Shiny once accused me of watching Zeitgeist as well... I always thought it was a 9/11 conspiracy film... I half want to see the film now to see how it goes from Christ myth to 9/11 conspiracy...

Apologist always like pointing out that things that don't matter when talking about the stuff like Horis, the Babylonian Lord of the Harvest and other gods who died and resurrected. There is plenty of pre-Christian stories of them. True the specific details are often post-Christianity, but the general concept has been around long before the Old Testament was put down to paper, back when was just a verbal story passed from generation to generation... somehow avoiding the issues that come up when one plays the telephone game... and somehow avoiding all the errors that we know and can prove cropped up after it was written and copied by hand. When the Israelites were in Babylon, they learned of a Babylonian god which was a god of harvesting, and he sacrificed himself and rose again. It doesn't matter if the time frame of the resurrection was added after Christianity came around, the general story itself existed before Christianity, indeed even before the Old Testament was written in any sort of form we have available today.

I think two important videos relate:
http://videosift.com/video/A-History-of-God-Part-1
http://videosift.com/video/Dr-Bart-Ehrman-Historically-accurate-criticism-of-the-Bible

<snipped a long rant about Christians shopping or going to restaurants on Sunday after church, thereby making people who may have wanted to be at church have to work instead and a lot more...>

There is just so much one has to take on faith... not only the existence of God, but that the errors from repeating the stories, even after they were written down, were God's will, and that the version used by translators is the one God wanted to use, not earlier, supposedly more accurate to the source versions (the Dr. Bart Ethrman video linked above is a nice one for that, in regards to the story of the woman at the well not being in the original texts or commentaries for centuries, but then it appears and everyone likes it so it stuck). You have to take it on faith that not only did fallible men who preserved the word, copied it (errors made not being a result of fallibility but of divine will), translated it, etc. did everything they did perfectly in regards to the Bible. Then fallible men at the Council of Nycea and others that established the books that are generally accepted, somehow were the only ones to become infallible when picking the books that would be in the Bible... differences between the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible being ignored because many protestants say Catholics aren't even Christian anyhow...Then you have to take it on faith that every person since those times who has had a revelation from God is crazy. You also have to take it on faith that every book or document relating to the church that has been found since then was hidden by God. All to create the perfect infallible word of god...

Anyhow, I am getting off track and enough feeding the troll.

"The illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship" ... And this is bad because?

"We turn to technology to help us feel connected in ways we can comfortably control" ... You say it like its a bad thing.

"Being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved" ... Actually no, I'm fine with alone. It is other people that need stuff that feels like a problem that needs to be solved.

"Constant connection is changing the way people think of themselves" ... Yep that's the way it has always been. I bet there was someone like her when the telephone was invented, and when the radio was invented, and when the TV was invented. The world is changing, and I am cool with it.

And then she ends the talk, talking about learning to be alone with ourselves. Hmm, as someone who never texts, never bring a cellphone anywhere, only talks to people at work because that is what I am paid to do, and does not even have a twitter account, I guess she wasn't talking to me.

What's worse is having more written stuff (signs, labels, warnings, etc) in NON-national languages than in the actual national language. Product packaging anymore, especially instructions are horribly translated English...but even in store stuff is more Spanish than English in a lot of places.

Or where the default option on a telephone call isn't English, that you have to type in a number to get English when it's the national language. Even on government related stuff...I don't get the bending of everything to suit non-English speakers. And if you do speak another language they offer, you get faster service because less people actually use it.........seriously.

I would expect no other country in the world to switch predominately over to English, even in their government offerings so much so that the people who speak the non-native language end up having an easier (and faster) time than the people who use the native language.

I like the original much better.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Thanks for posting this, I always thought Blondie had written it.

OMG! We were still watching those Bell Telephone Science movies in school in the 70s. "Our Mr. Sun", anyone?

Wait.. he's driving WHILE recording video on his mobile telephone..

..and she's meant to be the dumb one?

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

Who'd have thought that you make iced coffee by cooling coffee down and pouring it over ice. I never would have guessed! I'm looking forward to next week's lesson 'breathing in and out, the basics' but I'm not sure I'm ready for the more advanced stuff like 'Bass drums and telephone boxes; a mystery unravelled' but I did manage to find my ass with both hands the other day though, so there's still hope for me

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This is similar to what happened here http://www.popehat.com/2010/04/14/embarrass-a-cop-in-maryland-thatll-be-five-years-in-jail/

However on September 27, 2010, some criminal charges against Graber were dropped. Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.

This situation is no different.

>> ^millertime1211:

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).
This doesn't apply to public spaces where there is no expectation of privacy.

Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).

You mean somthing like Cockney Rhyming Slang?

"telephone" is replaced by "dog" (= 'dog-and-bone')
"wife" by "trouble" (= 'trouble-and-strife')
"eyes" by "minces" (= 'mince pies')
"wig" by "syrup" (= 'syrup of figs')
"feet" by "plates" (= 'plates of meat')

Resulting in...
"It nearly knocked me off me plates—he was wearing a syrup! So I got straight on the dog to me trouble and said I couldn't believe me minces."

Throw in a bit of an accent and there you have it, pure gibberish.

Totally lemon right mate?


>> ^Phreezdryd:

It's not just the accents, but the different lingo or slang you may not be familiar with that can make what they're saying sound incomprehensible.

Hrm, interesting since I am drunk... But you said, "Also too," which makes all that you wrote moot! Ha, also can mean "too!" I win!

All jokes aside...the constitution, as I said, is understood backwards by Paul. If it isn't wrote, the government has the ability to do (At least the State.)

Universal healthcare is legal, not because of the commerce clause...but because it is.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?

For the record, I'm not a strict constructionist. However, I do recognize the danger of looser interpretations, even though I'm politically moderate person. I don't have a good answer for example about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because that law was sorely needed, but it sure does open Pandora's box about what the gov't can and can't regulate. Regulation of interstate commerce allowed for things like environmental regulation, the formation of the EPA, etc. But it sure can cause the gov't to regulate things it shouldn't, too.

The formation of an Air Force though is an easier argument constitutionally, and it's a useful thing to review because it illustrates the thought process of the Supreme Court. When something isn't outright said in Article I, Section 8, those powers in combination with interpretting other sections such as the Preamble ("provide for the common defense..."), or sometimes other documents the forefathers wrote such as the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc., provide ideas about their intent. It's clearly implied that since they could form an Army and Navy for defense, once flight was possible, it's implied we need an Air Force.

As to the things below you're saying should be put to a vote, they are, but not directly by the people. That's how the Amendment process works. Should it be a direct vote by the people? In my opinion, that would be a horrible idea. The people simply for the most part do not understand the ramifications of amending the Constitution.

>> ^NetRunner:

@heropsycho ahh, but you do need to be careful with the whole "enumerated powers" malarkey. After all, there's nothing in Article I, Section 8 about Congress being able to create an Air Force -- just an Army and a Navy. The Air Force is unconstitutional.
Also too, it doesn't say the government is allowed to build roads, just "Post roads" for the post office's use! Don't even get us started on things like power lines or telephone cable.
According to the likes of Ron Paul, the Constitution isn't open to even a little bit of reinterpretation, but instead that it's a straightjacket that should constrain the Federal government from doing anything that isn't explicitly listed in Section 8.
Hell, he's even implied that since the Constitution uses the verb "coin" to describe Congress's authority to create money, that paper currency (backed by gold or otherwise) is also unconstitutional.
IMO, I'd be fine with that interpretation, as long as people stopped pretending that the constitution was some holy scripture filled with infinite wisdom passed down to us by messiahs. We should be rewriting and re-ratifying the Constitution to fit with our modern ideals of how things should function.
For example, there should be something in the constitution about the nexus of money and politics, but there isn't.
There should be something more about the legal definition of "people" -- do fetuses or corporations count?
There should be something in there about the Air Force, and the Marines too, for good measure.
Do we have a right to privacy, or don't we?
Right now we mostly let the Supreme Court decide these things by letting them "interpret" a 200 year-old document based on their supposed ability to divine the mental state of the long-dead authors of the sections they feel are relevant.
Why shouldn't those questions be put to a vote?