relegated back to the sale bins at Winners, but that's my problem.

I also didn't mind when, being on Running Room's email list, I received 'Tips for Training', which were essentially running swag ads. Again, it's a business.

What pissed the holy hell out of me was this latest ad.


I draw the line when a company bastardizes a scientific claim to support whatever product they feel they need to move off the shelves. Even if this was a ad for plain milk I wouldn't be so pissed off. But it's not. It's for chocolate milk, aka milk with added sugar. There's no nutritional benefit to drinking chocolate milk over regular milk, and the writers of this ad know it. That's why the text is carefully worded to including science-y sounding phrases and then astoundingly vague claims as to how chocolate milk actually accomplishes any of these benefits.

Try this: go through the ad and replace "chocolate milk" with "cat feces." The ad is still 100% true! Amazing.

Why chocolate milk? It costs more than regular milk, so it increases profits and the added sugar is satiating, so consumers are more likely to drink more of it.

So, in conclusion, Running Room - bite me. I will not be visiting your corporate sell-out stores anymore.

It's a shame too, because I'd like some new runners.

ME ME ME ME ME!!!

Here's a comment I found on an article about the Iceland ash cloud situation:

What a load of C...

This is no big deal. First if you are in Europe and REALLY need to get home you can take a train to another location (Athens an an example) and fly from there. I suspect most budget travelers did not have travel insurance so they are now out of luck ( those who do have insurance will be covered for out of pocket expenses)but so what,,,, they get to spend a few more days in Paris !!! I remember in the 70's when Toronto Airport was shut down for many days because of fog. No one blamed anyone for this problem they just got on with life. My parents who wanted to visit me in Calgary simply took the train.Today we expect everyone else to solve unsolvable problems for us. The reality is that some problems are just going to be and there is no one ( except the BIG guy) to blame. Get a life people and realize your problems are nothing but a nice slow news day story.

SUMMARY: This event, which is costing businesses and individuals hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide, isn't affecting ME, so it's not important.

By the way, if this naive, egotistic ass bothered to look at the Athens airport website before posting this hogwash, he/she would have noticed that it doesn't have flights going to or from North America. What's his/her brilliant suggestion then? Rent a kayak?

The mere suggestion that the worst repercussion of the situation is that travelers have to spend a couple extra days in Paris is blithely insensitive to the actual situations those who are stranded have been put in.

Also, I haven't heard anyone placing blame for the situation - maybe this commenter has - but I honestly can't imagine anyone being that idiotic. (Of course, I couldn't imagine anyone being such an insensitive prick until I read his/her comment, but there you have it.) This commenter seems to think that just because people are actively working to solve the problem, someone is being blamed; or, that whenever there's a difficult situation, we should just roll over and declare it 'unsolvable'.

At last, the original article wasn't an editorial drumming up panic in the name of volcanic ash. It was mostly reporting on what cities and airports were restarting flights and which ones weren't, with a couple quotes from experts on possible future developments and stranded travelers on how they were dealing with the situation. If the article was an example of sensationalistic reporting, then commenting about people "[getting] on with life" might be appropriate; but it wasn't. Of course people are going to get on with life. In the mean time, this is a major inconvenience that is affecting people worldwide. (In fact, the article points out that the ash cloud has caused more of a air traffic disruption than the 9/11 attacks. I wonder, would the commenter also claim that that was 'no big deal?')

I like his/her use of consecutive commas; it really is the mark of a great thinker.

This doesn't even need a critique.

If I had even an iota of respect for the journalistic integrity of FOX news, this segment would have extinguished it.

Fortunately I didn't.

The panel speaks for itself; every one of them - excluding Chris Carter, who still came off as a complete moron - exposes themselves as a complete xenophobic, self righteous bigot. Europe's economy is in ruins! (Please ignore the world wide recession our god-fearing country plunged the entire world in to in 2008.) Europe is full of pagans! (Please ignore the deeply Christian countries. By the way, pagan does not equal secular.) Europe is immoral! (Compared to what? The shining example of US morality?) Europe is a socialist haven! Socialism puts the state above individuals! (No...and, no, not really.)

It's fantastic that these people can go on television and spurt personal bias as fact, redefine concepts to suit their agenda and base conclusions on demonstrably false assertions and then claim they're being 'Fair and Balanced' because they give 30 seconds to some moron who disagrees with them, but can't string two intelligent words together.

It's not all about you.

The international release date for the iPad has been pushed back to mid-May. Boo hoo. Apple attributes this to the huge success of sales in the US - people apparently needed to get an iPad urgently to do some really important things.

The new press for iPad has set off another round of reviews making the now common quip, "there's nothing the iPad can do that you can't do with an iPhone and MacBook." Well, yes; but in another, more accurate way, no.

The iPad is a like a laptop, except it's cheaper and lighter, with better battery life than Macbooks. Yes, there are downsides, but they're sacrifices made to accommodate a more user friendly, nuts and bolts platform; you know, kinda like the iPhone OS. If I traveled a lot, I definitely be on board with getting one. (Not just yet though, I discovered after buying an original iPod touch that 1st gen devices are for suckers.)

Anyway, I feel Steve Jobs was very clear on this matter during the iPad keynote. The iPad is being targeted at a new market segment, not to Apple fan boys who already own several of every piece of hardware Apple has ever released. If you already own an iPhone and Macbook, you don't need an iPad. If you want a computer with basic functionality, (web surfing, media, basic word processing, etc.) that doesn't suck, (netbooks) and doesn't cost an arm and a leg, (all Apple products) the iPad may be for you.

Saying the iPad isn't a good product because it's not useful to a veteran Apple follower is like saying scuba gear isn't a good product because it's of no use to marathon runners. No one is claiming that the iPad is a necessary, or even useful product if you already own a laptop and smart phone. Although, I'm sure that Steve Jobs wouldn't mind if every Apple user with a couple extra hundred dollars ran out to buy one.

Oh, wait...isn't that what just happened?

Not News

I hate it when things that aren't new or revolutionary are trumpeted as such. Who better to make such a sweeping declaration than Sympatico.ca, the trusted home of Canadians! (Top left hand corner.) This patronizing claim ranks right up there with Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" bullshit. Statements like these should be a giant red flag of skepticism warning of potential ulterior motives hidden behind the brush of celeb gossip and infotainment.

I digress.

On today's Sympatico homepage one of the featured news articles is "10 simple ways to cut cancer risk." Before I continue, let me say for the record, of course I think cancer is bad, and no, I don't necessarily disagree with anything the list says. It's the mundane idiocy of it that bugs me.

Their fantastic 10-point list boils down to this:
1) Eat fruits and vegetables
2) Eat whole grains
3) Eat eggs
4) Drink milk
5) Eat garlic and onions
6) Exercise
7) Wear sunscreen
8) Don't smoke
9) Don't drink
10) Don't be fat.

Items 1 through 5:
Of these suggestions, numbers one and two have been uncontested mainstays of healthy eating plans since 1956. Numbers three and four were removed from food guides due to lack of evidence. Number 5 is out of date. (The allium family was reclassified as a subfamily in 2009 - maybe Sympatico should try updating their articles before reprinting them after two years.) For all these claims the article sites "research" and "researchers" without providing any citations or even vague references to sources. For all we know, the writers three-year-old nephew could have provided the "research." In any case, nothing remotely new was provided here and if you didn't know that fruits, vegetables and whole grains are good for you....well, there's some suggestions for you below.

Item 6:
Well, duh. Exercise may provide some extra protection for heavy smokers? What? 'Extra' protection? In addition to what? You can smoke, but exercise makes it all better. That's like a parent handing their child a running chain saw and a band-aid.

Item 7:
Once again, old news strikes again. Exposure to UV rays has long been established to contribute to skin cancers. Hey, that's probably why the WHO warned about it in 2005!

Item 8:
Seriously, at this point, if you don't know about/are unconvinced by the evidence connecting smoking and lung cancer, (among other kinds) maybe you should do us all a favour: smoke more and eliminate yourself from the human gene pool as quickly as possible. Thanks.

Item 9:
See point 8, except the key with drinking seems to be moderation. Yup, even winos can enjoy some health benefits!

Item 10:
Broken record time. If you're unconvinced of by the evidence/complete obviousness of how negatively being morbidly obese affects damn near everything you need to do on a daily basis, go ahead and have another box of Twinkies for dinner. Fatty.

So, to summarize; 1) Don't do things you know are bad for you; 2) Eat real food; 3) Don't reprint articles from two years ago that contain information which wasn't even new back then.

Must have been a slow news day.

Cutting through the crap.

A brief assignment:

Read the following two explanations for how homeopathy works. Using the principal of Occam's Razor determine which one is more likely to be true.

Explanation 1
Explanation 2

The meaning of 'opinion'

Why do people not understand the significance of an opinion?

Simply put, there is none.

"A view or judgment formed about something," says the Apple dashboard dictionary; I'm not going any further than hitting F12 to substantiate my claim here. It continues: "Not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." That says it all! An opinion is just something that someone thinks. Can any assertion be more vague? Maybe the opinion is based on some concrete evidence, or maybe it's based on person experience, or maybe it's based on total BS. The point is, in all the above scenarios, equally valid opinions can be formed. I say they're equally valid because the only criteria for an opinion to be an opinion is that someone, anyone, has to think it. That's about the lowest requirement of support I can possibly imagine.

Why does it matter?

It annoys me to no end when the crux of an antagonist's argument is, essentially, "You shouldn't have that opinion because it differs from my opinion." No. Wrong. Dead wrong. I can have an opinion that differs from yours, and honestly, if your only retort to my standpoint is that my viewpoint conflicts with yours, you don't actually have anything useful to say.

Everyone is completely entitled to have an opinion about whatever cock and bull issue they want. If it's your opinion that the sky is ruby red, Santa Claus exists and the earth is 6000 years, fine. Fantastic. I'm very happy for you. If you want to convince anyone else of your opinion, you'd better have something more to say than "I think blah blah blah."

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.