Canadians dont know Jack...

I guess I have discovered a flaw in my own personal nature. Everytime I hear someone slamming Canadians about something, I have to find an excuse or reason as to why it is and put a nice spin on it to make Canadians come out better than they are. I could have been a spin doctor, and the greatest challenge of all would have been trying to make the Liberal gov't actually appear competant and uncorrupt. But, that aside, I came across this article (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070629/citizenship_poll_070629/20070629?hub=Canada) saying that the majority of Canadians would fail the immigration entrance exam whereas 70% of immigrants to Canada have passed. Now, I have to stand up and make excuses. why? because I obviously have a flawed and weak self esteem and ego.

I wouldnt mind finding the demographics of the said test and find out more. By the bottom information in the above article, it states that the people took 1005 immigrants not born in Canada, and also phone interviewed 1005 Canadian born citizens. Now, from what I remember, unless you are really interested in history or politics, Canadians really dont take any higher education over the earlier grades. Excluding my Canadian history class in university (mandatory for my degree), I think my last class in anything Canadian historical or social studies wise was back in grade 7 in Social Studies. I am going to make an educated guess and say that anyone who has a phone in their name, at home, who would take time away from their life to do a test like this would be in the range of 20+. Why? I would say that a 15 year old these days with a private line to their room would be listed but what 15 year old playing xbox/Wii or any of those other games would actually hit pause long enough to do a phone test when they get that sort of stuff at school, which they probably arent too happy doing for a reward of grades. A 20+, on the other hand, might be interested in how much they remember from their grade school days after watching one too many episodes of "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?". So, a 20+ year old would probably have taken classes in the info that they are asking about 7-10 years ago, and in that time they have learned 5 other grades worth of material, learned how to make the perfect bong from an apple, how to sneak the car out of the drive way to get to a bush party and get it back without daddy kicking their asses, hopefully gotten into university/college, gotten at least 1 or more jobs, gone through interview processes and on and on and on. The amount of information being introduced to a regular person is mind boggling so in the end some information might just have to be put aside and forgotten to make room for others. Let's face it, if you had the choice of retaining one type of information in your head and one of those tidbits was going to help you land a job in the electrical field that would pay you $1,500/month after taxes OR remembering what the three responsibilities that Canadians hold according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada is, which is gonna get dumped first? The only time a natural born Canadian might want to retain that sort of trivia information is if it pertains to the job and can make a living. Other than that, you might as well remember the trivia information of how many tines does the maple leaf have on the flag. Interesting, but useless info.

Immigrants, on the other hand, would have learned that information not too long ago, and if they did learn it long ago, chances are they probably learned it when they were adults and didnt have to have the competition of "remember how to make the perfect bong hit OR remember Canadian political trivia" that born Canadians did in their youth. Canadian trivia all of a sudden took higher importance to learn because they didnt pass the test, they dont become citizens and cant stay here to bring over the rest of their family to live a life of freedom that they were probably denied back in their homeland. What happens if a born Canadian doesnt pass social studies? they take shop class and pick up the credits and graduate or dont graduate and live off mommy and daddy in freedom land for the rest of their lives. No real threat there.

As for the connection between the lack of Canadian trivia information being connected with Canadian apathy for voting and social awareness. I think it is more a case of the gov't being responsible. I mean, with all due respects to the Conservative gov't these days, the gov't powers are basically a farce. There really is no problem solving going on these days on parliament hill to really make a better life. It all seems to be in a fashion of political mud slinging back and forth without actually looking at the problem. When the party isnt in power, most of their efforts and money is being spent on trying to prove that the party in power isnt doing their job and are slacking and wasting tax payers money. While the party in power spends the majority of their time, effort and money trying to defend their positions and only doing a little bit to help the people of the country. So, why vote for any particular party when the end result is the same. Win and waste our money slinging mud on the opposition, or lose and waste our money slinging money at the majority. In the end, the Canadian tax payer loses. Natural born Canadians have figured this war on parliament hill long ago and just have given up and let the morons battle it out, while those immigrants that just came over have this illusion that the parliament powers are actually doing something good for the people. If anything I would love to poll immigrants and mark their length of stay in Canada and measure their personal belief on how much they think the gov't is effective or not. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a direct correlation showing the longer you stay in Canada and learn about actual politics and living in the system and the lower voting or social participation.

It's time we learned our lines
By Licia Corbella (Edmonton Sun)

"O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command."
Familiar words, eh?

Well, at least they should be. Those are the opening lines to Canada's national anthem -- a hymn that has been sung in this country for more than 120 years.

According to a Dominion Institute poll released yesterday, only 58% of Canadians could recite those first two lines.

Apparently, just 16% of those polled could name the four provinces that formed Canada in 1867 -- Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. That's a decline of six percentage points in 10 years.

Oh, Canada! How truly sad!

What's curious is immigrants scored higher than born Canadians on the 21-question test, indicating in part the exam they are required to take prior to being granted citizenship infuses them with a knowledge of their adopted country.

Rudyard Griffiths, who co-founded the Dominion Institute 10 years ago, says we "are fast becoming a nation of amnesiacs who lack basic knowledge about the country's past, its democratic institutions and practices and the physical geography of Canada."

Why is this important? Well, another study by the Association for Canadian Studies clearly shows the more knowledge a citizen has of Canada, the more involved that citizen is in public life and the more likely they are to vote, volunteer and have trust and confidence in our leaders and our country on the whole.

The Dominion Institute has two recommendations to improve this collective amnesia that leads to cynicism. It's calling on all premiers and ministers of education to organize a national citizenship exam for all high school students and it's calling on the feds to create a new passport program that would provide applicants with the opportunity to volunteer to take the citizenship exam when renewing or applying for their passport. That's a great start. But how about actually teaching our kids about their country in school?

Tomorrow marks our "glorious and free" country's 140th birthday.

The closing line of our anthem states: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee."

Can we really stand on guard for something we know so little about?

how the gov't can go about getting rid of those unsightly butts

Oh yes, the Albertan gov't came up with that great idea on how to cut down on the amount of cigarette butts that litter the streets now that smoking indoors has become illegal. They have given out these wonderful little plastic containers for smokers to put their used butts in so that these same smokers can then dispose of them in a tidy fashion at a later date. Thought being, if there isnt an ash tray made available to these people right now, then they can carry it in this container til they find one. There little containers are like the film cases we had back in days of yore. Remember those all you old timers out there? now a few of you young whipper snappers might not remember this strange thing called 'film' but before there was digital camera techonolgy, we used to have to buy 35mm rolls of film (usually 24 exposures, sometimes 36) and it came in a little black plastic case with a grey lid on top. That is what they were circulating to the smokers. Surprisingly enough, it isnt working.

Sitting at home this morning, I read this in the local 'Opinion' section of our Sun news paper:

***
Of course there's a litter problem with butts. Poorly thought out anti-smoking laws just might be to blame. With no ashtrays around, and no smoking anywhere but outside, what else would anybody do but butt out on the ground? Duh!

Gord Schneider

(No butts about it. Blame the smoke-ban bylaw.)
***

I am guessing it was a combination of this opinion and me having to walk a few blocks in the downtown city core that I saw mass amounts of smokers, out on their lunch breaks, huddled into nooks and crannies of the buildings to stay out the of wind, smoking away. No matter where I looked I couldnt see an ash tray for blocks, but the area around these smokers was littered with butts. So, I rationalized the problem.

PROBLEM: cigarette litter is not the cigarette but the butts..what are butts, but only the filter of said cigarette.

SOLUTION: get rid of the filter!

Here is where my thoughts went. Careful now, they wander like a little 4 year old in a mall filled with puppy dogs, kitty cats and gum drops being tossed around. Filters really dont DO anything in a cigarette. (http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigbuttfilters.htm) The main thing that a filter seems to do is keep the tobacco out of the smokers mouth, allow the cigarette have a mouth piece so it wont collapse and will filter out some of the vapours and smoke. So, what does a filter do? By the sounds of it, it makes a cigarette safer in that it filters out the unwanted qualities but lets in the wonder addictive portions of the cigarette to keep people smoking more. Cause, lets face it, who would continue to smoke a cigarette after the first time if it was like literally sticking your head over a camp fire and sucking in pure smoke? Cigarettes are supposed to be cool. Cool is supposed to be dangerous. I mean, when was the last time you saw a harely davidson motor cycle flying down the highway doing 140km/hour with a guy sitting on the bike straped in with so many safety devices that he looked like he was wrapped in pillows, with training wheels on his bike, and you said "now that is cool"? You would say "that is cool" when you see a guy with just leather pants and leather vest, no helmet, flying down the highway on a bike doing 140km/hour, sticking it to the man and laughing in the face of danger. Hey, never said 'cool' and 'smart' were linked either. So, dangerous is cool, taking pain is cool, taking discomfort and keep doing it is cool. So, lose the filters, make cigarettes incredibly painful to smoke and totally unenjoyable. Who wants to keep smoking a cigarette when you have to keep spitting out pieces of tobacco? just the incredibly addicted.

I can now hear you saying "but then the streets will still have trash on them cause the smokers will just smoke what they can and then throw the litle bit of paper at the end on the ground". True, there might be a few little bits of paper, but they would either blow away or be washed away in the rain. BUT, I hypothesis that there wont be any pieces of paper or tobacco thrown on the street. Why? simple. Have you ever seen a group of people smoke a marijuanna joint, get to the end (no filters) and then toss the butts on the ground and walk away? hell no! These people invented the idea of a roach clip (a sort of alligator clip device that they can use to hold the 'roach' up to their lips so not to burn their fat fingers as they get that last few puffs of marijuanna) so they wouldnt be throwing away a lot of butts. Also, even when they have smoked as much as they can and their lips burn cause the heat is getting too close, they will still lick their fingers and either grab the flame bit and put it out so that they can put the roaches into a container with their other roaches so that they can roll one more joint later; or they will just pop the roach in their mouth and eat it. So, if we lose the filter, put the tobacco of the cigarette right up to their mouths, these smokers will most likely smoke that cigarette right up to the last puff and then save the cigarette for later, or bring their own roach clip to get the last few puffs.

Why am I so sure about that? simple...price. Lets say you walk into a restaurant and you order a steak and it comes with all this paper garnish of an umbrella, green pieces of paper and stuff and it only cost $2 for the whole meal. Well, you would leave the garnish and probably leave whatever of the steak you couldnt eat because it was cheap and all. Now, order that same steak, no garnish but the steak cost you $35. You will not only try to eat every last bite of that steak but chances are if you ate it all but 2 bites, you would ask for the waiter to bring you those two bites to go because it was so expensive.

How does that fit with cigarettes with no filters? simple, all have to do is raise the cost of cigarettes (as they are sky rocketing now) to the point that the 'steak' stops costing $2 and now costs $35. Smokers will then smoke as much as they can, put out the fire, save their cigarette 'roaches' and take them home and roll their own cigarette in their house or workplace and can then dispose of their garbage as they see fit. Then, it doesnt matter if they just throw the papers on the ground like they do in public, because now they are rolling in their own private place and the only thing that they are messing up is their own dwellings.

So, in the end, if we get the gov't to stop trying to educate people on smoking but simply make laws making cigarettes less enjoyable to smoke (no filters), then they might have a chance at killing two birds with one stone. They would curb the butt litter problem AND more than likely stop kids from starting to smoke at a young age by making it a horribly experience to begin trying.

crazy vision test

wow..all I can say...wow...I failed miserably...how well do you do?

squirrel gone wild!

Ever wonder what animals do in their spare time in the forest when no one else is watching? especially when those animals get their hands on some seriously funked up acorns? yeah, this is what happens when squirrels...go bad!

Look into the mind of the twisted

All I can say is that I wonder if I am a typical guy, growing up with typical fantasies that carried on into the adult life. I mean, what guy didnt grow up with a sort of fantasy for either a cartoon character or childhood television program. Granted, fantasizing about the Teletubbies does sort of send creepy shivers up my spine, but thinking that a guy was fantasizing about Zelma from Scooby Doo or Judie Jetson from the Jetsons is just plain normal. Even take it to the adult shows and imagine bedding Sarah Sidle from CSI or, even better, Abby from NCIS, or any of the women from Bay Watch.

Though, listen to this:



Now, wouldnt it be just plain out funny and a turn on to be getting all romantic and hot and heavy and then all of a sudden have the girl go 'pik-a-chu'. Or, do a little bit of a strip tease for you and going the long drawn out 'pika---pika---chu'. Yeah, maybe that does put me into the realm of Teletubbies, but still, she is kind of cute, wouldnt you say?

legal drug induced mind wanderings

Now that I am sitting at home, flat on my butt, pumped up with mild drugs, strange things have come to my mind that make me think. Like...

Ok, they found out that mercury liquid will shrink or expand based on tempurature. But, how did they know how to set the thermometer? I mean, you can put the mercury in the glass tube and see it rise and fall as the tempurature gets hotter and colder, but how did they know where to put the line for zero or other degrees? Not like the scientist at the time sat down with the first thermometer and said "right, water freezes at 0'C, so we will put the line here...and of course, that would mean water boils at 100'C, so *after sticking the thermometer into a pot and noticing when it first starts to boil* there is 100'C" and then make equal marks up and down the thermometer. Or, perhaps he did, to which case then perhaps they measured incorrectly and in fact, water boils at 50'C and we have too many degrees up and down the dial. Then what about the fahrenheit scale? what caused a person to sit down and go "right, water freezes at 32'F and steams at 212'F"? not like they are starting and ending points like celsius, they are mid points. But, again, it all comes down to the point at how did the scientists know where to put the marks on the thermometer?

Also, with the increase of plastic surgery and little things to help improve our bodies and looks, will there ever be a time when ugliness will be totally eradicated or will there always be ugly people? I mean, right now, people can say "my nose is too long and I am ugly, so I will make my nose look better" or straighten their teeth, liposuction to lose weight, breast implants to increase bust size. Some scientists say that beauty is actually trying to get a symetrical look to the body. If one of your eyes is lower than the other, or your ears are at a different angle, then you might be considered ugly. For instance, hunchbacks and rejects in myth and fiction are always portrayed as being uneven and definitly unsymetrical so they look ugly. Well, with the plastic surgery, we can remake our bodies completely so that we all become perfectly symetrical, perfectly balanced, perfect looking. In that case, will ugliness be totally erased from our minds, or will ugliness still exist, just in a relative fashion? And, if ugliness is totally erased and beauty reigns supreme, does that mean that personality will then be taken as the only way to find a mate? in which case, does that mean that the world is really in trouble?

surgery done, now I get to heal

Well, my surgery is done and I am in the process of healing. All I can say is morophene really doesnt hold the punch that I supposed from movies about drug addiction. Usually when I see a person addicted to morophene they always portray it as a fantastically wonderful drug that makes them relax, feel good and almost gives an orgasmic feel. After I came out of surgery, I told the nurse on a scale of 1-10 for pain (1 being nothing, 10 being painful) I said I was at 8 and she shot me up with a needle of morophene and gravol. I sat there waiting for the buzz to kick in and spent most of my time looking at the ceiling than anything else. So, as it stands, morophene is a real let down.

Though, can't snub my nose up at Tylenol 3s, that is for sure. Came home from the surgery, climbed into bed and past out through the night, though felt discomfort everytime I shifted. Spent the morning in a chair and felt discomfort and pain, then around the afternoon I went and got my T3 prescription filled. Only one pill and I crawled into bed for a 1 hour nap and now I can sit in my chair, walk around, lay down, get up and get down with only mild discomfort and not the pain I was experiencing from the three slices to my belly. So, yeah, end result, morophene is a dude but T3s rock!

so, now I am on my butt for 4-6 weeks to recover and then back to glorious work. Oh, how I long for work again. The excitment, the fun, the thrill...nothing is worse than being on extended sick medical leave.

Stupidity Documentary

I have just finished watching a fantastic movie and have to tell people. Chances are if you are not living in Canada, you probably would not have heard of this movie, and chances are you will never have the opportunity to watch it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399704/

"Stupidity" directed by Albert Nerenberg has got to be one of the most interesting, amusing and eye opening documentary that I have seen in a bit. It is sort of like a Michael Moore film without the hatred and biased view. Basic idea of Stupidity: the world is growing stupidier by the moment, the gov't breeds stupidity as a form of social control, we actually put high regard and coolness on stupidity and shun genius (smart people arent attractive, whereas stupid people in movies are attractive and desirable). The film makers use quotes from psychologists and theories of people that have written books on the subject of stupidity and how we can make our lives better if we get stupid. One such author is T.O. Strong (who just happens to be one third of the genius musicians who are The Arrogant Worms) with the book "Get Stupid".

In "Get Stupid" you will actually discover the fabulous 7 step program to increase your stupidity and make your life easier. Here are the seven steps:

The Seven Steps to Bliss!
1: Stop thinking! — empty your brain!
2: Shift the Blame! — blame others!
3: Lose touch with your feelings! — delete your emotions!
4: Build Walls! — keep out everything but you!
5: Avoid Challenges! — never fail by never trying to succeed!
6: Believe in Yourself! — love you and only you!
7: Deny, Deny, Deny! — your truth is the only truth!

And, as T.O. Strong will say in the documentary "the best thing about achieving absolute stupidity is that you will never really know when you have acquired stupidity. To purchase this book go to "http://www.getstupid.biz/index.html"

All I can say is that this documentary is just plain and simple common sense where you have to listen to what they are saying, listen to the quotes from the 'experts' and look at the evidence and you will actually find yourself nodding and agreeing with them. It is quite the documentary, and I think I have said enough except, if you can find it, watch it.

House of Horror offenders and my take

There are many things that make me wonder about the justice system and how we can or can not raise our children. First off, I would like to say that I agree with the defence attorney in that the "assaults were simply legal punishment for corrective measures." Everytime that you raise your hand to spank your child you are guilty, technically if you take the definition of assault literally, of a battery charge. As for the assault, we have all been guilty of some form of assault in moments of rage. I mean, how many people out there can honestly and truely say that they have never uttered the words "I will kill you if you come one step closer" or "if you dont step back I will knock your teeeth down your throat" or any other form of threat to another person that is pushing you one step over the edge? There is a moment in every persons life that you have said that. Now you may not have followed through with it, but you did threaten it, and I am sure at the moment of rage, you actually meant it that you could do that to the person if they pushed you one more step farther. So, who is to say that a spank on the bottom is over the top when disciplining a child? what about spanking a bare bottom? what about spanking with a wooden spoon? can we honestly say that beating them with a tire iron is wrong, but a wooden spoon is acceptable, and a baseball bat is debateable and in the middle ground?

So the judges decision to charge the parents with "assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, common assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats of bodily harm" is an unfair tragedy of justice. But, the charges of "possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime" were all justified crimes that should be punished. Drugs are becoming a menace to society and should be taken off the streets and by getting the traffickers and not the addicts, you are helping to clean up the streets.

What would I have done if I were the judge? Simple. I would have dropped the charge on the whole assault, even turned a blind eye to the sexual assault, but given them at least 10 years in maximum security for the drug charges. Lenient you say? well, consider this. If the defense attorney suggested that handcuffing, beating and sexually assaulting this little girl was justified punishment for any crime in the house that a 4 year old could do, and let's face it, what could a 4 year old do in a house for a punishment? talk back to mommy? spill the milk? All of these would be considered minor crimes compared to the horrible crime of drug trafficking. Now, who would know better on how to handle punishments like beatings, sexual assaults, handcuffs and other forms of disciplinary actions than those individuals that are in prison themselves? Since this poor girl didn't have police, guards or wardens to over see the punishment to say if it had gone too far or administer medical aide in the case of problems, I say take away the guards and the wardens in the maximum prison that these drug trafficking monsters are held. I am sure that after 10 years of getting anal raped in the shower, raped with notched broom sticks, beaten every night, teeth knocked out so they can't bite down on anythings shoved in their mouths and even give the disciplinary people ropes/binders/handcuffs to help restrain during disciplinary action, these drug traffickers will learn not to do it.

Best thing, since a lawyer suggests that handcuffing and beating a child is "legal punishment for corrective measures", then this is totally legal and acceptable behavior for us to give to the adult criminals of today. Don't you just love it when the law agrees with torture?

'King of castle' guilty
Judge convicts man on multiple charges of sex assault and torture of little girl
By TONY BLAIS, COURT BUREAU

A judge ruled yesterday an Edmonton man accused of torturing a four-year-old girl in a so-called "house of horror" was both the "king of the castle" and the dirty rascal.

Darcy Bannert, 25, was yesterday convicted of sexually abusing the little girl as well as assaulting her by both handcuffing her in the basement and tormenting the liquid-deprived child by spraying her with a water bottle.

The girl's 22-year-old mother, who cannot be named to protect the identity of her daughter, was also found guilty of assault for punching and slapping the girl and for causing the child to be in need of protective services.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Darlene Acton ruled the girl, who is now five and in the care of Alberta Child and Family Services, was the victim of systemic abuse in a home where Bannert was not only growing and selling pot, but dealing in a twisted form of discipline.

"The evidence is clear that Mr. Bannert was the king of this castle and he ruled over this household with an iron fist," said Acton in a lengthy ruling.

She found Bannert "controlled everything in the home," including the spray bottle and handcuffs used to "torment" the girl "for his own amusement," and said the child's mother was "submissive" and scared of him.

"Everyone who lived in that home was afraid of Mr. Bannert," said Acton.

The judge rejected defence arguments that the assaults were simply legal punishment for corrective measures.

"It can only be described as abusive and an outrage to the standards of decency," said Acton.
As the ruling went on and the convictions mounted, both Bannert and the girl's mother sank lower in the prisoner's box, slumping forward with their heads bowed.

In total, Bannert was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, common assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats of bodily harm, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime.

After the judgment, the girl's mother, who remains free on bail, left the courtroom quickly. A sentencing date is slated to be set on June 25.

At trial, court heard the victim made spontaneous disclosures to a foster mom revealing Bannert had sexually assaulted her in the bathtub, handcuffed her by her feet in a dark basement and locked her to an iron grate.

Court has heard the girl has been diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Eyewitnesses testified seeing the girl being handcuffed to a box and made to stand on it, being punched and slapped and being deprived of water.

One witness said the girl was so desperate for something to drink that she once drank a mixture of Miracle-Gro liquid fertilizer and water used for the Christmas tree.

There was also evidence of the girl drinking her own urine, being forced to sit with Bannert on the couch while he watched porn, and dancing "like a stripper."

In her closing argument, Crown prosecutor Shelley Bykewich described the home as a "house of horror" where the child lived in a "state of constant terror."

Lady Godiva they AINT!

Granted, this isn't the strangest thing that I have ever heard being done in forms of protest. I mean, they could have gone stranger, but I guess this isn't the first nude ride in a form of taxation protest. Since Lady Godiva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Godiva) did her first buff ride through the city in protest of taxation, why not these people? but whereas Godiva was protesting tax on land, we are now protesting tax on gas.

I would like to say more, but will leave this by just saying...HOW come the majority of the people getting naked and riding are men? I mean, if more women rode naked, you might get more media exposure. Oh well, this was one ride that I am glad I missed watching.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070609/nude_cyclists_070609/20070609?hub=Canada

Nude cyclists protest gas-powered transport
Sat. Jun. 9 2007 5:06 PM ET

MONTREAL -- When Michel Perrault headed out for a bike ride on Saturday, he made sure to fasten his helmet and slip into his birthday suit.

Perrault was one of about 30 nude cyclists who pedalled through the streets of Montreal to draw attention to the excessive use of gas-powered vehicles.

"I certainly wouldn't do it if I didn't have to, but I want to be part of the gang. I want to prove the point,'' he said, while waiting for the event to start.

"I want to get undressed in front of everybody and show them I am completely free of any kind of shame.''

Instalments of the World Naked Bike Ride were also expected to roll in several European cities, as well as the United States, Japan and Mexico.

In Canada, in-the-buff cyclists planned to take to the streets of Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Moncton.

Montreal participants -- the vast majority of whom were men -- followed a 30-minute route through the city's trendy Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood.

Word of the demonstrators' breezy ride stirred more than 200 people to the starting line, where dozens of gawkers snapped photos and captured video.

As the sun beat down near the starting line, a waft of sunblock filled the air.

Some bikers were also careful to address another area of concern -- the comfortable ride.
Perrault slapped his oversized, gel-filled bike seat and predicted his bare rump would be just fine.

The Montreal resident said his participation was geared more towards supporting nudists than saving the planet.

"I'm an ardent environmentalist, but I've given up,'' said Perrault. "As far as I'm concerned we're too late.''

Organizer Eric Lemieux was pleased the event managed to lure curious onlookers.
"If I wasn't naked you wouldn't be interviewing me,'' Lemieux said. "This would be just a regular bike ride that wouldn't interest anyone.

"The means we used to attract attention, which seems to have worked, is nudity.''
But not everyone was comfortable with the public display of skin.

"I find that this is a provocation and I sincerely believe there needs to be more citizens like me who say `No' to this type of thing,'' shouted Edith Simard, a local resident.

"They shouldn't be allowed to do this.''

However, Montreal police gave the event a green light.

A police spokesman says the naked pedallers have the right to demonstrate as long as there is no crude behaviour.

"They're not doing that just to show their parts or anything like that,'' said Const. Raphael Bergeron.

"It's just a way to protest. It's not an indecent act (and) that's why nobody will be arrested.''
Meanwhile, cyclist Jean-Guy Beaulieu, who travelled 120 kilometres from Drummondville, Que. for the demonstration, compared being naked in front of a crowd of people to holding a sign at a protest.

He said the event enabled him to support naturism and environmentalism, which are both close to his heart.

"There are ways to save on gas and save the planet as well,'' he said. "We have to use (gas) rationally and stop continuously developing big engines (for cars).''

At the start of the tour, cyclists had to weave their way through a gauntlet of spectators and were followed closely by police cruisers.

what have you done for me....today!!?!??!?

I was listening to a comedy routine (I know, all my thoughts seem to come from comedy routines and not really readings) the other day and one comedy mentioned that to make a marriage/relationship work, you have to provide reassurance to your loved one that you find them attractive and stimulating. Even something mentioned in passing in a talk show mentioned that with sexual relations in a relationship waning into the evening years, it is not that the woman needs sex as a form of sexual gratification but more a reassurance that her husband finds her sexy and desirable.

Why is it that women seem to have such great memories for fights and disagreements in the relationship past, but when it comes to reassurance of their desirability or attractiveness, or even the love of their husband, the men constantly have to say it again and again, or do many actions. I mean, I get the feeling that in some relationships a guy could climb the tallest mountain, do death defying acts, obey every single tiny whim of the object of his desire right down to gross acts to huge momentous acts over a course of a year and then, after he has completed the tasks and sure that the woman gets the fact that 'yes, he loves you!' she turns to him the next morning and says "you left the toilet seat up...you hate me dont you? you think I am disgusting! you left the seat up 2 years ago! you obviously have no respect for me!" Why cant women keep that sort of memory for the good of the relationship and not the bad? why cant women say "you gave me flowers 2 years ago...you obviously love me" instead of "you never compliment me on my hair cuts in the 3 years I have known you, and you didnt notice the 1/8th of an inch I cut off my bangs this morning. You never pay attention to me and take me for granted!"?

Though, I guess if women werent like this (tempermental, confusing, selective memory), we would call them Alhandro and they would be gay men, right?

DUCKS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh yeah baby! This is what I am talking about. When these Mighty Ducks first came on the hockey scene back in 1993, I sort of had a cheer for them and felt that they were the true underdogs of the sport. After all, I have mentioned the guts and balls it takes for these guys to actually join a team where you walk in and say "yeah, I am a Duck" to a hot chick in a bar. Doesnt really inspire a lot of power and all does it? I then got the idea that I had to cheer for the ducks so that, just once, on the mighty Stanley Cup, next to the power names of the mighty NHL as the Senators, Rangers, Bruins, Canadians, Black Hawks, Red Wings, Flyers, Islanders, Oilers, Flames, Penquins, Devils, Avalanche, Stars, Lightening, Hurricane, there could be the proud, yet incredibly dorky and geeky, name of the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. The other night, in an amazing 6-2 game win over the Senators, winning the series at 4 games to 1, the Anaheim Mighty Ducks quacked their into the right to have their names carved on that holiest of holy cups in Canada. The cup that is soooo sacred to us Canucks that there was more muttering and uncomfortability sending the cup (http://www.thestar.com/article/209629) to Kandahar then possibly sending our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the field to cheer on the troops. Chances are, the troops were more excited to see that hunk of silver than to see the Prime Minister. But yes, now, after 13 years of fighting and struggle, the Anaheim Mighty (they shall always be 'Mighty' in my mind even though they may have dropped the name officially) Ducks will have their name forever inscribed on the trophy and 2006/2007 shall ever be known as "The Year Of The Ducks!"

Now that the Ducks have their name on the trophy, what other possible team now is in the NHL that has a geekier and dorkier name than The Mighty Ducks? I mean, dont suppose Moose Jaw wants to start up a team and call themselves The Moose Jaw Powerpuffgirls?

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


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070606/stanley_cup_070606/20070606?hub=Canada


http://www.mightyducks.com/press/release/topstory.php?dir=200604&id=1741


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

punishment or rate of punishment as crime deterant?

Ahhh, I love summer. Well, I hate the incredibly high heat, the hot stale air, the feel of sweat on your back and legs forming and making your clothes stick to your body uncomfortably, but I do really enjoy walking around town seeing all the ladies in their low cut blouses and high cut skirts to beat the heat. Yep, summer is a great time of year. So, out and about was I and came across two things that made me think while I walked, as well as enjoying the natural beauty that us Canucks have walking around.

First was when I walked in to do some shopping at a mall. I had previously been to the library and gotten a few movies (gotta love it, $12/year membership and free movies and CDs all year round, and if the movies are in one of the many branches around the city, I just put a hold on it and they will actually deliver it to the library closest to me.) from them and had them in my backpack. So I walked into the store in the mall and sure enough those wonderful beeping devices went off screaming "We are sorry, but there the sales clerk has failed to remove the tags on your items. Please return to the nearest clerk for inspection". Of course, as I heard this I was expecting security officers to jump from the ceiling, drawing fully automatic weapons, ready to open fire on the criminal in their midst. I stood there....waiting...nothing. So I went about my shopping thinking that these attackers in the shadows saw that I was entering and not exiting and therefore I had no merchandise yet. I did my looking around, didn't find what I needed so I went to the customer service counter to let them know that I will beep. I told the ladies at the counter "I have been to the library, I have a few DVDs and CDs in my bag, I am going to beep as I go out", and they just say "don't worry. If you beeped coming in, you will beep going out". Sure enough, I beeped going out.

Now, what got me thinking is that not only did I get no security running up to me as I walked out beeping, but when I told the ladies I was going to beep going out of the store, they didnt ask to see inside my bag. I mean, I could have grabbed something, stuffed it in my bag, and told them I was going to beep due to library DVDs when instead I was going to beep because of the stolen merchandise. The only possible thing that I could possibly think of their security is that the store is covered 100% by security cameras and that the security watches everyone every second, which is sort of hard to believe considering the size of the store, the amount of people in the store. Also, the tags couldn't be dye tags because why would the announcement say "...the sales clerk has failed to remove the tags on your items. Please return to the nearest clerk for inspection.." when if the tags exploded with dyes, they really wouldnt have to return for the clerk for inspection but more '..return to the clerk to be hosed down and the dye rinsed off your theiving ass".

Which lead me to question that I have contantly asked myself, and probably asked once or twice here. Which would be a better deterant for crime, to have a small fine but a gaurantee that you are going to be fined if you do the offence OR have a super high fine/punishment but no real gaurantee that you will get that? If you know that if you jay-walk you are going to get a $1,000 fine but only 25% of the time, would you jay-walk because you could get away with it 75% of the time. But if you jay-walked you will get a $20 fine but it a guarantee that you are going to get caught 100% of the time and have to pay that fine, would you be more or less inclinded to jay-walk? I read that a student at the University of Alberta did a little spontanious study (not really published or anything in any journal, just in the student paper) on LRT paying and fines. For a period of 3 months, he road the LRT from his place to the University in the morning and back again in the evening, and each time he didn't pay the fare but road for free. Now the cost of the fare was (at the time) $2.25/ride, and the fine for fare evasion was $110. In that three month period, he claimed that he was stopped for fare evasion, and fined each time, a total of 4 times. So, in three months, he paid $440. If he had paid the fare all the time, that would have been $405 (30 days/month at 3 months = 90 days at $4.50/day for two trips forward and back). So, for three months travel, he got hit 4 times out of 90 days. That is about a 2% chance that when you ride the LRT you are going to get busted if you don't pay the fare, considering he actually rode the LRT 180 times (90 days at 2 times per day). So, let's average that out shall we? If you ride for 100 times, at a 2% chance of getting caught and having to pay the fine of $110/time, that would mean that by paying the fine you are paying $220 for the use of the LRT. BUT if you pay the fare for those 100 times, you are spending $225 (but now $250 since the price has gone up to $2.50/trip). So, in the long run, pay the fare or pay the fine, either which way, the law of averages over the long haul means you are paying roughly the same in fines as you do in fares, perhaps less now in fines than in fares due to the price increase.

IF the fine was a larger amount, say $1,000/fare evasion, would people be more willing to pay the fare even though the 2% chance of getting fined was there, or would people be more willing to pay the fare if the fine stayed at $110 but there was a guarantee of 100% of getting busted? An interesting experiment, wouldn't you say?

The other thought that I had when walking away with this thought in my head was a bit of graffiti on a construction plywood fence. "Speak Out....Silence is Violence!". Which is worse? speaking out against everything and anything with no real constraint or belief, or speaking out against nothing? It is always good to speak out and say something, but it is always better to have something to say...

Anyone else find the amusment in that last sentence being written by myself after having an entire entry of rambling nonsense, or is it just me??????