The Noah Movie Review: Do Cats Hate Water?

Last night I persuaded Mary Ann to go and see the new movie "Noah" at the cineplex.  I was intrigued by this movie, as it is a bible story, yet I see in the news that Fundamentalists hate it.  Apparently because it is historically inaccurate.  I think that Atheists may have the same objection.

Anyway, it stars Russell Crowe (Noah) who is not my favourite actor, but I don't hate him either. As Noah's  wife, Jennifer Connolly, who I like because she starred in Blood Diamond, but also don't like because she seems to be starving herself to death.

I hope this does not spoil anything, but this version of Noah solves some of the age old questions, like what did they do with all the animal poop, how did they feed all those animals for so long, and how did they stop the animals from killing each other?  I will reveal the secret here:  They put them to sleep (like hibernation) with some kind of burning plant smoke that does not affect humans.  Wasn't that easy?  The Holy Bible should have hired a few more Hollywood writers and it might have come off as more believable.

Now back to the movie.  The director had a radically different interpretation of the Noah story from the one most Christians cling to.  The normal Christian interpretation is that God is an angry God who is easily annoyed, and punishes mankind quite horribly when he is in a bad mood.  And sometimes even if He's in a good mood!  So bottom line: better worship God as hard as you can, as often as you can.

The writer and director of this movie was Darren Oronofsky.  His view is that a Creator made a nice planet, but one of his specially created species is greedy and cruel, and causing a bit of a problem by wiping out every other form of life.  I don't think I'm giving anything away by revealing that the problem species is Humans.  And so "The Creator" can only solve the problem by wiping out most of life on Earth with a flood, and starting over, either with Noah's family, or without humans altogether.

Oronofsky's vision is not too far off the vision of many environmentalists.  The environmentalist view is that humans are just one species of a complex ecosystem, and should learn to live within that ecosystem without destroying it.  On the other hand, the Fundamentalists seem to believe a man-shaped God created Man in his image, and that the entire rest of the universe was only created by God for a backdrop to Man.  In other words, they believe that a universe without "Man" makes no sense whatsoever.

Would you want to see this movie? Probably not, if you only want to see the cute animals  like giraffes and zebras and gorillas marching two by two up the gangplank.  You will see that, but you will also see a lot of killing, and just plain nastiness.  Also you will see just about everything that you normally find in an epic action movie starring Russell Crowe: monsters, battles, a lot of screaming and crying, man-to-man wrestling and swordplay.  But most of all, if you are a Biblical literalist, you will find a lot of offensive stuff on a philosophical level and on a "factual" level. (especially the constant reference to "the Creator" instead of "God".)  It's also not tremendously appealing to environmentalists, if Mary Ann is a representative sample.  Of course, her main objection was that everybody seemed to leave their empty popcorn and drink containers in the theatre instead of taking them out to the garbage.  "Is this the new culture?" she said disparagingly at the end. So apparently not a lot of environmentalist saw this movie, but it does have a powerful attraction for litterbugs.

The Difference Between Bushcraft Skills and Survival Skills

 Still socked in with snow, no relief in sight.  I try to avoid getting cabin madness fever by randomly searching the Internet for a knife to take on our camping trip this summer.  During my search I come across a curious new distinction.  There are some knives referred to as "Bushcraft" knives, and some referred to as "Survival" knives.  I would like to know the difference between them, wondering if this is just another example of over-specialization that we find in our society.

Bushcraft is the set of skills needed to survive in nature (i.e. the bush). Skills include firecraft, tracking, hunting, fishing, shelter building, the use of tools such as knives and axes, foraging, hand-carving wood, container construction from natural materials, and rope and twine-making, among others. (Wikipedia)

Survival skills are to help us survive a natural or man-made disaster.  Unlike bushcraft, the location is unknown.  That's because we do not know what the disaster might be.  So the disaster is often referred to simply as "SHTF", or "Shit hit the fan". You need to be prepared for any of the various possible SHTF scenarios.  That's why survivalists are often called "preppers", in that their main activity is preparing for the day the SHTF. After TSHTF, you may end up in a flooded area, or out in the bush or desert, in even your own home. Skills include first aid, finding water and food, "thinking clearly", self defence, and making the perfect "Bug out Bag" of stuff to grab quickly when TSHTF.  In Survival skills, the main thing that all preppers seem to agree on, is that when TSHTF, you will need to defend yourself against other humans (and possibly zombies) out there, trying to get your stuff or simply wanting to eat you.  There is a lot more emphasis on self defence in Survival than you find in Bushcraft.  So you will often find Preppers are accumulating guns and ammunition, while Bushcrafters may be more absorbed by trying to light fires by rubbing sticks together.

So after all this research, I find that bushcraft knives are designed more for whittling sticks, or making wooden spoons.  Survival knives are made for knife fights, for target throwing, and stabbing.  The same distinctions apply to survival axes vs. bushcraft axes.  So far, saws have not been divided into "Survival saws" vs. "Bushcraft saws".  That distinction may be coming one day, but the current school of thought has it that sawing off an attackers leg or arm is too slow to be an effective deterrent to all but the slowest zombies.  And those can be avoided by simply walking around them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushcraft

Pictures: Some of bushcraft from Wikipedia, and one from this website: http://www.tengujutsu.com/page3.htm

A Traveller's Guide to Moral Relativism

You sometimes hear conservatives accuse liberals of "Moral Relativism".  In their accusation, they define "Moral Relativism" as this (according to Conservapedia):

http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism is the theory that moral standards vary from society to society, and from time to time in history. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth.

Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, and that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. A moral relativist will not say that theft or murder is wrong, because he believes it is up to the murderer or thief to decide whether his behavior is justified.

I don't believe these quotes from Conservapedia represent the views of most conservatives about "moral relativists", and certainly does not represent the views of moral relativists themselves.  There is a lot of BS out there, making it hard to find real information on moral relativism.  I will attempt to do so here.

All through history, people have noticed that there were different cultures with different values, and that each culture regarded the differences between them and the others as an indication of their own superiority. The concept of Moral Relativism has been known for thousands of years.  But it was popularized during the European colonial period. During the colonization period, where European countries attempted to dominate the rest of the world, this feeling of European superiority reached a peak.  I guess that never before had so many different cultures been touched by any other culture.

As this colonization progressed, a few European intellectuals began to deny that Europeans were superior to all other cultures on Earth.

Let me illustrate with one example.  In many Polynesian islands, and in Africa it was quite common for women to go topless.  Now at the same time, in Victorian England, it was scandalous for a woman to show an ankle, and the rumour was that even table legs were forced to cover up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality

So, when the missionaries first arrived in Polynesia, they had their hands full trying to convince the local women that their traditional way of life was scandalous.

The intellectuals who discussed cultural differences, theorized the following.  Since, at various times, different cultures had dominated other cultures, and even the method of dress within each culture changed with time, was it possible that there was no absolute definition of scandalous?  Could it simply be that one culture developed in cold climates where clothing was necessary,and other developed in hot places where clothing was neither necessary nor available?  And what about the institution of slavery, which was responsible for producing most of the cotton that made the clothing?  Was that not just as evil/scandalous as seeing a topless woman?

This argument was the core of the colonial era concept of "Moral Relativism".  On one hand you have religious zealots, insisting that their God was superior to all others and hence, their method of dress was also superior.  On the other hand, you have people who insist that there is nothing inherently evil about foreign cultures, and that their methods of dress and even their types of worship were as valid as European ones.

The moral absolutists (opposite of relativists) fought back, saying that many pagans and primitives engaged in cannibalism, which was evil under any circumstances.  I don't know about every nasty rumour started by conservatives or racists, but you can find plenty of evil in non-European societies if you care to look.  But then you can also find plenty of evil in our own society if you know where to look, and if you are allowed to make up stuff that sounds true.

I believe all cultures have their own ways of doing things, that generally make sense to them.  But these values also do evolve slowly with time, with contacting other cultures, and with changing circumstances.  I think some values are absolute, for example when it comes to killing and eating the still beating hearts of the victims, particularly when that victim is me.  But then some cultural norms I think are "morally relative", especially when they harm no-one.

Picture: Historical picture of native women in Hawaii. I found it on   http://1browngirl.blogspot.ca/2009/11/its-free-for-all-friday.html

Further reading: A novel "The Poisonwood Bible" By Barbara Kingsolver, a fictional account of an American missionary in the Congo, but  Barabara lived in the Congo for a while as a child, and so it gives the novel some authenticity.

http://www.kingsolver.com/books/the-poisonwood-bible.html

What is Society Fail, Really

 About 15 year ago, while at a party that involved some alcohol, I made a comment to a group of acquaintances, that it seemed like there was an increase in the level of stupidity in the U.S.A., and possibly Canada too.  Someone responded that I had no proof of that, and that often people mistake stupidity for opposition to their own ideas.  Which I would have to admit was true, at least as a general statement.

But in the years since then, I have not been able to shake the idea that stupidity is on the rise.  So it's time to come up with some identifiable characteristics of a stupid society.  First let me distinguish between a stupid society and stupid people. A stupid society means that the society as a whole does stupid things, not necessarily the people within the society being more stupid.  Maybe I should substitute the word "ignorance" for "stupidity".  I hope that does not change the basic argument, because I was not trying to get into an argument about the meaning of these words, What I meant was that society was becoming more stupid or ignorant, making wrong decisions when knowledge and logic could have helped make a correct decision to benefit almost all.

Here are the top ten ways I think you can spot a society that is stupid.

1. Low literacy rates.  I feel like the less that people can read, the more stupid a society becomes.  Or, Increasing numbers of school dropouts.

2. Lack of respect for formal schools and education.  Preference for fundamentalist religion and religious teachings including miracles, superstition, magic, witchcraft, etc.

3. The media heaping scorn on scientists, theoretical researchers, intellectuals, free thinkers.  Praising people with no formal education, who also have very little knowledge of history, science, math, economics, or world geography.

4. The rise of charlatans, who make fortunes in tricking gullible people into believing their false stories.

5. Intolerance, xenophobia, and racism.  Religious freedom does not exist, or is threatened.

6. Political ideology becoming more like group-think than a real vision for the future.

7. Important national decisions based more on religion or political loyalty, than on evidence. e.g. starting wars vs. protecting the environment.

8. Erosion of democratic power.  Apathy about voting.

9. Concentration of all wealth in the hands of a few. Everyone  is out for themselves, including both the haves and have-nots. Greed is a higher motivating force than the common good.  Also, quick profits being more alluring than a sustainable future.

10 Breakdown of the rule of law, where more and more exceptions are made to allow torture, invasion of privacy, racial profiling.  Probably more people being jailed, more crimes committed also.  Some people being exempt from the law. People taking the law into their own hands.  State-sponsored assassinations.

By most of these measures, you could rate a medieval kingdoms as ignorant and stupid.  But to be fair, it takes a long time to acquire wisdom about how to govern a country fairly.  But it is "society fail" to have a country with a tradition of democracy and universal education, and to let that slip away to superstition and brutality.

Some quotes as to what makes a good non-stupid society

http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Stupid_Society/


Above Picture of Fry (In the Futurama TV show, a man who is transported 1000 years into the future) from

http://memegenerator.net/instance/31117696


Poster from:

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/society-fail-fail-lindsay-lohan-top-story-demotivational-posters-110267.html

Again the Question, Why are Universities so Liberal?

Why are university professors mostly liberals?  If this question is being asked at all, that may be a sign there is something wrong with our thinking patterns.  I always thought it was pretty obvious.  But not so obvious to someone who does not understand the traditional role of a University, or the traditional role of liberals in society.

Here is an article in the National Post, where again this question comes up.  Why so many liberals at universities?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/marginalized-and-on-the-defensive-university-conservatives-forced-to-grow-tougher/

Let's just go over the basics again.  Liberal is not a dirty word, at least not before Rush Limbaugh and Fox News made it so.

Definition of liberal

lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Now lets just check what a conservative is:

con·ser·va·tive  (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Finally, can I let someone from the early part of the twentieth century explain the traditional role of a University?

Essays: English and American.
The Harvard Classics.  1909–14.
The Idea of a University. I. What Is a University?

John Henry Newman

IF I were asked to describe as briefly and popularly as I could, what a University was, I should draw my answer from its ancient designation of a Studium Generale, or “School of Universal Learning.” This description implies the assemblage of strangers from all parts in one spot;—from all parts; else, how will you find professors and students for every department of knowledge? and in one spot; else, how can there be any school at all? Accordingly, in its simple and rudimental form, it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting of teachers and learners from every quarter. Many things are requisite to complete and satisfy the idea embodied in this description; but such as this a University seems to be in its essence, a place for the communication and circulation of thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of country.

Based on these definitions, and the idea of a university being people of diverse backgrounds coming together to exchange ideas and/or learn new ideas, I think I can come up with a theory.  A liberal is, by definition, a person open to new ideas, a person wanting to learn.  A conservative is by nature a person opposed to new ideas.  The highest aspiration of a University is to encourage new ideas.

All through history, every time people who were interested in learning came together to form a university, ideas have been exchanged, new ideas have flourished.  Sometimes the authorities did not like what they saw, and shut down the universities.  Sometimes the authorities were tolerant of new ideas, and allowed the university to exist. Sometimes they even gave money to the universities.  History provides a number of examples where societies supporting free-thinking universities flourished in arts, social justice, and in technology. Those that suppressed freedom of thought in universities tended to be held back in those areas.

A modern North American conservative's idea of higher learning is really either "job training", or a place for indoctrination into some religion.  Conservative places of learning tend to have predefined goals, and encourage conformity.  For example, a conservative think tank, or a bible study college.  Conservatives are more interested in money, so they are more likely to go straight into business, using their father's connections to guarantee a good job.  If they do go to a free-thinking traditional "University" it is often just a recreational interlude, with spring breaks, wild frat parties, drugs, football and such.  After four years of being wasted, then they collect their degree and get a high paying job using their father's business connections.

So that is the answer to the question "Why are there so many liberals at university?"  It is because a true university favours the open minded approach to learning new things.  It is not because universities deliberately try to exclude Republicans, the very wealthy, the conformists, the racists, the bigots, and the religious fanatics. It is because the basis of higher learning is to be open minded, and that's the only way to have a true university. Conservative "universities", rarely generate any new ideas.  In fact their entire raison d'etre tends to be the opposition to new ideas. (Like Evangelical universities, still fighting to suppress the Theory of Evolution.)

The picture is from the University of Minnesota at Duluth, the Unfair Campaign against racism.  This (very likely liberal) poster has drawn criticism from white conservatives in the U.S.A., who do not think that white Americans are racist.  An example of how liberals seem to dominate university campuses.
http://unfaircampaign.org/resources/see-it/

Even More Stuff You Can't Say in Canada

While Googling "Seven things that you can't say in Canada" I stumbled across this one by Joel Johannesen.

http://boldcolors.net/things_you_cant_say_in_canada_but_i_do_all_the_time_and_so_should_you/#comments

He lists the seven by Margaret Wente, then adds 16 of his own.  If you didn't know Joel already, you might be forgiven for thinking he was American, as the banner at the top of the blog is an American flag, and the title "Bold Colors" is spelled in the American way.  But he has another blog with the Canadian maple leaf, called "PTBC" or "Proud to be Canadian".  I was wondering if that really should read "PTBAPTBC" or "proud to be American pretending to be Canadian", just because the 16 things Joel says make him sound like he is American.

I am not trying to bash Americans here, but as a Canadian, I do feel that there are some slight differences between Canadians and Americans.  Subtle differences in speech patterns, in some political beliefs, in the sense of humour.  Slight differences, enough to be of interest to Canadians, at least. So I was wondering if I could analyse one of these statements to figure out if Joel was really an American who (possibly) had recently moved to Canada, or a born Canadian who had moved to Alabama when he was three but still claims Canadian status. Or just a American born again Christian with a fake Canadian identity in order to better push a right wing agenda.

According to one of Joel's websites, http://joeljohannesen.com/about-joel-johannesen/ in 1978 he was working for the Trudeau Liberals, and shows a picture, presumably of him wearing a moustache standing almost next to Pierre Trudeau.  Joel does not actually say where he was born, but he claims to currently reside near Vancouver B.C. So if that's true, his liberal beliefs have undergone a fairly major change. It can happen. I know someone who worked for the NDP in the seventies and now has many of the same beliefs as Joel - but not all - and more importantly, my friend does not vote Conservative, and did not become a Born Again Christian (yet).  Also, I have a sister who became a Born Again Christian and holds most of the same beliefs as Joel, but even she would not say hockey sucks.  And neither would any Canadian who knows when Henderson scored that goal.  So Joel's case of brainwashing is extreme, if he has actually lived all or most of his life in Canada.

Let me take one thing Joel says, and see if it can be analysed to discover whether he is Canadian or not Canadian .  He says:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God” is the first line in our Constitution.

Does this sound like something a Canadian would ever say?  Frankly I had no idea that this was the first line of the constitution, in fact I was not really sure Canada had a constitution, even though I went to a Canadian high school and was a history teacher. But as a Canadian, I would be willing to at least look it  up on Wikipedia.  First, the Canadian constitution was not yet written when I went to high school, and not even when I was teaching history. Also, that is not really the first line of the constitution, unless "and the rule of law" doesn't count.  I'm glad the writers of our constitution (whoever they may be) saw fit to include "the rule of law".  And that later on, these people also included a bit about Canadians being free to have any God they want. Also, the reason that we include the words  "recognize the supremacy of God" is  because of a campaign by American-backed Evangelicals when the Canadian constitution was written.  Canadians are the sort of people who make compromises and let everybody put in their own ideas, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Also, as of 2013, not all the provinces of Canada have ratified the Constitution, which also apparently doesn't bother Canadians too much.

But Joel's statement is not something I would ever expect to hear out of the mouth of a Canadian. It implies that Canadians have a near-religious respect for our constitution.  That is one a major difference between Canadians and Americans. Americans have a constitution which they worship, and is drummed into them in school. Canadians do not do that.  Secondly, Joel's statement is not even correct, as he cut off the last part of the sentence, which is the only part that all Canadians would actually agree on - I mean recognizing the supremacy of rule of law.  As Pierre Trudeau said "I don't think God cares if He is in the Canadian constitution."  And if that's how God feels, I'm with Him.

Picture:  I propose a simple test to separate Canadians from Americans.  Answer the question "who is in this picture?"
A. Mike Duffy, senator from Prince Edward Island
B. Svend Robinson, Canada's first openly gap Member of Parliament
C. Maurice Richard, hockey player
D. The "God" mentioned in the first line of Canada's constitution.
E. The correct answer is C and D

(Correction that should read "gay")

Are You Smarter Than a Fox Newscaster?

I will confess that I don't very much like Howard Stern.  Howard accuses late-night comedian Jay Leno of stealing his ideas, but let's look at the ones mentioned in the Fox News session with host Megyn Kelly.  Megyn puts on two "experts" who hate Jay Leno to discuss the case. But none that like him, that is not fair.  But then I guess that Fox's motto "Fair and Balanced" is beyond a joke, it is mocking the entire concept of fairness.  Not too surprising, the verdict is that Leno is a swine, but that unfortunately Howard does not have a good legal case due to technicalities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ntWGpI61XE

In the above Fox News clip, Jay is accused of taking these ideas from Howard Stern:  The Jaywalking bit, the Chicken predicting NFL games, "Are you smarter than a fifth grader", and the "Earn your plugs" idea.  Furthermore, Jay Leno hired one of Howard Stern's characters "Stuttering John" away from him.

I'm going to just go over the basics here of copyright, one is that you need to actually copyright an idea to protect it, which Howard didn't do.  Second, you have to actually come up with the idea first, which Howard also failed to prove (as far as I know, and this may be linked to point one, failing to get copyright).  Third, the idea must be implemented, or executed in the same way, which I don't think is true either.

I should explain that there is a big difference between Jay Leno's type of humour and Howard Stern's.  Jay Leno generally takes the high road, and when I watch his show I don't get the idea Jay is mocking and humiliating people for laughs (although some might see it like that).  On the other hand, Howard Stern's stock in trade is shame and degradation.  I don't happen to like that type of humour, so I might as well make that clear again.  For one relevant example, take "Stuttering John".  Stuttering John was basically a punching bag hired by Howard Stern.  He was ridiculed, first for stuttering (hence the nickname), but eventually also for the way he farted, burped, and smelled.  Also how he took dumps, and how he urinated. You can catch a sample from Howard Stern's show here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFwrOGTyOfY

Stern's original idea for Stuttering John was to get a stutterer to ask embarrassing questions of celebrities, who would be too polite to snub a stutterer.  Later, Stuttering John was driven off the Stern show by nasty comments from Howard.  To some people, Stuttering John  was funny, and Jay Leno had reportedly planned to use John the same way as Howard Stern did, but in a less abrasive way.  In all the time I watched the Jay Leno show with John Melendez, he was never referred to as "Stuttering John" (by anyone) and I never knew he stuttered until I saw some bits on Howard Stern.  That helps illustrate the difference between Jay Leno's brand of humour and Howard Stern's.

The hiring of John Melendez was the beginning of the feud between Howard Stern and Jay Leno, and honestly I have never heard Jay Leno criticise Howard Stern, but Howard has been lambasting Jay heavily since then.  That again shows the difference between the two,  Howard is well known for hateful comments, Jay rarely says anything bad about anyone.

Now let's look at Jaywalking.  In this bit, Jay walks down the streets of Los Angeles and interviews ordinary Americans, or tourists.  He asks questions about sports, geography, current events.  This does not really sound like something Howard Stern might have invented, and indeed Howard Stern's bit was all about asking homeless people simple questions and betting on the result. The idea of interviewing people on the street is not original, but Jay's idea is not about making fun of the homeless, but about making fun of the mass culture in America, that places such a low value on education.  In one segment, Jay interviews someone who was claiming that he "staged" the dumb answers in "Jaywalking", so to prove her wrong, he simply asked her a few questions, and amazingly enough, her answers seemed to prove Jay's point.

To me there is a huge difference between the tone of Jay's humour, and Howard Stern's.  And honestly, is there any original funny bit that cannot be traced to some earlier idea?  Although I never saw Jay do the chicken bit, animals predicting the future is not all that original.  It's really what you make of it.

Jay does a weekly bit called "Headlines" that I think is funny, he reads newspaper headlines with mistakes or double meanings.  But that bit is only funny because of what Jay does and says while reading them.  Without Jay's personality, the headlines are not funny at all.  (I tried watching the bit once with the sound turned off.  I did not laugh.)

"Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader", as far as I know, was never used by Jay Leno.  It was taken and made famous by Jeff Foxworthy, on the FOX TV network.  So if anybody stole it, it was FOX.  Megyn Kelly, an employee of Fox, accuses Jay of ripping off "Smarter than a Fifth Grader" at 0:50 in the first video. And just when I thought Fox News could go no lower. Who watches Fox News?  I think we all know - it's the people interviewed in "Jaywalking".

In one final clip, here is Megyn Kelly, on the Howard Stern Show, talking about breasts and penises.  Just to show once again the difference again in the target audience, subject matter and type of humour.  I think Megyn, and probably most of the other Fox News People, "get" Howard Stern's humour better than she gets Jay Leno.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IML_UGhXz2Q

Did Canadian High Schools Fail Justin Bieber?

A story came out a few days ago that needs some comment.  Not so much because of what happened, but because of the reaction in the media.

vancouver sun

Story: Justin Bieber says "Sixteenth Chapel" instead of "Sistine Chapel" on Letterman show.  Letterman says  "Canadian High Schools", implying that they are no better than American high schools (I guess since David Letterman went to an American high school.)

Facts: While David Letterman did attend high school (Broad Ripple High School in Indianapolis, USA), and describes himself as an average student, Justin Bieber does not go to high school at all due to his star status, show business, and travelling (mostly in the USA but also world wide and a few trips back to Canada).

Backup Stories: Two year ago, Justin Bieber got in another another spot of trouble in an interview where Bieber replied "I don't know what that means" in response to the question "Is Bieber German for Basketball, true or false?".  At that time there was another media storm of controversy, but not about Canadian High schools because it is a fairly well known fact that Bieber does not go to school, but has a tutor that follows him around on his travels.  Actually, if you saw the mobs that form wherever Bieber goes you would realize there is no chance for him to actually learn anything in a normal school setting.  Anyway, apparently it was another false media thrash, in that Bieber actually did know what "German" meant, and could prove it with previous video interviews and clips.  Not surprising, since Bieber's home town is near the most German part of Canada.  But an exceptionally stupid question has the potential to stump the interviewee, thus making a bigger story than the sensible questions.  That's why there are so many stupid questions in media interviews.

http://www.examiner.com/article/justin-bieber-goes-on-the-defensive-about-home-schooling-video

Speculation: Now I'm going to do some speculation of my own, since the media seems to not have that ability.  What could have caused Bieber to say Sixteenth Chapel?

- Loss of hearing.  Dave Letterman clearly said Sistine Chapel first, Justin was repeating what he said.  Maybe Bieber is going deaf.

- Making a Joke.  Bieber trying to be funny.

- Maybe Justin really does not know the name of the Sistine Chapel, but maybe it was because he was not listening, or asleep, when the subject was taught.  Not because the tutor or teacher taught "Sixteenth Chapel" by mistake.

- Maybe Justin's concentration was put off by the little wrestling match that had just finished between him and David Letterman.  The wrestling match was started by Dave, probably surprised Justin.  Makes me wonder more about David Letterman losing his marbles than it does about Justin's home schooling effort.

Now for my response to Dave.

I am not really trying to defend Justin Bieber, my interest is in defending education in general, and Canadian high schools in particular. I don't know about all high schools, but I'm guessing that art history in not "core curriculum" in most North American high schools. When I was a high school history teacher, I'm sure I could not tell you how many of my students knew the name of the Sistine Chapel.  And I could not tell you where I learned the name myself, but I have heard of it.  But one of my blogs has a photoshop of God on a motorcycle, and I used the face of God from a picture of the Sistine Chapel that I found online.  So I must have know about it by then.

And, this question is directed at you Dave: Where did you first learn about the Sistine Chapel?  Did you really learn about it in high school? Maybe they should have been concentrating on math, science and maybe media studies instead.

Is the entertainment business partly to blame for poor quality education, by taking youngsters out of school and making them role models and downplaying the need for education?

A good education is about the ability to think for yourself and ask questions.   It should not be all about memorizing names.

Dave was simply doing his job.  Asking stupid questions to try and get a reaction, (and when that does not work - physical assault).  And yes, it is a stupid question to ask Justin Bieber if he is going to get a tattoo of the Sistine Chapel.  Instead, do some research, find out he is home schooled, and ask him if he is getting a good quality education outside the school system.

Picture: Part of the Sistine Chapel art work. I think it's on the ceiling, but I'm not sure as I've never been there, and I was not taught about it in school.

The Storytelling Tradition: Creation Stories

Most, if not all societies, have creation myths. Yes, we call them myths because they are made up. I know that Christian Fundamentalists would be upset at the suggestion that their creation story is also a myth, so for the sake of avoiding an argument, I will leave their story out of it for now.

Last night I went to the Historical Storytelling Series put on by the Friends of the Waterloo Region Museum. It is on every Tuesday night, and last night it was "Oral Traditions Along the Grand" by Aaron Bell, an Ojibway storyteller. Among other stories, he told two different First Nation stories of the creation, and not only that, tried to tell what purpose was served by these stories in popular culture. I had supposed that it was people wanting to know answers to questions like "Why are we here", "where do we come from". I forgot that there may be another more important purpose to creation myths.

http://www.ojibwaystoryteller.com/Storyteller/osindex.htm

Although creation myths are common to almost every primitive or advanced culture on Earth, it is not because of any need for a scientific explanation of creation. They are universal because they all basically teach respect for elders, and for ancient wisdom.

There are certain common elements that pop up in creation stories. Not every creation story is the same, but for example all the North American Indian (or First Nation) stories feature the character of the "trickster". This is the character who introduces an element trickery to creation. To the Haida, it was the crow. To the Chippewa it was Nanabush (who could take any form he wanted), to others it was Glooscap, the spellings and names vary a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanabozho

Immediately, I thought of the trickster character in the Judeo-Christian creation story, the talking snake, who tricks Eve into eating the apple, which gets humans kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and explains pretty much all the evil in the world.

I am not trying to make the point that there is any kind of moral equivalency between the Haida and the Fundamentalist Christians. The point I'm trying to make is that creation stories are not told to educate us about science. They are not there to challenge our knowledge of the world, or to be debated and dissected, or to be proven right or wrong. They are there as a means of teaching respect for elders, and for ancestors. They are a way to teach respect for the environment, respect for God, respect for ancient customs and knowledge.

At their very most basic level, creation myths are stories, told by the elders to the younger generations. Only stories that get the attention and lodge in their memories of the younger generation will succeed. Those stories are passed on for many generations.

It seems very natural to me that younger people would turn to their elders and ask where they came from. After all, the elders were there before the younger people were born. The story of their birth is itself essentially a story of creation that is as interesting as any other. From there it is not too far a stretch for the elders to recount the stories they were told from one generation further back. And then, (why not?) since the youngsters are in a listening mood, give them the ultimate story of the creation of the very first human. Just to complete the picture.

One other thing all the creation stories have in common (almost by definition), is that they tell how the first humans were created. The creation stories do not focus on where other things came from, in almost every story something is there already. In some cases, the beavers, crows, muskrats are already there when man is created. I guess in the Jewish story, God and Satan and the angels are there already. Not much time is taken explaining the origin of the rest of the universe, very little time in the story is taken explaining the creation of other animals. Naturally, a creation story tends to focus mostly on the creation of the humans.

Stories of creations are first and foremost a part of the human storytelling tradition. These stories lose much of their traditional function in society when they are copied into a book. That function is to bring elders and the new generation together in mutual respect.

Picture: The Storyteller by Howard Terpning, I got it from this blog:
http://robertmilliman.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/and-the-most-effective-teachers-are-storytellers/

The Cowboy: Myth, Reality, or just Propaganda?

During the reign of George W. Bush, we heard a lot about "cowboys". Europeans called George Bush a cowboy, this means somebody who acts without following due procedure. At least that's how it was meant by the Europeans when applied to W. and his war in Iraq.

The fact is that the symbolism of Cowboys and the Wild West is everywhere in America today, and somewhat in Canada too (mainly in Alberta). Particularly so in Texas, which considers itself as the heart of cowboy mythology. And particularly among the Republicans and Libertarians, which appeal to the cowboy myth. The cowboy myth penetrates every area of human endeavour including motorcycling by the way. The Harley Davidson subtly (or not so subtly) bases its marketing on American cowboy image.

The top two Cowboy characteristics that come to mind, a cowboy carries a gun and rides a horse. But there is much more to it than that in the cowboy's character and beliefs. The cowboy is self reliant, would never think of using welfare or unemployment insurance. The cowboy is free, and doesn't want any Government telling him what to do especially when it comes to choice of guns. The cowboy lives free in a lawless land, because his gun is the law. A cowboy is never a union worker, they work hard and get paid a fair wage by their bosses. Cowboys are not socialists, they are true free market capitalists. Cowboys never have to be unemployed, if you're a hard working cowboy you can always get a job. Cowboys don't need medical coverage, they mostly die from gunfights rather than cancer or heart attack. Cowboys eat meat, and they are not gay (until Brokeback Mountain anyway). Cowboys hide their money in their saddlebags and don't trust those newfangled bank institutions. Cowboys don't have mortgages or credit cards maxed out.

Cowboys don't have much edyumacation, but they more than make up for it with real world common sense. They don't talk much, and if they do talk, it's backed up with gunfire. Cowboys believe in God and in "An eye for an eye". Cowboys do not believe in Environmentalism and they do not "Recycle".

Cowboys drink whiskey and beer. They rarely walk anywhere, always ride. They are bachelors but they are attracted to women. They never accept handouts.

The reality of cowboys is quite different from the mythology. They did have unions for example. But I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade if they believe in cowboys and model their lives on it, well go for it.

But I personally would not trust a cowboy to run the financial system of the richest country in the world. Before too long, the entire financial system would be full of gamblers, cheats and drunken snake oil salesmen.

Still remembering Ron Paul's ideas for solving the economic crisis, and of course he is still from Texas. He was saying that to fix the economy, we need to go back to the time of America's maximum amount of wealth production, which was the latter part of the nineteenth century. Coincidentally, that was the golden age of cowboys. Ron Paul says that was the best example of a free society, the prices actually went down, and people were much richer. It was the opposite of a socialist fascist type of system.

Why don't we just call all the Republican and Libertarian economic theories "Cowboyism". Cowboyism is based on the myth of the cowboy. But even if the economy was great in the 1800's (which I kind of doubt, given all the crazy gold rushes of the time) I doubt whether that type of wishing for the past would work today.

China blocks my youtube videos

Apparently my youtube videos have now been blocked from viewers in in China. Was it the one about how to drive in snow? That's still my most popular video, although nobody in China has seen it yet. Seriously though, time for a blog on free speech. I know, a video is not really speech, and actually the root of all free speech is free thought. Let's start there.

If you are interested, there was a book written in 1913 A History of Freedom of Thought: J. B. Bury. It is available online though the Gutenburg Project

Although free thought has obviously been around almost since humans could think, so has repression. For as soon as people live together in villages or even in families, some members wish their thoughts to prevail.

It is quite understandable why people should need some kind of repression of free thought. Not all thoughts are good, and nothing gets done if everyone insists on their own ideas. There has to be some kind of leadership, somebody needs to be the chief and the rest can do the work.

As ancient civilizations grew, methods of enforcing orthodox beliefs grew more violent. People were locked away or killed. Often, the executions were public to terrify the rest into keeping their opinions to themselves.

As technology improved, the free thinkers got the upper hand. The discovery of writing, then the printing press. Then radio, television, the Internet. Each one needed new techniques to suppress. Even improvements in farming technology promoted free thought as people were able to have more time to think and less to grow food.

Another method of suppressing freedom of thought non-violently is through propaganda. However, propaganda is a double edged sword in that free thinkers can use to spread their ideas more quickly.

Just as there are problems with freedom of thought, so too are there problems with blind orthodoxy and authoritarianism. The violence of repression often turns people away from the orthodox views. The suppression of free thought also deprives the society of scientific and medical advancements. Even in the military, it is important to have free thought just to come up with better ideas of how to win wars and develop weapons. Ultra-orthodox societies do not keep up with the times.

In the long run, it does seem as if freedom of thought is making progress. The worst problems with free thought are the sheer volume of ignorant thoughts that may be generated. So how can we tell which thoughts are good and bad, and still maintain some freedom of thought? Well let's start with "any thoughts you have that involve you killing or maiming somebody are not good" The Scientific Method, is a way to check thoughts against reality by experiment, measurement, and discussion. Universities are fertile ground for free thought, with discussions and exchange of ideas. In many advanced societies, democracy has been found to be a way to allow both freedom of thought and yet some orderly thinking in politics. Each side while in power has an incentive to treat everyone decently, and occasionally power changes hands to keep everyone honest.

Jay Leno and Barack Obama

Last night I watched along with 8 million other people, President Obama appear on Jay Leno's Tonight show. I have to confess a bias toward Obama. I also like Jay Leno, as he is a dedicated motorcyclist/car guy who is probably living out every motorcyclists fantasy. To tell a few jokes at night on TV, then ride around southern California on the most classic and exotics bikes and cars you could imagine. It was amazing for me to see Obama and Leno together. For a moment, I was undecided about what I envied most about Jay Leno - all his motorcycles, or all the times he could talk to and joke with the famous people who are guests on his show.

By the way, Jay is one of those rare celebrities who can talk to anybody. He often rides his bike to motorcyclist hangouts on weekends (like the Rock Store in the picture), and just chats to strangers. It seems like nobody ever acts like a jerk when he's around. Unlike all other celebrities. Maybe the secret is the bikers, when they talk about bikes they do not appreciate paparazzi jumping around asking dumb in your face questions.

But now there are various news reports that Obama's visit to the Tonight show was a disaster. Apparently Obama decided to use this unscripted appearance to mock handicapped athletes. I listened to the whole thing twice, but I missed it, or did they censor it before it got on the air (maybe they had a 5 second delay).

I checked out one of the references on the BBC website - it was the pro-Republican National Review Online.

I generally don't like reading things on Republican news sources, I find basically a lot of propaganda of the sort that I disagree with (always a downer), and I also find it humourless (goes with being on a downer I guess.) and accompanied by a lot of yelling and threatening. But I decided to take one for the team and peek at it. At the end they summarize what Obama's next move will be "tripping up elderly nuns".

At some point during the 40 minute interview with Jay, Obama was joking about his dismal bowling score, and he mentioned his bowling was like the special Olympics. Yes, I heard that, but I not think "My God, he's just mocked the handicapped athletes who participate in the Special Olympics."

In my opinion, Obama was just poking fun at himself, which is called self-deprecating humour, the type of humour never used in propaganda. The only type of humour used in propaganda is called ridicule. There is only one right wing comic I can think of, Dennis Miller (who used to be on Saturday Night Live). Here is a pretty typical clip where I think there are multiple instances of ridicule.

But what made Obama's remark unfunny is that he is not mentally handicapped, so he has no right to refer to that group in a joke. Although I never thought it was ridicule, I did not think it was funny either.

I want to take every opportunity to enjoy Obama's time in the White House, and for me, no amount of Republican criticism can change my appreciation of that show. I'm not surprised even Jay Leno could call it one of the best nights of his life.

Public Service Bulletin #4 Streamlining

This picture is from the movie "World's Fastest Indian" (the motorcycle not the people who fought the cowboys in the movies). It is a motorcycle which has been shaped for moving at high speed, which is called "streamlining". I recommend the movie, I don't recommend streamlining your bike unless your only interest is a speed record. However although full streamlining is rarely used in motorcycles, streamlining does help in saving gas at normal highway speeds.

Given the amount of controversy on the Internet and on TV on the topic of wind resistance in cars and trucks (not so much with motorcycles). I thought it would be good to clear up a few misconceptions and apply some basic physics.

Simply put, to calculate the horsepower lost in punching through air, use this formula

power wasted  = cross sectional area X coefficient of drag X speed X speed X speed

I don't know how to write 3 (cubed) on this blog, so I thought what the heck, do it another way that emphasises how important speed is in the equation. If your goal is to beat a world speed record, then you cannot slow down to save gas, and you have to work with area and CD. But if you want to save gas in normal transportation, your best bet is always to slow down, as speed is factored in the equation not once, but  three times.

The cross sectional area is the area viewed from the front (or back) - in case of a rectangle it would be height multiplied by width. For more complicated shapes, its the sum of a lot of little rectangles. Note that anything that hangs out the side (Like mirrors) or sticks up at the top (like roof rack luggage) adds to the area. Anything hanging off the front (like a battering ram) or the back (like a trailer hitch) does not add to the area. The tires add to the area also, as seen from the front. Wider tires = more area.

The coefficient of drag is the most difficult part to understand. It is also the hardest to improve for you home tinkerers, but easiest to screw up. It is measured by wind tunnel testing of the shape of the vehicle, and it is very hard to apply some formula to calculate the coefficient theoretically from any given shape. The lower the number, the better. The number 1 represents the worst possible shape, which is basically a brick. Usually the shapes with the lowest CD would be like the streamliner above, although without the fins on the tail. If you are going over the speed of sound, the front would be better as a sharp point, but most cars are well under that speed.

The most interesting thing about CD is that the shape of the back is far more important than the front. Which is the exact opposite of what most of the public thinks. Especially if you check out the rooftop ski carriers that are shaped to a point at the front and squared at the back. Turn it backwards, you'll get better gas mileage.

And finally, speed. Basically, the slower you go in top gear, the better your gas mileage. I know a lot of propaganda out there says you shouldn't go any slower than x kph, or you will start wasting gas. Shhhhh! That's just to stop people from holding up traffic.  But generally, slower is better as long as you don't shift down and the engine still runs smoothly. Remember drag is mostly the speed cubed. And pedal a bicycle at 20 kph, you will know that measurable wind drag is starting to build already at that speed.

So now let's deal with some of the practical aspects. For example, you can almost never get better gas mileage by sticking something on to the the vehicle that adds to the area, no matter how nice the shape. The worst example of this is the huge wind deflectors put on the roof of transport trucks. If the truck is pulling a trailer taller than the deflector, no harm done. Unfortunately it's not doing much good either, because as I said it's the back end that's critical, not the front. But no harm done - until you take off the trailer and drive your truck down the freeway at 100 kph. Then that little gas saving gizmo becomes an air brake. In the last ten years, I have seen a decrease in this type of gas wasting, maybe people are starting to understand - especially when gas was more expensive.

Propaganda: 24

Is there any propaganda more important than on the subject of torture? If by using propaganda, you can convince people that torture is acceptable, then you have probably gone about as far as you can in stripping off the thin veneer of civilization of most societies. When you can dismantle common decency at the same time as common sense, you have the ultimate mastery of propaganda.

If your interest is the effectiveness/or lack thereof of torture, you may just want to bail out here because I am not going to go into that long and well known debate. The rest of this blog entry simply is about the propaganda that promoted acceptance of torture in the USA.

There is a TV show called 24 that has done more to promote the use of torture than any other single source. It has been referred to by presidential hopefuls during debates, by Supreme Court Justice Scalia, by Fox news commentators to support torture in real life, and probably others. I do not know if it is what inspired Michael Ignatieff to temporarily lose his mind about torture, but it is reported to have inspired actual techniques used on US prisoners. And I would guess due to its popularity and long run on TV that it has significantly boosted the public approval of torture in America.

The reason I am calling 24 propaganda, is that it is a fictionalized account of a hero who uses torture to save America from terrorists. The hero is made to look intelligent, brave, and patriotic. Those characters in the show who oppose the hero's use of torture are made to look weak, cowardly, traitorous and stupid. Because this type of propaganda is in a medium of pure fantasy, it is extraordinarily easy to make up supportive situations. Not only can you make up any story line you want, you can actually alter the laws of nature, physics, whatever. Basically nothing stands in the way of the propagandist except the requirement to make it look exciting and real to the public, an easy task for a TV production studio with a big budget.

The reason I first became interested in 24 was when I read in a review that Ford Motor Company, in supplying vehicles to the show had insisted that the Ford vehicles not be used by the bad guys. I found this to be such a shocking development that I tuned in to see the show itself. If you believe as I do, that people absorb unquestioningly stuff they see on TV, then the implications are enormous. You can tell a terrorist by the type of vehicle they drive! In the future, how would I ever be able to drive my Toyota Matrix across the border to the USA?

Fortunately, the reality of producing a dramatic show trumped the stupidity of the Ford demand. It seems that in the show, to produce drama and suspense, sometimes you were not supposed to know who the terrorist was until the last minute. After all, why would Jack Bauer be torturing people to tell him who the terrorists were if he could just check to see if they were driving a Ford truck? The demand was dropped.

I guess people are really smart in some ways, but stupid in others. In the old cowboy westerns you could put any kind of unrealistic nonsense in the show, but never could the cowboy fire seven shots before reloading, or the audience would erupt in boos and hisses.

Same for the TV show 24. The glorification of torture is absorbed unquestioningly by the audience, but put the good guys in Fords and bad guys in Toyotas, and they would be howling in disbelief.

French American Relations

Where did all the anti-French anger come from in the USA? Didn't the French help the Americans win their war of independence? Wasn't it the French who gave the Statue of Liberty to the US? As far as I know, there has never been a war between the USA and France, while USA has invaded Canada 5 times. But so far we have not seen "Canada Dry" renamed as "Freedom Dry". It seems it's the French who are a problem for the US. And yet as far as I can tell, Americans are still generally admired by the French.

I have to wonder, how do Americans even come to know anything about the French. Speaking as a Canadian, Americans know practically nothing about us, and we're right next door. The only thing an average American would know about the French is what they see in National Lampoon's European Vacation.

So I did what I always do when these puzzling problems arise, I consulted Google. And I found out that yes indeed, a large number of Americans know about France from personal experience. I should have remembered, they were in France during and shortly after WW2! But that should be good, because the French welcomed the Americans a liberators. Instead there was friction that developed between the Americans and the French. It was bad enough that the US Army felt it necessary to put out a million pamphlets explaining to the GI's that the French were not so bad, and why they acted as they did.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/841724.html

A pamphlet titled "Instructions for American Servicemen in France during World War II" was sent out, and I will copy a bit from the web page I linked to above.

Like the vehicles and the ammo, the guide did its part to win the war. Soldiers were proselytized on the need to liberate France and the worthiness of the French to be liberated. Neither assertion was necessarily obvious to most GIs. France in 1940 had made a separate peace with the invading Germans, and the first enemies fought by American troops across the Atlantic were French soldiers and sailors in Morocco and Algeria during the North African invasion of November 1942. That was to be forgiven, if not quite forgotten, since many Frenchmen had since thrown in their lot with the Allied cause. “We are friends of the French and they are friends of ours,” the guide instructs. “The Germans are our enemies and we are theirs.”

But many American soldiers, preferred the Germans to the French. Germany seemed cleaner, the people seemed smarter and more compliant. The French seemed stupid, dirty, sullen and did not seem eager to please. Of course, this could be explained by the fact that the French were not the defeated enemy, they were supposedly allies. The fear of being shot apparently works wonders for the population. The French were not afraid of being shot, and acted as normal people would - although they were people who had just endured an occupation where they were enslaved and starved by the occupiers and bombed and shelled by their allies.

I think this situation could be argued to have sowed the seeds of some animosity towards the French among returning GI's. Animosity that remained dormant for years and then was revived by Bush's war on Iraq, which the French warned would be long and difficult, but Bush administration said would "pay for itself" and doubted it would last 6 months. You know, in hindsight it might have been a real good idea to put out a book "Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Liberation". I am not the first to think of the idea, see this web site.


To present a more complete picture of Franco-American relations, there were issues after WW II: some Communism in France, the French didn't want to see Germany rearmed while America did, and France had colonies that the USA wanted to see independent.

Can You Ride a Scooter?

It is hard for a motorcyclist of the male persuasion to imagine what it is like to have a scooter. Now that Mary Ann has the Burgman 400, and she lets me ride it when I want to, it is time to get these ideas onto the internet.

The scooters are competent enough, but they have a less "macho" image than motorcycles. Can you tell before buying one if this is important to you? Picture this: Your male friends have come over for a beer to watch the hockey game on TV. While they are having a beer, you are having a "Pinot Noir". Can you handle that? Be honest.

Another characteristic of scooters is that they have no clutch or gears. Their progress happens without the total control that you would have over a motorcycle with the manually adjusted gearbox and clutch. Again, you need to imagine how you will feel in this situation. I'm going to use a TV analogy again. You and your wife (or anyone of the female persuasion) are settling in to watch some TV, now hand over the remote control to her and try some channel surfing. One the plus side, you will not get cramps in your thumb and callouses on your fingers from flicking between 4 shows that you are watching simultaneously. On the minus side, things will not happen exactly when or where you would like. For example, what's on TV suddenly gets interesting, then *click" "Hey go back to that one!!!" "Sorry, where was that again?" "Never mind it's too late now." Just as a note, if you find yourself at a red light beside a potential drag race opponent, do not rev the throttle or Ms. automatic clutch will launch you into the intersection immediately. This is another part of the "Non-macho" image mentioned earlier.

It's too bad scooters do not look tough, but then again there are advantages to "cute". Run over a pedestrian on your Harley chopper, and you will get the evil eye. Run them over with a Vespa, and the pedestrian will say "Sorry for stepping in front of you." Also women of normal repute are more likely to ask for a ride on a cute scooter.

Is there anything you can do to compensate for the Burgmans' unmanly attributes? What I would love is a machine that can go back and forth from a cute machine to a macho machine. It would neat if a flick of a button could do any of these things:
1. Go into manual gear shifting mode, and more importantly, let you rev the engine at a red light, and do a wheelie off the line.
2. Louder exhaust with a manual control, where you can just open an exhaust door and let it roar.
3. Retracting the windshield and rear fender.
4. A more sportbike like riding position (handlebars lower and further forward, feet in typical rearset position, Which should be easy with no foot controls to move.)

Some other things you could do with your riding outfit to mitigate the problem. Wearing camouflage riding pants and surplus army boots which is actually typical attire for young moped club members. So is an army surplus parka.

On the scooter itself, pick a paint colour that is more muted and less flowery. Silver, white, black, olive drab, sand brown, or even camouflage colour schemes would help avoid the worst of the cuteness. You shouldn't need to mount a rocket launcher for people to get the idea. Also, maybe remove some of the body panels and give it a more mechanical look. That would make it easier to service, too. The down side is that the more macho the bike, the less likely people are to believe it's your girlfriend's that you are testing after stripping down the transmission. Either way, it's your call.