Sunday, March 30, 2008

Beyond Cute

Take eight-and-a-half minutes out of your busy schedule and watch this.

Try to keep your jaw from dropping to your lap while you watch. Betcha can't.

(H/T Cute Overload)

Warning: The comments section contains a "spoiler." See if you can resist the temptation to peek, and just let yourself be amazed for awhile.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Hoax? No Hoax? Time Will Tell

"ANNE STOCKWELL (Editor-in-chief, The Advocate): We asked Thomas to provide us the name of his doctor. We called her and she confirmed with us that Thomas is pregnant and that his pregnancy is proceeding as it should."

I sooooooo want this to be a real story!

Cantcha just feel the pressure building up in all those fundie little skulls, waiting to explode?

I wonder if Thomas is familiar with the story of Hapi?

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

I'm Pregnant, Man I'm A Pregnant Man!

Thomas Beatie, makin' history down in Oregon, has people vewy, vewy confused.

He's a man. And he's married to a wonderful woman. And they're having a baby. And he's the one who's pregnant!

Doctors are running away as fast as they can make excuses:

"The first doctor we approached was a reproductive endocrinologist. He was shocked by our situation and told me to shave my facial hair. After a $300 consultation, he reluctantly performed my initial checkups. He then required us to see the clinic’s psychologist to see if we were fit to bring a child into this world and consulted with the ethics board of his hospital. A few months and a couple thousand dollars later, he told us that he would no longer treat us, saying he and his staff felt uncomfortable working with 'someone like me.'"

Herb, did you have any idea what you were starting when you wrote Persistence of Vision?

(Thank you, Karen!)

UPDATE: A Portland television station is reporting that this may be a hoax. Beattie is apparently declining to give interviews until April First. Hmmm...

Other bloggers are weighing in. Some of them really need to take a pill or something, jeez.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Blogs Against Theocracy

Ostara/Easter/Purim/Alban Eiler/Feast of
Naw-Ruz/Holi/Mouloud/Shunbun no Hi/Hola Mohalla/Legba Zaou/Nawroz 2008 edition.

Have fun learning something.

Did you know, for example, that this is American Chocolate Week? Now, there's a religion I could get behind!

Paradox Solved. KTHXBAI.

This bit of hilarity woke me up from my email inbox this morning. It's probably making the rounds, but in case anyone missed it, I couldn't resist linking to it.

Friday, March 14, 2008

The Blasphemy Collection


From an article published back in October 2007:

"The concept of blasphemy seemed for some decades to be in decline in the West, but not any more. It may be useful to look back at some recent cases of militantly religious outrage..."

I wonder how she defines "the West?" I mean, I live in Canada, which is vaguely understood (or so I understand) to be located somewhere in the vicinity of something called "the West." And the concept of blasphemy is not in decline. It's a complete fiction.

As in: it doesn't exist.

Oh, there are vague ramblings and mutterings here and there, but nothing concrete and enforceable on the books (and note that that last link has to do with something called "blasphemous libel" -- whatever the hell that is -- and not blasphemy, itself).

I noticed, too, that one of the definitions of blasphemy is to "claim the attributes of a diety".

Well, Hel's Belles (that' all-girl backup singing group from Tromso, in case anyone asks, 'kay?) fellow babies! it looks like I might be the very model of a modern major general blasphemer, according to that definition! After all, my religion says that I am god. And that would mean anyone who disputes my claim to godhood would be violating another definition of blasphemy by showing contempt for my dietyship (yes it's a word. Because god says so).

But anyway, back to the article...which lists the Top Twenty examples of blasphemy in the modern world (although something about using the words "blasphemy" and "modern" in the same thought strikes me as being completely Hrarf-Hrarfian) according to someone. She lists the incidents in order of severity, by following a list of standards:

"Vulgarity –the piece shocked through its conflation of the sacred and the profane

Criminality –the piece contravened laws in a given country

Religious impact –the work caused outrage from religious leaders

Political impact –speeches were made by governments, laws were created or changed.

Deaths – outrage at the work led to the death of one or more people"

Now, the only criterion on that list that I take seriously is the deaths caused by homicidal lunatics who were using "offended sensibilities" as an excuse to kill members of their own species -- just because they refuse to become homicidal lunatics. If that ain't blasphemy, then nothing is.

Anyway, it occurred to me that there are probably some items missing from this list. Some that are here oughta be moved out to make room for others that are more deserving.

Nominations are now open.

(I was originally led in this general direction by Bruce, and then I got sidetracked. Don't blame Bruce. I'm easily sidetracked.)

Sunday, March 09, 2008


Some time ago, CC posted this video of k. d. lang singing one of the most beautiful ballads I've ever heard. I had never heard it before (I know that sounds crazy, since it's been around for 24 years, but it's true!), and it's haunted me ever since.

Several singers have recorded their own versions of it (there are apparently some 18 verses written by Leonard Cohen), but nobody can touch k. d. for pure, raw, emotion. And even she has done it differently a few times. This version is the one I like best.

I have a friend who sings with the Vancouver Welsh Men's Choir, and I've found out there are Welsh lyrics. I want the choir to sing this song.

I'm feeling a little obsessed at the moment, thank you.

Monday, March 03, 2008

Add My Name To The Lawsuit, Stevie!

"Mr. Harper filed a notice of libel suit Monday against Mr. Dion, two other top members of his caucus and the party. Court documents obtained by CTV and The Globe and Mail say two articles published on the Liberal website were “devastatingly defamatory” to the Prime Minister.

"The notice of libel, which also names Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff and House Leader Ralph Goodale, takes on the Opposition for saying that Mr. Harper knew Conservative party officials attempted to bribe Mr. Cadman to vote against a Liberal budget in the spring of 2005."


"The libel notice says the articles suggest that Mr. Harper is 'dishonest, unethical, immoral and lack integrity.'"

Okay. I'll do more than suggest it -- I'll make an outright accusation:

Stephen Harper is dishonest, unethical, immoral, and lacks integrity!

And you can add to that list of what I consider to be his attributes: venal, infantile, pusillanimous, odious, retributive, vindictive, inflexible, vituperative, puerile, monomaniacal...dear gods, I don't have enough breath or time to list all his qualities, so I'll simply refer everyone to OneLook and let you all add your own favorites to the list.

Then you can invite him to add your own name to his little lawsuit.

What's he gonna do? Have us all arrested? Have us all sued? Is it, like, treason or something to call the Prime Minister a liar, a coward, and a bully? It might well be, y'know. Remember, in Canada, the truth is no defense against libel!

WTF...lock me up...I need some medical attention, and I'd like it done sooner rather than later, and I'd rather not pay for it myself, so if I go to jail, Harper gets to feed me and house me and see to my needs, and he gets...what? A little notch on his belt buckle?

And I'd like to emphasize that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Harper's politics. It has to do with character, or his complete and utter lack of it.

(H/T CC...the first of many who are on this)

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Losing My Religion

And you know it has nothing to do with religion, doncha?

I'm just so fucking fed up with left-this and right-that and "lieberal" bullshit and "whinge-nut" sewage and all the stupid, feeble, uneducated, childish, moronic, unoriginal, unimaginative, me-tooisms in the blogging world that I'm very tempted to hang it all up and go do something useful. Like digging a moat around my house and stocking it with great white sharks, then inviting stupid people over for dinner.

It makes me furious that people who didn't know Chuck Cadman are making authoritative personal pronouncements about him, based on excerpts from a book that they haven't yet read because it hasn't yet been released!

And it makes me furious that some bloggers who are content to have their own real names out in public make it their special mission in life to reveal the names of other bloggers who prefer to remain anonymous simply because the anonymous bloggers piss them off about something totally fucking inconsequential!

[Note to Mike Brock: So the guy insulted you. Big deal. Your answer to this is to go get your big sister and have her reveal things about him that he preferred to keep to himself? You couldn't just use that space between your ears for something other than a political echo chamber, and fire back an insult of your own? You couldn't think of a better insult than his? You had to try and affect his livelihood, maybe ruin his entire life, just to score a blogging point with your political hive? And you snicker at his level of maturity? You are a pathetic little shadow, you know that?] (H/T to JJ for this one)

And on the speculation that Harper didn't know the details...of course he bloody knew the details! He couldn't not know the details! It woulda driven him crazy not to know! He's a control freak and a micro-manager from hell! Is there anyone in this country who doesn't know that? Oh, there are people who will deny it, but they know it's true.

When the words "insurance policy" were first used in connection with the attempt to bribe Chuck (who was, if anyone is interested, my MP) for his vote, I thought it was a misprint or a misquote. I didn't think that you could get insurance for a man who was already dying. That turned out to be a false assumption on my part, as I found out when I asked some questions.

And just how can anyone get an insurance policy from a reputable company for a man who is terminally ill (it, um, takes a stretch of the imagination to link the word "reputable" with any insurance company, but can do it...)? Very simply, you pay more in premiums than the policy is worth. Go ask any life insurance agent (and not all companies will do this).

And why would someone be willing to do that? Well, current politics aside -- an insurance policy can't be taxed or attached by creditors; it's outside the usual inheritance laws. When an insurance policy is paid out, the entire amount goes to the beneficiary, and it cannot be touched by anyone else. It's the only way to guarantee that a specific amount will be used for a specific purpose.

It's also a great way to launder money.

Everybody followin' me on this?

Now...if I do invite someone over for dinner, any suggestions on what wine to serve?