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

Starting Campfires

When I was growing up in Baie Comeau, we did not have all the rules to protect me that I now enjoy. And one of the things we used to do was start campfires.  I actually had some training in campfire building, so I suppose there was no real excuse for some of the things I did.  I guess I will start with the worst, and actually it didn't turn out too bad, as I did not burn down the entire town.

I decided to start a campfire in the forest near town.  Sounds bad already doesn't it?  Especially in Baie Comeau, a small northern community surrounded by combustible forests, which was nearly evacuated in the early fifties due to a massive forest fire that came within a couple of hundred yards of the house I grew up in.  And I guess I have doubly no excuse, as my father was a forest fire fighter, and I was in the Boy Scouts.  And the road leading out of town into the bush had one of those huge fire danger warning thermometers on it.  I didn't see it that day, as I built my fire inside the town limits.

So me and a few friends were stoking up this fire, which I didn't realize was right under a big spruce or fir tree.  But after the fire got going pretty good, there was this loud whoosh sound overhead, as the entire tree, probably about 20 ft tall, burst into flame all at once.  I don't remember exactly how we put it out, but no emergency fire crews were involved and the incident went no further.  I guess we must have put out our campfire with water, and then the tree, which was thankfully isolated a bit from the rest of the forest, burned itself out.

Many years later, I had three little boys of my own about 3-6 years old, and we were camping in an Ontario provincial park.  They were poking sticks into the fire, as people sometimes do, and of the sticks began to glow red at the tips.  They started waving them around, and just then a park ranger came by and put an end to this activity.  I think he muttered as he was leaving something about this is the most ridiculous thing he had ever seen.  Well, by my standards it wasn't even close.

Today I was researching methods of starting fires on the Internet, in preparation for our camping trip to Newfoundland this summer.  In particular, I was thinking that maybe I didn't really need to bring a 2 pound axe to make fires.  After all, we are never allowed to gather our own wood at regulation campgrounds.  The wood that is supplied is already cut to length and split.  My only job is to split it down to smaller sticks and supply kindling and a light of some sort.  You can actually do that with a large knife which weighs much less than 1 kg.

While I was watching videos of people using a knife to make kindling, I came across all kinds of interesting ideas.  For example I didn't know that you could use a saw to split wood.  Here's one of many videos about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOXU0rrqOM

I came across a huge variety of ways to start a fire.  Of course the cliched "rubbing two sticks together", which I have never done myself, unless they were matches.  There is another way involving a 9 volt battery touched to steel wool.  The shower of sparks from certain kinds of metal is a traditional favourite. Then of course, matches and Bic lighters.  Those are some of the ways of getting the first flame.  Next is the tinder, or what you set fire to first with the match or sparks.  Here I came upon another revelation.  Vaseline-soaked cotton balls are now very popular for tinder.  I understand why it would work, but when I was young we frowned on using artificial fuels to start the fire.  For example, pouring a gallon of gasoline on the fire would be a no-no.  And actually, I always thought the politically correct way to start a fire was with some birch bark and thin sticks.  What we always ended up using was scrap paper, and often it didn't burn hot enough to start the sticks on fire.  So the fire would flame out, which was embarrassing in scout camp partly because the big puff of smoke signalled everyone else that you fire starting attempt was a flop.  We used to have competitions, where we had to start the fire with only three matches.  If you could start it with one match, it was the perfect fire start, unless gasoline was involved.  But what about Vaseline?  Apparently it burns pretty good, and nobody has to know you are using petroleum products.  Then I found out that Cherry Chapstick works just as well, and so does Purelle hand sanitizer!

So I started to adjust my packing list for this summer's trip.  I may just take a knife instead of the axe, and save 700 grams in my camping bag.  And I'll add a small jar of Vaseline, but no cotton balls.  I figure I'll just poke the stick of kindling in the jar of Vaseline then set the stick on fire with a Bic lighter.

Before I commit to a new way of starting fires, I must first test it myself.  I don't trust my own eyes when looking at YouTube videos.  Luckily Mary Ann was away today, so I could build my practice campfire in the bathroom with the fan on.  I could also go outside in the snow, but that could attract too much attention in a highly disciplined, rules-driven place like Kitchener, Ontario.  So I grabbed some wood from outside that fell during the ice storm, I'm sure nobody will miss it.  I used a hatchet to cut it into 30 cm lengths, about the same as campground firewood.  Then I brought it inside and used only a knife to split it up into small kindling sticks.  I put it all into an aluminum pan, and stuck one of the sticks in Vaseline then lit it on fire and put it in the middle of the pile. After a while, when I was sure the fire was truly started, I doused it with water and cleaned up the mess.  I also threw the burned sticks out in the snow in the back yard.  See, I'm really careful these days.

http://voices.yahoo.com/building-starting-campfires-16294.html


Picture: How to start a campfire with  Harley.  It's not what I thought (park the bike in a pile of kindling and toss a match in the gas tank) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxffd2wAn9s

Thoughts About Riding Side By Side

I have had at least two people suggest to me that riding side by side on motorcycles is the best way to ride together (as opposed to staggered formation.)

First I will note:

In BC you are prohibited from riding more than two abreast, but two abreast is OK.
http://drivesmartbc.ca/miscellaneous/topic/riding-motorcycles-and-bicycles-side-side
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/motorcycles.htm

Illegal in Alberta
http://transportation.alberta.ca/1335.htm

Illegal in Newfoundland
http://www.servicenl.gov.nl.ca/drivers/DriversandVehicles/driverlicensing/demeritpoints.html

I wonder if three wheelers are officially motorcycles when it comes to riding side by side?  I've never seen two riding abreast.

OK In Australia, but not more than 1.5 m apart, and only in the left lane on a two lane road. (JK, but true also)
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Driver-guide/Sharing-the-road-with-other-road-users/Motorbikes.aspx

OK IN USA except for states beginning with V
http://www.leaguelineup.com/miscinfo.asp?menuid=39&url=wwamo&sid=874327068

PROS (of riding side by side)
- keep together in traffic, without getting separated by four way stops, and traffic lights
- bigger visual impression on other drivers to make them see you
- Faster for either one to hand signal the other (Unless you have radio communication)


CONS
- No escape path on one side for sudden swerving avoidance
- Requires a much greater level of teamwork and training (Which most riders do not have, although they may think they do)
- sometimes illegal

Suggestion:
Without extensive training, do not ride side by side, except I sometimes get pretty close to it for going through traffic lights and four way stops (Assuming this tactic is understood ahead of time), and that the normal staggered position is immediately resumed.  Otherwise, just ride in staggered formation.

As a rule, I don't do any activity where I must depend on perfect teamwork with another person or we both die:

Exceptions noted:
2. If I'm going to die anyway, and said teamwork is my only hope of survival.
3. This activity is insanely fun.
4. I am going to benefit in some major way from this later.

Picture: I'm not really sure if those girls are exactly side by side, but they are violating a lot of other laws.  And anyway, I don't care that much if they are side by side or not.

Fox News Tries to Steal Christmas

At Christmas time, there are many ideas floating about on how to make the holiday more "Christian". For the last few years, Fox News has been saying the greeting  "Happy Holidays" is offensive to real Christians.

How do we really put the Christ back in Xmas?   I have come up with a list that I would like to share.  It is partly ideas I got from other people, some ideas are rooted in tradition, some ideas come from the 4th annual Fox News "war on Christmas" campaign.


1. We need to make some strong statements that Santa is of the white race.  Apparently a lot of non-white people feel like they can make Santa any colour they wish, and this has to stop if we are to retain the true Christmas spirit.

2. We should not entertain thoughts of a "Christmas Penguin" similar to the Easter Bunny.   In case you couldn't guess, this idea came to me from the Fox News campaign, although the original idea came from Aisha Harris, of Slate.  Another reason we can't have a Christmas Penguin is that the Penguin is the symbol of Linux.  But when I Googled "Christmas Penguin" (with quotes) I got 457,000 hits.  And Google Images has no shortage of examples.  So apparently, this anti-Christmassy move is underway already.  And while we are on the subject, how many times must I remind you people there are no penguins at the North Pole? So it makes no scientific sense at all.

3. A third idea inspired by Fox News, ban all Festivus Poles, especially those located in public places where they may interfere with Christian Baby Jesus Manger scenes.

4. Christmas time might be a very appropriate time to read the bible, especially the Christmas Story in Luke 2:1-20.  If you know anything about shepherding, just ignore Luke 2:8, because you will know that shepherds in the holy land to not actually "watch their flocks by night" in December, which might make you think that the birth date has been changed to match a Pagan tradition of worshipping the winter solstice.

5. While reading the bible, you may also want to skip all the chapters advising people to stone each other for minor transgressions such as working on the Sabbath.  By the way, "working" is interpreted to include air travel.  And for sure the pilots, baggage handlers, and mechanics are working, so they must all certainly be killed in this particularly gruesome way.  But hey, how else are we supposed to show our true Christianity if not by obeying the Bible blindly.

6. If you want to upstage the neighbours piety, may I suggest this instead of setting up even more inflatable front lawn displays.  I suggest you sacrifice some of your livestock to God.  If you are not a farmer, I think it would be acceptable to instead sacrifice the family dog.  Please do not sacrifice any of your children before consulting with your pastor, no matter what you may have read in the Bible.


Now seriously, I hope everyone who reads this can tell it is humour.  I do not really recommend any of these measures, I am just trying to point out, with examples, what is wrong with some people's narrow view of Christmas, as promoted by Fox News, which I am thankful we don't get in Canada.

I prefer a liberal kind of Christianity that is based on freedom of religion, on tolerance, on helping the less fortunate, on making everyone feel welcome regardless of race or creed. I suppose this might offend some stricter Christians who think they are doing good by saying prayers in school, wishing people "Merry Christmas" and not "Happy Holidays",  singing carols and putting money in Santa's pot.  But come on, everyone should know that the real spirit of Christmas is feeling love and not hate.

Happy Holidays to all.  (and I mean that in a good way).

Picture: from this website http://www.very.co.uk/e/promo/christmas-novelty-knits.end

Pray Nice in School

For all those religious people who want to pray in school, I have a suggestion for a prayer.  I got the inspiration from a website in the US, called PresidentialPrayerTeam.com

Back when George W. Bush was president, a prayer-focused website was put up called

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/


I scrolled through some of the many prayers posted on the web site, where they do in fact ask for us to pray for President Obama.

Here is the prayer, that inspired me for my choice of a prayer to say in school.

"Anonymous
Many in this United States are too busy with Thanksgiving, Christmas and just life to even care or know what is going on in this country. Obama is continuing to deceive the masses and perpetrate evil. Lord this man is not our friend. He needs you in his heart in a terrible way. Father he is misguided and listening to the lies of Islam and Satan to take us down. Father reveal yourself to him and others in his chain of command in the Executive branch. Lord Jesus touch the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts as he has time to redeem himself when it comes to doing the right thing as they hear the case for religious freedom in the Obamacare bill. Lord Jesus rule in favor of righteousness and saving our faith. Amen.
Received: November 27, 2013  (Prayed 9 times)"

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/prayerwall/

So based on this "prayer", I developed a short one of my own, which would be acceptable to me, even for use in schools in Canada.   And maybe somebody could even post it on the prayer wall at "Presidential Prayer Team"

A prayer for all:

"Dear invisible being or non-being that may or may not have created the universe, please help us to accept freedom of religion for all except those who use it to abuse children.  Help the misguided to understand that you created science and mathematics, but that you did not create religion.  Help them understand that you gave us brains to reason with, not to blindly follow inappropriate and chauvinistic teachings written down thousands of years ago.  Help our children to understand why freedom, democracy, and our way of life, even the very video games we play, all depend on an educated population, and not on blind faith. May you rule in favour of righteousness and a real education for all. Amen."

John F Kennedy Joins Ronald Reagan in Conservative Mythology

We have just had the 50th anniversary of John F Kennedy's death.  The memory is fuzzy now, I seem to recall that it was announced by the teacher while I was in school, but I don't remember which teacher or which grade.

Now we come to a modern headline attributed to Fox News.  "JFK posthumously joins the Republican Party".  That headline appeared as a text crawl in the Simpsons cartoon a few years ago, and resulted in the cartoonist Matt Groening receiving a warning from the Fox owners that he must stop putting fake Fox News crawls on his weekly TV animation.  Apparently, because people could not tell the difference between joke news and Fox news.

Now making it much harder to tell the difference between humour and fact:  On the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, Fox News joins a "growing body of thought" that JFK was more a conservative than a liberal.

This growing body of thought is backed up by a book by Ira Stoll  "JFK, Conservative".  Here are some quotes from Kennedy's life to back up the research.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/22/jfk-a-conservative-12-quotes-from-the-liberal-icon-that-you-wont-believe/

I don't want to say these quotes are cherry-picked, or that they ignore famous quotes where Kennedy called himself a liberal, but let me take the worst of them for a closer look.

"5. I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all…I’m not comfortable with those people. Saturday Evening Post, June 1953 "

I don't actually have the book, I'm not sure if the "dot dot dot" was in the book or not.  But as a self-taught bullshit detector, I have learned to recognize telltale signs, and one of the easiest to spot for a novice is "..."


The full quote is actually

“I’m not a liberal at all. I never joined the Americans for Democratic Action—I’m not comfortable with those people.”
John F. Kennedy in the Saturday Evening Post, 1956"

from www.sonoma.edu/exed/olli/nkhandout1.pdf‎

Other than getting the wrong year, the missing "..." actually is about joining the ADA, a liberal organization that ranks politicians on a scale of 0 to 100 on their liberal views.  They were like a self appointed organization to define who was liberal and who was not, and how pure they were with the liberal agenda.  It seems to me that the "..." on this web page is being used to leave out important information rather than unimportant information.  If Kennedy refers to "being uncomfortable with those people", he is not referring to "liberals", he is referring to a specific sub-group, the ADA.  It's kind of like a conservative distancing themselves from the Tea Party.


What's next on the conservative agenda, now that JFK has joined their ranks?  I expect to see a Fox News crawl on the Simpsons "Lee Harvey Oswald posthumously joins Democratic Party".  Except, of course that the Simpsons can no longer do news crawls attributed to Fox News.

Picture: from http://www.salon.com/2013/11/22/the_rights_jfk_myth_now_they_claim_he_was_conservative/

Logic. Made Simple

I have read more than once, that Atheism is a religion, but this is not what Atheists actually think.  I am almost sure that atheists believe that atheism is not a religion.

I read one long explanation, using some logic, of why atheism is not a religion.  But you have to remember that logic is not just "common sense", there are rules to it that must be understood or it does not work.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

In this web page, some of the ideas presented as logic in the original argument are illogical. Here is one example:

"Religion is a philosophy of life.  Atheism is a philosophy of life.  Therefore Atheism is a religion."

The type of logic is called deductive reasoning. http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logic.htm

From the Columbia Encyclopedia 1946

"Deductive thinking is largely reducible to a form such as: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal (all S is P, M is S, therefore M is P); or more exactly: If all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, Socrates must then be mortal. Such a form is known as a syllogism."

The many problems with the author's statement begin with the faulty logical construction. This is wrong: A is B, X is B, therefore A is X.  If this logic were valid, you could easily prove a dog was a cat.  (A Dog is a pet, a cat is a pet, therefore a dog is a cat.)

The correct form of this logic is actually "if all S is P, and M is S, therefore M is P".  The argument would have to be constructed as:

"If all philosophies of life are religions, and atheism is a philosophy of life, therefore atheism is a religion."

If the first two statements (called the major premise and the minor premise) are correct, the third part (the conclusion) must be correct. However, if either of the first two premises are incorrect, then the conclusion is also incorrect.  And in this particular example, both the premises happen to be incorrect.

OK Now lets have fun playing with "logic". This time I will use my own example, with a negative twist. In order to prove that M is NOT S, you have to juggle a few things around.  Let's try this: If all S is P, and M is not P, therefore M is not S.

If you substitute  S=religion P=tax exempt M=atheism

All religions are tax exempt.  Atheism is not tax exempt.  Therefore Atheism is not a religion.

So, does the logic hold up here?

I think we should go back to teaching logic in schools, unless logic contradicts religious teaching.

Biker Fashions For You (But not for you)

I now consider myself an expert on motorcycle fashions, having just completed my motorcycle fashion wardrobe.  (Or at least Mary Ann hopes I have completed it.)  Now is the time for me to dispense my valuable advice free of charge to the general motorcycling public.

If you have a Harley Davidson, a sportbike, a Honda GoldWing, or a BMW GS Adventure bike, and no other motorcycle, you are excused.  Not because you know everything about motorcycle fashions, but because those four types of bikes already have a complete and unique fashion wardrobe, and I cannot be of any further help to you.

This blog is for the rest of you motorcyclists, who do not have any particular style carved in stone for you and your bike.

For my non motorcycling life,  my wardrobe is minimal to sketchy.  I have one thing to wear to weddings and funerals (including my own).  Everything else is covered by one "look", basically t-shirt or sweat shirt, jeans or shorts, with some heavier outer clothing for going outside when it's colder.

For motorcycling, things get complicated. For one thing, your clothes need to perform more functions, such as crash protection, severe weather protection (basically like being in a hurricane all the time), visibility to increase chances of survival on the road, and have some resistance to road grime and oil.  Furthermore, these clothes need to match the look of your motorcycle, and look right in various social situations.

Let's start with the jacket.  The iconic black leather motorcycle jacket used have a very distinct tough guy image, which it has kept, but diminished over the years as it was adopted by high school girls and non-motorcycling people of alternate sexual preferences.  In modern language, the black leather jacket has been "nerfed" or rendered less threatening than it used to be in the early sixties.

What does a motorcyclist do if they want to recapture that "tough guy" image in the 21st century?  I suggest a black hoodie. It can be worn with a black leather jacket, or any other kind of jacket.  And nothing says "just shoot me Mr. Vigilante" like a black hoodie.  Oddly, the hoodie also has a nerd-like quality, as you can see on "The Big Bang Theory" where Leonard wear one all the time.  I think the connection between the hoodie, the geeks and the bad guys is through the Emperor Palpatine of Star Wars, who always wears a black hood, and is very evil, and throws lightning bolts from his fingers.

The hoodie is a great motorcycle accessory for all bikers who need fashion advice, and even for Harley riders, as it is also available with the Harley Logo on it.  It works with old bikes, and new.  With metric cruisers, dirt bikes, even scooters.  The only situation where it may not work is in a heavy rainstorm, where it will capture cold water and funnel it down your neck.

Now that I have taken care of the all important "bad boy" image, lets look at survival.  A reflective safety vest will effectively cancel out any bad boy image you may have, so is it worth wearing from a fashion viewpoint?  I would say yes, if you are riding a vintage motorcycle, or a scooter, or if you are not going to a hard core biker rally like Friday 13th in Port Dover.  Actually even in Port Dover, the reflective vest would not be a fashion faux pas, compared to the nude guy with the bunny ears.

Next in the survival category is the helmet, but it may be even more important than a reflective vest.  For a big bike, or a bike that goes on the freeway, a full face helmet is the standard.  For trips around town, or for looking tough, a half helmet may look best.  Unfortunately, it is not as safe, but here we are talking about image.  It's up to you whether image is worth it, but apparently some helmets are now sold in Ontario that only meet DOT standards (not Canadian Standards), and some of them are clearly not safe, because apparently DOT does not test helmets.  But it really seems like some lawmakers don't care much about actual safety, because they have also allowed exceptions to the helmet law for religious purposes in BC and Manitoba, and maybe one day in Ontario.  So of you are a practicing member of a recognized religion that forbids wearing motorcycle helmets, you can really look tough wearing anything your gods will allow.

Now for footwear.  Black leather boots are best, but try to avoid over junkified boots with redundant straps and shiny buckles. Other colors such as yellow/tan workboots are OK, but if you have an old leaky bike they are going to end up black anyway from oil gushing from every gasket.  Stay with a simple Doc Martin style or military style, and you'll look OK no matter what type of bike you ride except for motocross.  Back in the seventies, I used to think cowboy boots were acceptable as motorcycle boots, but now I think lace-up styles are better because they are easier to get on and off and stay on better in a crash.  You just have to make sure to tuck in the laces so they don't get hooked up an any part of the bike.

Picture: Kitten with a hoodie.  When wearing this on the motorcycle, the jacket goes over the hoodie, but the hood itself is folded down outside the jacket.  It must be folded down, as it should not be worn under the helmet.

Ride It To Port Dover Like You Stole It.

I have heard this strange expression "Ride it like you stole it".  Today I tried to  figure out what it means.  I assume the scenario is this: you  come across a random motorcycle with the key in it, jump aboard and take off without doing the 12 point pre-run safety inspection.  Due to the spontaneous nature of the ride, you also do not take the gear you will need, like a full water bottle, a rain suit, and a tool kit.  Of course, you do not perform a tune-up on the stolen bike before firing it up, nor do you add air to the tires.  Then you ride mostly at top speed without regard to engine longevity, or safety.

Another thing you would not do, if you were stealing the bike, is plan out a circular scenic route, ending up back where you started.  But actually, I did just that.  I left Kitchener and headed for Ancaster first, on my way to Lake Erie, then back home.  Just before Ancaster I went on Weir Road and Sulphur Springs Road.  These are good roads for a reckless rider on a Honda CD175, as they have hairpins and some gravel sections.  And if I dump the CD175, who cares?

What kind of clothes does a bike thief wear?  I would expect a bandanna to hide your face, and a black hoodie sweatshirt.  Probably not a construction worker's safety vest, but then again, I might do that just because who would ever expect a person in a safety vest to be stealing a motorcycle?  It's the perfect disguise.

Just before I got to Ancaster, I missed a turn and ended up across the street from a corn maze.  The sight on the ground was nothing much, but while  was checking out my location on Google maps, I saw this pattern across the street from the overhead satellite view.

https://maps.google.ca/?ll=43.289186,-80.026925&spn=0.005748,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.287866,-80.027903&panoid=paU3ml4NhsVoL3IlLiyZPQ&cbp=11,359.52,,2,4.4

After getting back on track with Google maps, I headed for the bridge over the Grand River at Cayuga, and soon after, took Kohler Road down to pick up the scenic Lakeside Trail heading for Port Dover.  This is not a walking trail, it is a car trail.  There are signs along the way to keep you on track without having to stop and use your i-phone at every turn.

At Port Dover, it was time to eat, but there was no parking left at Tim Horton's.  Instead I stopped at Willy's for a Willy Burger, fries and a Coke. Normally, I should be looking for a nice healthy meal, but a guy who was worried about healthy food would not be stealing bikes, would he?  Also, there was a free motorcycle parking spot nearby, where I could hide the hot bike among all the Harleys outside Clare's Harley Davidson Shop.  Unfortunately the 44 year-old Honda 175 managed to called some attention to itself even in that crowd of shiny hogs.  After my meal on Willy's patio, I was ready to head home. I slowly put my helmet and safety vest on, then backed up and started jumping on the tiny kick starter.  When I turned around, I saw a crowd of Harley riders gathered around me.  I guess they had never seen a kick starter or a stolen bike before.  So I got going before anybody decided to call the fuzz.

First Photo: Sulphur Springs Road.  Second photo: Bike thief from "Bike Locking Tips" at MotorcycleCruiser.com

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/accessoriesandgear/0905_crup_bike_locking_tips/

End of World Scenarios are Multiplying

Would you believe this could end the human race?

This was a headline that I spotted this morning:  "Could This End the Human Race?"  Are you guessing I was watching Fox News? No, that was The Weather Channel.  Were they referring to global warming?  Of course not, commercial media have gone silent now for several years about global warming.  They were referring to a solar flare, which they were calling a solar tornado.  And, according to the video presenter, Matt Sampson of weather.com, if this solar flare erupted on Earth, it could wipe out the human race.

http://www.weather.com/video/could-this-end-the-human-race-37304

It seems that no exaggeration is too great any more in the quest for attention grabbing headlines.  Especially on the internet, where mouse clicks result in advertising revenue. As you might expect, when you click this headline you first get a short advertisement just before you find out if the human race is really about to be wiped out. In my case, the ad was about making sure your dog is emotionally healthy.  Of course my dog is emotionally healthy, he does not read headlines like "Could This Wipe Out the Entire Shit-zu Race?" before his first coffee of the morning.

Now lets get back to reality for a second, just in case you were worried, too. A solar tornado cannot happen on Earth, for many reasons.  I will not bother to explain all of them, but suffice it to say that if the surface of planet Earth was like the normal, average surface of the sun, for only ten minutes,  with or without the solar "tornado", all life on earth (not just the human race) would also be wiped out.

Underneath the video are buttons for viewers to express their reaction.  You can choose from  A. Unbelievable B. Terrifying C. Crazy.  Apparently you are not allowed to choose D. "Are you kidding me?"

What bothers me the most about these headlines is that we have now seen from years of surveys, that about 18% of people believe anything they see on TV, newspapers or the internet.  That 18% is the irreducible stupidity element, or I.S.E., and that percent is big enough to swing elections.  It is also big enough to hamper our education system, clog our justice system, water down our health care system, and create mayhem with our traffic system.  They should not be encouraged.

Here is another result for my search for "End of the Human Race".  It's Montana Steam Power Co, that provides emergency electric generators in case the grid goes down, which as they say, will also result in the end of the human race. Unless somebody buys one of these steam generators.

http://www.montanasteampower.com/

Picture: It's pretty obvious that a robot uprising is more likely to wipe out the human race than either of the first two alternatives.
http://news.mindprocessors.com/technology-news/risk-of-robot-uprising-wiping-out-human-race-to-be-studied/

Is This Really Criticising Jesus?

Quentin Tarantino's latest movie is Django Unchained, a revenge flick set in the times of southern slavery. On February 16, 2013, Saturday Night Live, hosted by one of the stars of Django, did a spoof on the film called "Djesus Uncrossed", where Jesus (or Djesus, or Jesus H. Christ with the H silent), came back from the dead to wreak vengeance on the Romans.

Was the SNL skit a spoof of the movie, or was it a spoof on God, or was it the most blasphemous skit ever in their history?  I'm sorry I missed that episode, but this skit is posted on the internet, here is one link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/02/17/jesus-rises-on-snl.html

In my opinion, this was not really a criticism of Christianity, it was first and foremost a spoof of the film.  And I have seen almost the exact same theme in a Jesus skit done on "Family Guy" in the episode "North by North Quahog" in the skit "The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This".  However, "Family Guy" has done a lot of other things the fundamentalist Christians hate.

http://themaxeychronicles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslimsthe-anti-muhammad.html

For example (from this web page, showing how Family Guy is blaspheming Jesus)

A standing gag is that Jesus drives a Cadillac Escalade.
 In "North by North Quahog", he is seen in the car in an action trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This and is portrayed by Jim Caviezel opposite Chris Tucker.
According to the National Gun Association's pro-guns film in "And the Wiener is...", Jesus  and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans.
During his second coming, shown in "Stewie Loves Lois", Jesus's stature is found to be short since science has proven that people were shorter in biblical times.
He also makes use of his powers to assist his golf game, as seen in Holy Crap. Although he is "Employee of the Week" at Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, he is on the golf course going for his fourth Birdie. He makes his swing, and the ball lands extremely close to the hole, on the verge of going in. Using his power, he gets the ball to go in.
In Go, Stewie, Go!, Jesus is on the side of the jocks in a dodgeball game against the meek.

So the basic line taken by Sean Hannity on Fox News is that Liberals are too chicken to take on the Muslims, so it's open season on Christians who don't fight back.

http://www.newshounds.us/20130213_sean_hannity_gutless_snl_writers_hate_christianity_but_are_scared_of_islam

If that were true, I suppose it would be a valid point against all these "attacks" on Christianity.  But none of these skits are attacks on Jesus or Christianity.  They are all attacks on the perverted form of Christianity that is "Born Again Christianity".  The Born Again Christians have basically undermined true Christianity by turning all the teachings of Jesus upside down, preaching hate, not love; war, not peace; wealth, not social justice.  If you are satirizing a perverted form of "Christianity", you are in reality speaking up for Jesus.

And, by the way, Fox News, "Family Guy" is a show on your own network, so how about attacking yourselves for blasphemy, instead of Saturday Night Live on NBC.

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

Technology Could Make Canada as Liveable as Arizona

We have just had a really cold few days in Canada. Actually, it was almost like what we used to call "winter". It's time for the "Lost Motorcyclist" (i.e. me) to reflect on how the winter affects us in Canada.

With effective interior heating, Canada has become a much more comfortable country to live in.  At least, I imagine it is, because I have never lived in a house without central heat in the winter - although we did have a coal fired furnace when I was young, it was still "central" heating, with a square heat duct coming up from the basement furnace room to a massive grate in the living room hallway.  But after it belched flames into our home a few times, my mother insisted on replacing with an oil burner.

The next step in fighting cold in the winter after houses, was making heated cars almost universal and clearing and salting all the roads. Back in the early fifties, apparently the province of Quebec did not bother clearing roads between towns.  I say apparently, because we didn't have any provincial roads coming into town anyway.  Or a car. Now, in the winter time most people either stay inside, or sit in their cars, or shop in indoor malls, and you hardly ever feel cold.  Except when shovelling snow - even then some snowblowers have heated cabins.  It is to the point where some people don't even throw on a coat or hat to get in the car and drive to Sarnia, which is why it was so dangerous a few years ago when the 402 was shut down by a blizzard and cars were stuck overnight.

But regardless of all this comfortable heat we surround ourselves with, Canadians still have a tremendous desire to get out of Canada in the winter.  I don't need to say we "go south", because logically, any direction out of Canada is south.  That's because Canada is where the north pole is located.  Yes, I know we go north to get into Detroit, but that's just a geographic anomaly.  But I digress.  Canadians like to go someplace warm in the winter, like Florida, Arizona or Mexico.  Actually any other country on Earth is warmer than Canada, I just don't have time to list them all.

Why do Canadians want to go someplace else in the winter, even though we are so comfortable in our houses, cars, and malls?  Because we miss the outdoors is why.  We like to stand (or more likely, sit) out in the sun, without literally freezing our asses off.  I often go south in the winter because I miss being able to ride my motorcycle here. From November to March, sometimes weeks go by without me getting out for a ride.

Which brings me to the news that technology is being developed which might make Canada's outdoors as warm as Florida in the winter, and I'm not talking about global warming. I'm talking about heated clothing. Just as houses and cars with internal thermostatically controlled heat have made Canada more comfortable in the winter, now your outdoor clothing can have its own heater and thermostat.  The temperature inside a garment (coat, gloves, socks) can be set to regulate itself. And some of the latest heated garments have wireless remote thermostat controls.  They can be located more conveniently than fumbling around inside your pants at 40 below zero.  Also, the controls can, if desired, regulate the heat on separate knobs for vest, gloves, pants, or socks.

http://www.powerlet.com/product/dual-wireless-temperature-controller/471

Heated clothing no longer needs a wire tethered to a motorcycle battery.  More efficient heating elements and rechargeable lithium batteries have made it possible to have heated clothing with portable battery packs. Although to be honest I have not tried this cordless battery operated setup yet.  Check out this jacket at Mark's.

http://www.marks.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/en/marks-marksdefaultsalescatalog/thermalectric-rechargeable-heated-fleece-jacket-21047

It's just one more technological step in making Canada a livable place in the winter, and not just a playgound for polar bears.

Picture: You don't need another picture of me in my electric vest.  Much better is a cat out for a walk in the winter, taken from this website.
http://xaxor.com/funny-pics/29220-funny-cats-playing-in-the-snow-part-3.html

What I Didn't Know About Being Canadian

Readers Digest put out an article "13 Things You Didn't Know About Being Canadian" (or should I say aboot?)  Anyway, I took this as a challenge, because as a Canadian, I guess I should know almost as much about Canada as I do about the USA.

http://www.readersdigest.ca/home-garden/13-things-you-didnt-know/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-being-canadian


1. Our Parliament Has a Sanctuary for Stray Cats

At first I read this as "Our parliament is a sanctuary for stray cats", which would explain why the conservative Members of Parliament are so fat.  But seriously, I saw that sanctuary a few years back when I visited Ottawa and wandered around the parliament buildings and talked to one of the unpaid volunteers who was feeding the cats. If this was coming out of the taxpayers pockets, though, you can bet all Canadians would know about it.

2. One of Our Prime Ministers Used a Crystal Ball

That would be William Lyon MacKenzie King, a native of the city where I live, Kitchener, Ontario.  I knew this, I think its taught in history class.  It was taught in my classes anyway.  Funny coincidence, the previous town I lived (Baie Comeau, QC) in was also a home to a Prime Minister, also had a middle name of "Lyon"

3. We Launched a Secret Project To Build an Aircraft Carrier Made From Ice

OK I did not know that.  My excuse is that it was a secret, and it never was built.  But it makes sense.  It would never rust, and we have the know-how to build that Ice Hotel in Quebec City.


4. Our Beavers Built a Dam Visible From Outer Space

Actually I knew that, I think it was on the news a few years ago.  So I went to Google Maps to see if it was visible from way up, which it is because there is water on one side, and green on the other.  Actually way more visible than the Great Wall of China that is reputed to be the only man made thing visible from space (which I doubt).

See this 2010 report, stating that the dam is 2800 feet long.  I guess it shrunk in the last two years, or was that a rounding error because Canadian beavers use metric units?
http://news.discovery.com/animals/beaver-dam-canada-space.html


5. Our Cities Have Some of the Freshest Air in the World

I did not know that.  One example given is Kitimat, a town similar to my home town of Baie Comeau, because it has an aluminum smelter and a paper mill, and is far from other cities.  As I recall during the sixties, the aluminum plant air pollution killed all the coniferous trees for about 20 miles around, while the paper mill air pollution was killing all the deciduous trees.  Finally, people started getting serious about air pollution when the acid in the air started etching the car windows.  Today it is pretty much cleaned up, but I don't know how they did it.  However, I would bet that the the air sampling centre in Kitimat is upwind of the paper mill and aluminum plant.

And finally, Googling Kitimat CLean Air, I came across this site, asking "Please don't burn garbage".  In Kitchener we are more serious about clean air, I believe there is a law against burning garbage.
http://www.rdks.bc.ca/content/air-quality


6. Have a Taste of Home When You Travel

I knew we grew mustard seed in Canada, but did not know they use our seeds in France to make Dijon mustard.


7. Iceberg Vodka? How about Iceberg Wine?

I did not know that Newfies make wine with iceberg water, but also I have never been to Newfoundland.  I do know that in Ontario we make wine with grapes that got frozen on the vine, and furthermore we charge a premium for that type of wine.  We are clever people.

8. Leave Your Door Unlocked in Churchill Manitoba...or Else!

I have never seen a polar bear in the wild, but I did see a documentary on Churchill's polar bears.  In the documentary they were interviewing this old native grandmother who got up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, and encountered a polar bear in the hallway and shot him.  The interviewer was shocked and disgusted that she would kill so magnificent an animal.  The old lady did not understand, she said "Well, I had to go to the bathroom"

9. You Can Drink a Toe Cocktail in Dawson City, Yukon

Yes I knew that, even though I have never been to the Yukon. I believe it is common knowledge to Canadians, and the main reason I have never been to the Yukon.

10. One of Our Cities Aims To Be the World's Greenest by 2020

I did not know this.  Go for it, Vancouver.

11. We Have the World's Most Dark Sky Preserves

Another thing I didn't know, although I did know that we have got dark sky preserves near Southern Ontario .

12. We've Minted Many of the World's Coins

Another interesting fact I didn't know.

13. Just Think, Being Canadian Means You Could Be From...

I pass through Punkeydoodles Corners, Ontario on the way to visiting my Mother most of the time.  Newfoundland has the best place names. If Ontarians weren't so uptight, Punkeydoodles would have been Punk Ass Corners.  Now what Canadian has not heard of Dildo, Newfoundland?  Mary Ann camped there one night a few years back, but she didn't take a picture.

OK, then I didn't do too badly on this quiz.  I have come up with a fourteenth thing I didn't know about being a Canadian, although technically, Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time, but: The ferry from Sydney NS to Port Aux Basques NF was sunk by a german submarine in WW2.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Caribou



Picture: Dildo Run Provincial Park sign from the

http://www.slowtrav.com/blog/andasamo/travel_thoughts/2009_july_family_trip/

Gorillas are Liars

If a human speaks truthfully only once in their entire life, they are still an honest person. But if a Gorilla tells one lie, that gorilla is a liar for the rest of their lives.   This is a double standard.

In California, there is a female gorilla named Koko, who has been taught to speak in sign language. With an I.Q. of about 75, and a vocabulary of 1000 sign language words, she can form sentences and make up new compound words.

There are reports that Koko lied once.  Once, when left alone, Koko tore a sink out of the wall.  When her human discovered the ruined sink, and asked Koko who did it, Koko blamed her pet kitten.  Yes, Koko the gorilla had a pet kitten.  How did Koko get a pet kitten?  She asked for one through sign language, of course.  Anyway, With this one lie, Koko is now famous for being a liar, even though everything else she says is true (e.g. Koko want banana)

I have noticed that lying is more acceptable among humans than among gorillas.

Performing experiments on Koko could answer a lot of questions for us.  I have an idea for an experiment to force Koko to watch Fox News 24 hours a day.  After a few weeks, will this gorilla begin to forward right wing e-mails?

I am also interested in whether a Gorilla has the "God Gene", enabling them to have paranormal spiritual experiences.  I suspect that somebody has already spoken to Koko about religion. In wikipedia, I read that Koko named a Macaw "Devil tooth" because of the Macaw's dangerous beak.  So I assume at some point an attempt was made to convert Koko to Christianity, because otherwise how would Koko know the word "Devil". Unfortunately, I could not find out what Koko's religious affiliations were.

I Googled this website, titled "Koko the Gorilla PROVES Evolution a Lie!".  My immediate thought was that the born again Christians had gotten to Koko, and now Koko thinks that evolution is a lie.  But how would a gorilla, even as smart as Koko, prove Darwinism is a lie, while many humans have not been able to do so.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/koko.htm

Unfortunately, it was not Koko's clever arguments that proved evolution was a lie.  It was the existence of Koko that proved humans could not have descended from apes. (The reason being if apes turned into humans, then how come Koko is still here?)  Frankly I was  disappointed, as I was looking forward to reading about Koko's thoughts on evolution and instead I got the thoughts of David J. Stewart, a Born Again Christian, and a long time non-gorilla.

If I understand religion correctly, God has made it possible only for Humans to commit sins.  The concept of sin does not apply to animals, therefore Koko can never "be saved by Jesus".  However even though Koko is an animal, it appears that she has officially sinned in the Human sense. Koko was once accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. I am not sure how the lawsuit against Koko ended, but innocent or guilty, where there's smoke there's fire, I always say.

I found a web page with an online chat between Koko and other AOL users, (no jokes about AOL users please.)  Many AOL'ers found Koko's conversation boring and began to dismiss her intellectual abilities.  If you are familiar with what people say about AOLers, this is a real put down.

http://worldofjasoncraft.com/Kokostory.html

Fortunately, Jason Craft was able to provide a simple explanation for Koko's seemingly nonsensical chat session.

Picture: Koko uses sign language to show Pet Kitty how to chat on AOL.  I photoshopped the computer and the words.  The Kitty is real.

Seven Things You Can't Say in Canada, Apparently.

Margaret Wente, a columnist for the Globe and Mail, wrote a piece for the Canadian Version of Reader's Digest titled "Seven Things You Can't Say in Canada".  To provide a bit of background, I consider the Reader's Digest to be an American propaganda voice, and the Canadian Edition to be a thinly disguised American propaganda outlet, forced to run "Canadian Content" similar to Time Magazine.  Margaret Wente moved to Canada in 1964 and became a Canadian citizen.

http://www.readersdigest.ca/magazine/7-things-you-can-t-say-canada-0

"Influential columnist Margaret Wente shares her controversial opinion on seven sacred Canadian cows most dare not criticize. Margaret Wente's background gives her a certain perspective on Canada's sacred cows."

There may be things you can't say in Canada, but in my opinion, these are not them.

1. Margaret Atwood's books are awful? Well at first I thought Wente might have a point there.  I hated "Stone Angel", at least the small part of it that I actually read.  Then I realized that "Stone Angel" is written by Margaret Lawrence.  Margaret Atwood wrote "The Handmaid's Tale", which I liked, or I should say I liked the movie, as I didn't read the book.  This barely qualifies as something you can't say in Canada.  If you said it in certain intellectual circles, you may get a lively debate going.  But I guarantee the secret police will not be at your door the next day
2. Recycling is a waste of time and money? I recycle stuff, and I find that overall I save time by recycling. I only have to put the garbage/recycling box out about once every six weeks instead of once a week. In exchange, I spend a bit of time sorting the trash into different boxes, and cleaning out empty cans and bottles. Because the blue box is right beside the garbage can, the extra time take making the decision where to throw stuff is negligible. The time I spend on recycling is done in a nice warm house.  The time I save carrying out the garbage is outdoors,  FMAO.  As for wasting money, I have been told that the recycling program is paid for by the bottling/canning companies, although I doubt it.  I can see the point though, that if a lot of people are spending time and paying taxes for a recycling program that some other people are ignoring, then it becomes an aggravation when somebody argues against it.  Kind of like somebody saying they save time by throwing their Tim Horton's cups on your lawn.  But news flash for Margaret Wente: Many populated parts of the USA have started recycling programs since you left in 1963.  When I was in Bismark North Dakota this summer, there was a discussion going on about starting up a blue box program even out there.  So the same taboo of criticizing recycling would apply in some parts of the USA.
3. Private enterprise saving health care?  Yes, you would get an argument from me about this.  I consider Canada's health care system to be an important part of living in Canada, and if we didn't have free health care I would probably move to the USA.  Here is why.  Without free health care I am obviously going to die sooner because I am a cheap bastard who doesn't want to pay for insurance or even life saving surgery.  So if I'm going to die sooner, I might as well go to the USA where I can at least ride my bike year round until I die from lack of health care.
4. David Suzuki is bad for the environment.  As Margaret says, "And our hugely expensive investment in the unworkable Kyoto treaty, which Mr. Suzuki tells us doesn’t go nearly far enough, will crowd out more practical measures to cut smog and clean up our waste sites." With recycling, Margaret was about 30 years behind the times, but with smog Margaret now appears to be  60 years behind the times. Killer smog was a big deal in London in 1952.  They took measures to eliminate smog, and so did the USA, particularly Los Angeles and the state of California. Smog has largely been dealt with now, and I'm guessing the expense was huge but probably worth it.  And as for more practical measures for cleaning up waste sites, didn't Margaret just finish arguing against recycling?  If she has something else in mind, now is the time to speak up.  Not even Americans (And I don't mean that in a bad way)  want the environment destroyed.
5. National day care programs: I don't care one way or the other at this point.  Let's skip to another topic that actually would annoy me.
6. Group of Seven paintings Overexposed?  I, like many other Canadians, do not buy art, but if we did it might be paintings of trees and rocks.  I suppose its possible that Canadian Art Critics may try to silence anyone who criticises the Group of Seven, as I have never met a Canadian Art Critic.  
7. The USA is the greatest force for good in the world.  Now we come to the climax, this is probably what Margaret Wente wanted to say all along, but had to pad it out with six other topics to make an entire column.  Canadians, of course feel this statement is bullsh*t, or we would have joined the USA long ago.  That way, we at least could vote in the US elections, and cross into Detroit without being sniffed up by salivating Rottweilers.  But she is right, Canadians do not believe that Americans are the master race come in the name of God to save the world.  The greatest force for good in the world may be science, or education, or a free press, or the Internet,  or consumerism, or democracy.  There are many choices, unfortunately all flawed in some way.

That brings us to the end of the seven things Margaret Wente thinks you can't say in Canada.

Now what about some of these that I came up with, that I didn't see on her list, but I think would be acceptable answers to the question "What things can't you say in Canada?"

1. Torture is a good way to extract confessions from criminals and terrorists.

2. Sometimes the law does not work, so lynchings are necessary.

3. Jesus is our only hope for salvation, and Pat Robertson is His one true prophet.

4. There was no holocaust.

5. Canada is the greatest force for good in the world.

Saying any of those 5 things in Canada would get you more of an argument than saying Margaret Atwood's books stink.

Picture: From Readers Digest, but I added the ironic wording on the box and on the shirt. Yes, ironic.

What Kind of Motorcycle Gear Would God Wear?

One of my blogs receives a lot of hits from people who google "What kind of motorcycle does God ride?". So I decided to cash in on this success (not literally, as I have not monetized my blog), by doing a follow-up. This time, the question is "What Kind of Motorcycle Gear Would God Wear?" By the way, "The Lost Motorcyclist" is the original author of this blog, and all those other commercial websites you found on Google with the exact same article about God's motorcycle, are copying my blog without permission.

I think it would be best to start at the top, with the helmet. As they say, if you have a ten dollar head, get a ten dollar helmet. With God's head, it would be impossible to find a helmet to match the cost, which would be well into the trillions I expect. But given that it is impossible to damage God's brain in an accident, you could make do with a plastic beanie, and not even worry about the DOT approval - just make sure to put the sticker on in case God gets stopped by the police. Of course, He could get out of jail easily, but God doesn't want any hassles from the fuzz.

Next is the question of the jacket. Hi-vis textile? Black leather Hell's Angels type jacket? The answer is simple. God does not need high visibility reflective colours as His glowing halo is visible enough from miles away. Also, we know intuitively that God is not a wimp, and so He would wear a real hard core 1%er black leather jacket. Hard core motorcycle jackets have "Gun pockets", where God could conceal his piece. But many motorcycle jackets have wimpy gun pockets that can only conceal a small Glock. God's gun pocket should be big enough for an Uzzi. With another smaller pocket for a back-up Glock. Not that God needs the protection of a gun, but some people just listen better when a loaded gun is pointed at them.

To complete the outfit, God would need a rebel do-rag, alligator skin cowboy boots, fingerless gloves, t-shirt saying "My Dad created the universe and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt", and American made blue jeans. I'm not sure about the underwear, so I'm going to leave that part up to God.

ANSWERS TO MY LAST BLOG ABOUT GOD'S MOTORCYCLE. To keep it brief, I pictured God riding a Dodge Tomahawk V-10 motorcycle. To answer some objections, yes, God can easily pick up a 1,500 lb motorcycle if it drops. And even though the tank only holds 3 gallons (smallish American gallons), I guarantee God will not be the one to hold up your group ride because he needs gas - God's gas is renewable! And, finally, how many time must I repeat it? Yes, God is OK with me writing blogs about Him. God loves humour, that's why He told me the Canucks would win the Stanley Cup last year.

Canada Fourth Most Uncool Country

A long time ago, I wrote a blog about the coolest motorcycles.

In that ranking, Steve McQueen and his Triumph motorcycle tied with T.E. Lawrence on his Brough Superior as most cool.

Now there is a ranking of coolest countries by Badoo.com.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110907/cool-countries-poll-110907/

In the rankings of countries, the USA came first. Canada did not make it into the top ten coolest countries, however it made it fourth on the list of uncoolest countries. The only countries uncooler than Canada were Poland, Turkey and Belgium.

This shocking result is a wake up call for all Canadians. We need to figure out how this happened, and do something to get ourselves onto the coolest list. Eventually, a Royal Commission can be set up to get to the bottom of this, but "The Lost Motorcyclist" (me) already has some ideas. The following numbers did not come from any official scientific survey, I just made them up. But they are a good starting point/ballpark approximation.

First comparing Canada to the USA

In clothing, toques (-63 cool points) vs. blue jeans (+93)

Next, in entertainment, Justin Beiber (-25) vs. Lady Gaga (+78)

In leadership, Stephen Harper (-100 cool points) vs. Barack Obama (+100).

We used to pretty good in beer, but today this is how it stands: Coors Light brewed in Canada (-70) vs. Coors light brewed in the USA (+70)

Major accomplishments of coolness? Vancouver Stanley Cup riot (-100) vs. 10th anniversary of 911 (+11)

Kick ass pastimes? Killing baby seals (-62) vs. Killing Osam Bin Laden (+20)

Economic activities? Dredging up tar sands (-37) vs. Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (-4)

Technology? Blackberry (+6) vs. iPad (+49)


So that's a summary of what we have to deal with before we get on the cool list. Let's stop thinking about the past, and start some long term strategic thinking.

Sometimes all you need is to put the right guy in the right position to turn a losing team into a winner. I would suggest, for a start, switching roles between Justin Beiber and Stephen Harper. In their present positions, both come out as uncool. But as our new Prime Minister, Justin Beiber would immediately score +100 cool points. And Stephen Harper (now known as Lord Gaga) could go toe-to-toe with Lady Gaga in the most unbelievably weird entertainers category.

Picture: Stephen Harper with his kittens. With this picture in the public domain, it's surprising we didn't knock off Belgium for the top uncoolest country on Earth.