Apparently my religious dilettantism continues, as my summer and fall flirtation with atheism hasn't really worked out for me. I think the problem is that I consider the world at large to be a cold, brutal and mean-spirited place. This makes atheism attractive in that the idea that there couldn't possibly be a god of any sort jives with how I see the world. What kind of god would create something as flawed as the human race? Either a mean one, a crazy one, or no one (cuz there ain't one).
That said, how the hell can I be expected to get up and face this world every day without some sort of faith in something larger than myself? There's no point in trying to convince myself that things aren't as bad as they seem, because they clearly are. The planet's falling apart, we're all a bunch of shit for brains self-absorbed psychotic children, and if civilization as we know it survives another hundred years I'll be both surprised and bitterly disappointed.
So what to do, what to do? Can't kill yourself, because then you're just nothing, gone without any more shit, but also without any more hope or goodness of any kind. Becoming part of a cold, meaningless void doesn't seem like a good alternative to my current state as part of a cold, meaningless planet featuring occasional bright spots like nice people, good food and puppies.
Still, the bright spots aren't enough to distract me completely from all the dim reality of daily nonsense and pointlessness. I think I need to have some faith in something, and it will probably have to be something supernatural since being a Humanist requires I have faith in humanity, which I generally don't. New problem though: every religion is either an obvious pile of steaming bullshit, a private club for intolerant, violent fuckwads (who a: don't deserve to live on this planet and b: will be in for a major disappointment when they finally shuffle the fuck off this mortal coil and find that instead of pearly gates, multiple virgins, and old friends and family waiting for them they've got a mouth full of dirt and bugs), or loopy-loo la la hippy freaks rambling about runes, crystals, astral plains, fairy tribes and the marvelous history of their ideas which go back either to the pre-Christian era or to 1973, depending on who you ask.
I'm half tempted to go to church, actual mainstream, slightly liberal protestant Christian church, just to see if it will finally make me feel anything. It never has before but at least it's familiar, I've skimmed at least part of the required reading, and I don't have to sacrifice anything/anyone, circumcise myself, give up drinking or sit on a mountain top for 30 years or until I figure things the fuck out, whichever comes first. I'm not excited about this prospect, because I'm fully aware that Christianity is so damned LAME. Maybe the religion itself isn't, I have no idea I've only gone to church. Church is definitely lame, possibly the lamest thing since killing in the name of a god who's sixth rule out of ten is THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Lord have some fucking mercy.
I'll miss atheism in a lot of ways. It's clinical, scientific and seriously less lame than a 10am Sunday service. But it's also cold, hopeless and offers nothing to stave off depression at the state of things as they seem to be. I thought faith in humanity and myself would be enough to get through, but it's not. I don't have faith in the majority of humanity, and I know myself well enough to have faith that I'll occasionally do the right thing, but will do the wrong thing just as often. I also know that even if I did my best for the rest of my life, there's only so much I can do before I'm dirt, and if I don't believe in anything more than mankind I'm going to have to live with the certainty that when I die, things will still be shit for eons to come and all I'll have to show for trying is a weather-beaten headstone and my own private hole in the dirt.
I'm not denying that there's a strong possibility that we're all just sacks of meat who are here for the sole purpose of eventually rotting. What I'm suggesting is that for me personally, I think it might be better if I can convince myself that there is a greater purpose. Whether there really is or not is irrelevant, as long as I believe that there isn't then life is just too depressing for words. On and on we go, generation after generation marching ever onward to what, the day the sun explodes?
Most people I know seem to be capable of living with this idea just fine, since they spend every day being distracted and entertained by the bright, shiny, noisy and utterly pointless pursuits of contemporary western culture. Why on earth would anybody worry about the meaning of life and the purpose behind centuries of evolution and so-called "progress" when Entertainment Tonight is debating the pros and cons of Britney Spears flashing her cooch at the general public and after that everybody's going to Walmart to buy new clothes and vibrators?
Fuck that. Maybe being distracted is what's best for me, but I refuse to let my distraction come in the form of something that costs me only $5.95 a month and comes with batteries, a carrying case and lubricating gel. There has got to be a greater point to this entire process and I am damned well going to find out what that is if it takes me the rest of this life and any others I may or may not have in store. Maybe religion isn't the answer, maybe it's just as lame a distraction as buying a never ending supplies of things that subsequently I can't understand how I ever lived without. But at least it costs less.
Thriftiness: next to godliness.
~Attila
Monday, December 18, 2006
Monday, December 04, 2006
Fuck you Corporate Xmas
You're enough to make me convert. Happy any other goddamned holiday everybody.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
All News is Good News (so far)
Donald Rumsfeld, in case anyone reading this has been living in a cave for the past 6 years, is the man largely responsible for losing the Iraq war. (Yes, America's lost the war. Mission Accomplished indeed.) More importantly, it's just been announced that after 6 years of doggedly making the world a more unstable place, Rumsfeld is RESIGNING today!
Now, just announce that the Democrats have won the Senate and I can go pass out from sheer relief. Ah optimism, how I've missed you.
Now, just announce that the Democrats have won the Senate and I can go pass out from sheer relief. Ah optimism, how I've missed you.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
A New Hope?
Keep your fingers crossed, results are still coming in for the US mid-term erections. Listen to NPR's live coverage and enjoy the refreshingly liberal bent.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
I heart news bloopers
So fucking funny. God I almost pissed myself. The first one's hilarious. I hope she lived.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
A little from Column A...
According to this article, a recent study published in the Journal of Religion and Society found a correlation between religiousity and anti-social behaviour.
Colour me shocked.
I've been on a bit of an anti-religious crusade for a few posts now so I should probably clarify somthing. I don't personally think that religion is an entirely bad thing. It does have some good moments. Take for example the Anglican church's new position on causing environmental damage. It's a sin! Apparently that whole thing where we're all "stewards of the earth" was meant more as "Yo, take care of this shit" than "Yo, you own this now so do whatever shit you feel like to it".
I only have one problem with this. Anglicans who decide after this to do a better job at not raping the planet are only doing it because their church tells them to. Why couldn't these people come to the realization that they shouldn't shit where they live earlier, on their own?
Don't take me wrong, I am very, very happy to see the Anglican church taking this stance. However, my fear is that someday some church leader will change his (or her... snicker) mind and decide that Christians are masters of the world again and can shit to their hearts content.
Instead of blindly following whatever moral guidelines are being handed out, I'd be much happier if everyone, religious and not-religious alike, would just stop and consider what we personally feel is right and wrong. Once we've got things sorted into two groups, we should look at each thing and ask: why is it in this column? Can I really back this up on my own, or is "Because it is" the best I can come up with? If it is, maybe it's in the wrong column.
Then again, if we all did this nothing would get done for weeks. Even worse, we might end up with a severe shortage of flip charts and magic markers.
(That would go in Column B.)
Colour me shocked.
I've been on a bit of an anti-religious crusade for a few posts now so I should probably clarify somthing. I don't personally think that religion is an entirely bad thing. It does have some good moments. Take for example the Anglican church's new position on causing environmental damage. It's a sin! Apparently that whole thing where we're all "stewards of the earth" was meant more as "Yo, take care of this shit" than "Yo, you own this now so do whatever shit you feel like to it".
I only have one problem with this. Anglicans who decide after this to do a better job at not raping the planet are only doing it because their church tells them to. Why couldn't these people come to the realization that they shouldn't shit where they live earlier, on their own?
Don't take me wrong, I am very, very happy to see the Anglican church taking this stance. However, my fear is that someday some church leader will change his (or her... snicker) mind and decide that Christians are masters of the world again and can shit to their hearts content.
Instead of blindly following whatever moral guidelines are being handed out, I'd be much happier if everyone, religious and not-religious alike, would just stop and consider what we personally feel is right and wrong. Once we've got things sorted into two groups, we should look at each thing and ask: why is it in this column? Can I really back this up on my own, or is "Because it is" the best I can come up with? If it is, maybe it's in the wrong column.
Then again, if we all did this nothing would get done for weeks. Even worse, we might end up with a severe shortage of flip charts and magic markers.
(That would go in Column B.)
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
More Comedy Than A Growing Pains Marathon
Remember Kirk Cameron's "God exists because this banana tells me so" video clip?
How would you like to see the ENTIRE 30 MINUTE EPISODE?
How would you like to see the ENTIRE 30 MINUTE EPISODE?
Monday, August 14, 2006
God Bless You Madalyn Murray
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."
Sunday, August 13, 2006
All the king's horses and all the king's men...
It's prediction time again! Today I'm forcasting that sometime in the next few decades, Canada's unwieldy, half-hearted confederation will collapse and a handful of new countries will be built on its ruins. I'm not sure when this will happen, but I do think it's more or less unavoidable.
This isn't something that necessarily makes me happy. Canada's been good to me and I like it enough, but I still doubt that it will last much longer. So the question now has to be, how will we put this part of N. America back together again? Will it be only two countries, Quebec and the remains of Canada? I doubt it very much, but it's a possibility. I think it's much more likely that when Canada falls off the wall we'll end up with a bunch of new, much smaller independent nations.
I've been thinking about this since I read an article the other day about how many times in the past 50 years we've seen breakup of large countries into smaller ones. (eg: British Empire, Yugoslavia, Czecholovakia, USSR, Somalia unofficially, etc.) The point the writer was trying to make was that smaller countries are more economically viable (think Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Taxhavenia, etc.), and are often more democratic (assuming it's easier to have your voice heard when there are less people shouting).
I'm not sure if I agree with his premise, but if/when Canada has a great fall I'm willing to put his theories to the test. That said, how do you think Canada should be divided up?
Here's how I'd like to see it, please leave your own ideas in the comments.
1. Atlantic Canada, although preferably with a better name. We'd have to be sure that we kept Labrador out of Quebec's clutches, but Newfies are tough bastards so it shouldn't be too hard.
2. Quebec. Honestly, I'd probably still want to live in Montreal even if Quebec becomes a separate country.
3. Ontario, although I'm sure they'd still call themselves Canada and probably wouldn't even notice that anything had changed.
4. Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I'm not sure why, but I think a country made up out of these two provinces would be one of the coolest possible results. I don't know enough about Manitoban and Saskatchewanian (wow, is that even right? Christ.) culture to know if they'd be compatible or not, but I'd totally visit this country. Only in fall though.
5. Alberta. See above comments about Manisaskoba and change them to the exact opposite. This country would be full of rich, self-important conservatives. So really, no change here. Maybe they'd call themselves Ontario?
6. BC and Yukon. I'm okay with BC, despite all the hippies, and the Yukon is everybody's favourite little territory. Put them together and you'd have a place I'd be happy to visit. Don't know if I'd live there though. One's too cold and the other's too full of dread locks and granola.
7. Nunavut and the NWT. Give this country back to the Inuit and I bet they'd make it a smash hit in a decade. I have absolutely no facts to back this assertion up with, but I bet this country would have a coolness factor that would rival Mexico's. Which would be great, as we'd then have both ends of the continent cooled-up. Now if only we could rid the middle part of it's excessive blandness.
Honourable Mention: Atlantic Canada should totally get Maine. Really, what does America need with Maine? Stephen King? He's done so many drugs that he's practically an honourary Canadian already. Go look at a map and check out Maine. It just sticks up there next to southern Quebec, totally out of place. It's already leaning this way. Make the jump Maine, you know you want to.
This isn't something that necessarily makes me happy. Canada's been good to me and I like it enough, but I still doubt that it will last much longer. So the question now has to be, how will we put this part of N. America back together again? Will it be only two countries, Quebec and the remains of Canada? I doubt it very much, but it's a possibility. I think it's much more likely that when Canada falls off the wall we'll end up with a bunch of new, much smaller independent nations.
I've been thinking about this since I read an article the other day about how many times in the past 50 years we've seen breakup of large countries into smaller ones. (eg: British Empire, Yugoslavia, Czecholovakia, USSR, Somalia unofficially, etc.) The point the writer was trying to make was that smaller countries are more economically viable (think Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Taxhavenia, etc.), and are often more democratic (assuming it's easier to have your voice heard when there are less people shouting).
I'm not sure if I agree with his premise, but if/when Canada has a great fall I'm willing to put his theories to the test. That said, how do you think Canada should be divided up?
Here's how I'd like to see it, please leave your own ideas in the comments.
1. Atlantic Canada, although preferably with a better name. We'd have to be sure that we kept Labrador out of Quebec's clutches, but Newfies are tough bastards so it shouldn't be too hard.
2. Quebec. Honestly, I'd probably still want to live in Montreal even if Quebec becomes a separate country.
3. Ontario, although I'm sure they'd still call themselves Canada and probably wouldn't even notice that anything had changed.
4. Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I'm not sure why, but I think a country made up out of these two provinces would be one of the coolest possible results. I don't know enough about Manitoban and Saskatchewanian (wow, is that even right? Christ.) culture to know if they'd be compatible or not, but I'd totally visit this country. Only in fall though.
5. Alberta. See above comments about Manisaskoba and change them to the exact opposite. This country would be full of rich, self-important conservatives. So really, no change here. Maybe they'd call themselves Ontario?
6. BC and Yukon. I'm okay with BC, despite all the hippies, and the Yukon is everybody's favourite little territory. Put them together and you'd have a place I'd be happy to visit. Don't know if I'd live there though. One's too cold and the other's too full of dread locks and granola.
7. Nunavut and the NWT. Give this country back to the Inuit and I bet they'd make it a smash hit in a decade. I have absolutely no facts to back this assertion up with, but I bet this country would have a coolness factor that would rival Mexico's. Which would be great, as we'd then have both ends of the continent cooled-up. Now if only we could rid the middle part of it's excessive blandness.
Honourable Mention: Atlantic Canada should totally get Maine. Really, what does America need with Maine? Stephen King? He's done so many drugs that he's practically an honourary Canadian already. Go look at a map and check out Maine. It just sticks up there next to southern Quebec, totally out of place. It's already leaning this way. Make the jump Maine, you know you want to.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Shaking my Head in Disbelief(-o-Matic)
Every few months I take this quiz on Beliefnet to find out what religion I should be. I'm now so out of touch I am with my Protestant upbringing that I'm willing to rely on an internet quiz for spiritual direction. Or at least I was, however recently I've been getting in touch with my inner Vulcan and am currently choosing logic over religion. (If any of you disagree with my assertion that logic and organized religion are polar opposites, please don't bother getting offended. Trust me, there's much worse in this blog's archives. Go ahead, read on! Then you can get offended to your heart's content.)
Confindent in my newfound pointy-earedness, I took the quiz this time expecting a top ranking of Secular Humanist. Thish would place me in the ranks of Kurt Vonnegut, Karl Marx, and Gene Roddenberry, which would be heaven for me, if I were into that sort of thing about now. Instead, Sec. Hum. came in a close second behind Universalist Unitarian. Which frankly, I'm really pissed off about. I hate UUism. According to the tiny amount of knowledge I've collected on the UUs, they believe in pretty much everything. Oh and also nothing. And they have no idea what's going on, spiritually speaking. And they're fine with that. Some of them. And some of them aren't. Whatever.
Universalist-Unitarians, you are the absolute WORST of all fence-sitters. Sure it's nice to keep an open mind, but for god's sake (sorry Spock) have an opinion on something! Anything! Trust me, it's very refreshing.
Needless to say I'm rejecting this latest quiz result. Any test that would lump a rabidly opinionated person like myself in with the Cosmic Fence-Sitters Club is clearly flawed beyond belief(net). Anyway, if you'd still like to take the quiz, please leave your results/reactions (appalled or otherwise) in the comments.
Confindent in my newfound pointy-earedness, I took the quiz this time expecting a top ranking of Secular Humanist. Thish would place me in the ranks of Kurt Vonnegut, Karl Marx, and Gene Roddenberry, which would be heaven for me, if I were into that sort of thing about now. Instead, Sec. Hum. came in a close second behind Universalist Unitarian. Which frankly, I'm really pissed off about. I hate UUism. According to the tiny amount of knowledge I've collected on the UUs, they believe in pretty much everything. Oh and also nothing. And they have no idea what's going on, spiritually speaking. And they're fine with that. Some of them. And some of them aren't. Whatever.
Universalist-Unitarians, you are the absolute WORST of all fence-sitters. Sure it's nice to keep an open mind, but for god's sake (sorry Spock) have an opinion on something! Anything! Trust me, it's very refreshing.
Needless to say I'm rejecting this latest quiz result. Any test that would lump a rabidly opinionated person like myself in with the Cosmic Fence-Sitters Club is clearly flawed beyond belief(net). Anyway, if you'd still like to take the quiz, please leave your results/reactions (appalled or otherwise) in the comments.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Who's more sick?
In today's Globe and Mail poll, readers are asked whether or not Canada should accept immigrants who are HIV positive. The result: over 70% of respondents voted no.
This is truly sick. In many cases, people with HIV are seeking to immigrate to a country like Canada because here they can receive the medical treatment they need, treatement which may not be available in their home countries.
I can guess at the reasoning behind the no-voters: HIV positive immigrants are a drain on the health system, and they could potentially spread the disease to HIV negative Canadians. These are both valid concerns, but not, in my opinion, valid reasons to bar these people from coming to Canada. Any strain these immigrants would put on the health system would no doubt be offset by the contributions they would make to the economy. As well, some of these immigrants, or their family members, would likely end up working in the health industry.
As for spreading HIV, of course there is a risk. There is always a risk whenever anyone has sex/exchanges needles/etc with anybody, immigrant or not. Perhaps more importantly, these immigrants are already aware that they are HIV positive, and are aware of the precautions they have to take. Contrast this with the estimated 60,000 HIV positive Canadians, 30% of whom are unaware of their infections, and therefore unaware of the increased risk that they pose to their fellow Canadians.
All of this is, or at least should be secondary to one simple fact: these people did not ask to be infected with a deadly virus. They cannot be punished for simply having contracted a disease. By refusing HIV positive immigrants entry into Canada we would be treating them the same as we would dangerous criminals, and that is truly sick.
This is truly sick. In many cases, people with HIV are seeking to immigrate to a country like Canada because here they can receive the medical treatment they need, treatement which may not be available in their home countries.
I can guess at the reasoning behind the no-voters: HIV positive immigrants are a drain on the health system, and they could potentially spread the disease to HIV negative Canadians. These are both valid concerns, but not, in my opinion, valid reasons to bar these people from coming to Canada. Any strain these immigrants would put on the health system would no doubt be offset by the contributions they would make to the economy. As well, some of these immigrants, or their family members, would likely end up working in the health industry.
As for spreading HIV, of course there is a risk. There is always a risk whenever anyone has sex/exchanges needles/etc with anybody, immigrant or not. Perhaps more importantly, these immigrants are already aware that they are HIV positive, and are aware of the precautions they have to take. Contrast this with the estimated 60,000 HIV positive Canadians, 30% of whom are unaware of their infections, and therefore unaware of the increased risk that they pose to their fellow Canadians.
All of this is, or at least should be secondary to one simple fact: these people did not ask to be infected with a deadly virus. They cannot be punished for simply having contracted a disease. By refusing HIV positive immigrants entry into Canada we would be treating them the same as we would dangerous criminals, and that is truly sick.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
You know Prince loves it...
So let's have some controversy.
This is a discussion that came up today and I found myself with a strange stance on. Since Canada is affected by almost everything America does, yet has no voice in American politics, should Canada just give it up and join the US? Keep in mind, if we did this you could pretty much bet on a Democrat president in 2008. (Mark Warner for prez! He's a sexy Dem bitch!)
On the downside, we'd be Americans. Icky I know, but at least we wouldn't be the pissy nextdoor neighbour who sits around moralizing but doesn't have the power to do anything about anything.
What's everyone's thoughts on this? Please try to keep the patriotism-drenched freak outs to a min. Thanks.
This is a discussion that came up today and I found myself with a strange stance on. Since Canada is affected by almost everything America does, yet has no voice in American politics, should Canada just give it up and join the US? Keep in mind, if we did this you could pretty much bet on a Democrat president in 2008. (Mark Warner for prez! He's a sexy Dem bitch!)
On the downside, we'd be Americans. Icky I know, but at least we wouldn't be the pissy nextdoor neighbour who sits around moralizing but doesn't have the power to do anything about anything.
What's everyone's thoughts on this? Please try to keep the patriotism-drenched freak outs to a min. Thanks.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Two rather geeky questions...
1. What 3 fictional places would you like to visit for a day?
2. Same question, but only for an hour?
Here are mine:
1. Coruscant, Gotham City, and Heaven
2. A Borg cube (assimilation included), Derry-Maine and Sunnydale
2. Same question, but only for an hour?
Here are mine:
1. Coruscant, Gotham City, and Heaven
2. A Borg cube (assimilation included), Derry-Maine and Sunnydale
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Lucky May 8th
For reasons only one known to one other person, May 8th has been my favourite day of the year since I was 13. It's almost always a great day for me, and even if nothing exciting happens it's always pleasant and fun with no major piss offs.
I'm very happy to be able to document another year of upholding this fine tradition. Today was the first day of the class I've always wanted to take. I met a bunch of new people who were all either agreeable or downright cool. And I had a suprisingly easy, relaxed, and fun coffee date.
This was a good day. This blog is probably known more (by you faithful few, thank you for knowing it at all) for entries outlining the absolute shitstorm days I've had over the past year and a half. So this entry is dedicated entirely to May 8th, a fine upstanding day.
Attila
I'm very happy to be able to document another year of upholding this fine tradition. Today was the first day of the class I've always wanted to take. I met a bunch of new people who were all either agreeable or downright cool. And I had a suprisingly easy, relaxed, and fun coffee date.
This was a good day. This blog is probably known more (by you faithful few, thank you for knowing it at all) for entries outlining the absolute shitstorm days I've had over the past year and a half. So this entry is dedicated entirely to May 8th, a fine upstanding day.
Attila
Sunday, May 07, 2006
You are where?
What city, whether you've been there or not, do you think would suit your personality best?
Mine would be Paris. As unoriginal as that is, I can't imagine me not loving it. Here are some suggestions that Bri and I came up with:
Chris: London
Joey: Los Angeles
Mike St. P: Berlin
Craig: Somewhere in South America that's gayer than the day is long. Gayer than San Francisco (Which was our first choice but we weren't sure if S.F. was gay enough for Craig. Sorry Craig.)
Please leave your answer in the comments. Also, if anyone knows, when exactly did Tom Hanks jump the shark? We know it's happened, we just can't pin down when.
Thanks.
Mine would be Paris. As unoriginal as that is, I can't imagine me not loving it. Here are some suggestions that Bri and I came up with:
Chris: London
Joey: Los Angeles
Mike St. P: Berlin
Craig: Somewhere in South America that's gayer than the day is long. Gayer than San Francisco (Which was our first choice but we weren't sure if S.F. was gay enough for Craig. Sorry Craig.)
Please leave your answer in the comments. Also, if anyone knows, when exactly did Tom Hanks jump the shark? We know it's happened, we just can't pin down when.
Thanks.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
What did you think about on the way to work?
Today I fantasized about really angry sex with someone I hate. Thought about it the whole walk.
Please leave your own in the comments. Thanks,
~Attila
Please leave your own in the comments. Thanks,
~Attila
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Reasons why I want to learn to speak Chiac:
- Ej vas driver mon truck à soir pis ça va êt'e right la fun. (I'm going to drive my truck tonight and it's going to be lots of fun.)
- J'vas parker mon châr. (I'm going to park my car.)
- J'schwimmais dans l'ocean et j'tais right soak-an-wet. (I swam in the ocean and got soaking wet.)
- Worry pas. (Don't worry)
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Adding this to my resumé...
My favourite pastimes include: Travelling to ancient power centres, dispensing advice, putting around the garden, conceptualizing Utopian visions of the future, attending sporting/cultural events, demonstrating acts of orderly civil disobedience, monitoring radio telescopes, dabbling in show-biz, as well as further detailed studies of human behaviour.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
#1 Top Ten List
My top ten TV shows:
1. Six Feet Under
2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Deep Space Nine
4. Kids in the Hall
5. Little Britain
6. The Simpsons
7. Degrassi TNG
8. Weeds
9. X-Files
10. Fawlty Towers
Two Honourable Mentions:
1. The only reason the Golden Girls aren't on my list is that I completely forgot about them until after I'd reached number 11.
2. Fawlty Towers, you're only on the bottom because you produced so few shows. You still get my top comedy spot ever time.
Feel free to leave your own lists in the comments.
-Attila
1. Six Feet Under
2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
3. Deep Space Nine
4. Kids in the Hall
5. Little Britain
6. The Simpsons
7. Degrassi TNG
8. Weeds
9. X-Files
10. Fawlty Towers
Two Honourable Mentions:
1. The only reason the Golden Girls aren't on my list is that I completely forgot about them until after I'd reached number 11.
2. Fawlty Towers, you're only on the bottom because you produced so few shows. You still get my top comedy spot ever time.
Feel free to leave your own lists in the comments.
-Attila
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Not the Happiest Meal
But probably the one I'd be most choosey about. Since Captain Planet used my original question on her blog, here's a similar, yet still greatly important question:
-What would you want for your last meal, including a drink, appetizer, main course, dessert, and method of execution?
Here's mine:
Drink - Grape Tang
Appetizer - Fried Brother's pepperoni and cheddar with honey mustard. (gonna die anyway)
Main Course - Neatloaf and mashed potatos with mushroom gravey.
Dessert - Chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream, chocolate sauce and whipped cream.
Method of Execution - Ejected into space in a leaky space suit.
-What would you want for your last meal, including a drink, appetizer, main course, dessert, and method of execution?
Here's mine:
Drink - Grape Tang
Appetizer - Fried Brother's pepperoni and cheddar with honey mustard. (gonna die anyway)
Main Course - Neatloaf and mashed potatos with mushroom gravey.
Dessert - Chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream, chocolate sauce and whipped cream.
Method of Execution - Ejected into space in a leaky space suit.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Devastation...
Frank McKenna why?!?
Where's the angry New Brunswick prime minister of my dreams?
Seriously Frank, I'm not even a Liberal supporter, but you're still my number one choice for PM, hands down.
And you're not running for personal reasons?
PERSONAL REASONS?
Goddamnit Frank! Your country needs you and what are you doing? Settling down for a comfy retirement??
This will not do. It will not do AT ALL.
Where's the angry New Brunswick prime minister of my dreams?
Seriously Frank, I'm not even a Liberal supporter, but you're still my number one choice for PM, hands down.
And you're not running for personal reasons?
PERSONAL REASONS?
Goddamnit Frank! Your country needs you and what are you doing? Settling down for a comfy retirement??
This will not do. It will not do AT ALL.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Stop worrying, you'll give the country wrinkles.
Let's start with a basic refresher of the facts:
1. I called the election results 2 months ago and, if I may say so, was pretty much bang on.
2. I don't like Harper, or the Conservative party. In fact, I violently oppose 95% of what they stand for.
3. No party should govern forever, and the Liberal defeat might be for the best.
Now I realize number 3 might sound like an endorsement for Harper's win, but it isn't. See number 2 if you need any reassurance.
I didn't want the Conservatives to win, but I didn't want the Liberals to win either. And yes I know, the NDP was not going to suddenly pick up an extra 100 or so seats. Out of the options we were given though, I think we made out okay. Yes, a right-wing douchebag is our new Prime Minister. But would you rather have Paul Martin leading us into another fragile minority Liberal government with ever declining popularity?
Most of you would I'm sure, but think about this for a minute. If we'd elected Paul Martin, he'd have continued his miserable job of leading a miserable party desperately in need of a vacation. That's what Harper's win is as far as I'm concerned; a Liberal vacation.
The party was stressed out, not thinking clearly, obviously tired, and in need of some serious downtime. If Paul Martin had won I guarantee you we'd have had another election in a year or less, and Harper would have won either a strong minority or even a small majority. Then where would we be?
Nebraska.
Cold, boring, underpopulated, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-pot, anti-pretty-much-anything-that's-even-remotely-enjoyable.
Or maybe Iowa. Same thing either way.
Now, we've got a Harper minority that is as close to powerless as a Canadian government can get. Sure, he's got some significant powers as PM, but it's not as if he can actually, oh I don't know, pass a single bloody law without giving blowjobs to at least two other party leaders (or one party leader and an independent, either way not a pretty picture).
In case anyone has forgotten the next chapter in my prediction, here it is: Harper won't accomplish anything beyond frustrating most Canadians with his futile attempts to drag us back to 1950. By the time people are sick enough of him for the rest of the House of Commons to feel justified in bringing him down, the Liberals will have elected a new leader. Maybe, if we all wish real hard and keep our fingers and toes crossed, he'll actually have a sense of where this country wants to go, and maybe even of how to get us there.
Next thing you know, we've got another Liberal majority. I'd love to claim huge gains for the NDP somewhere in here, but I don't think this term will be good for them. They've got more members sure, but almost no influence.
Fortunately, they do have Olivia Chow. This is the perfect fix-all for Jack Layton. Now that he's got his wife by his side, he no longer looks like a sexual predator. Sorry Jack, personally I think you're kinda cute sometimes, but you do have a certain 'registered offender' look to you.
The moral of all this is simple: stop worrying. Seriously. Everyone I've talked to since January 23rd has been panicking their silly ass off.
Stop worrying. It's all going to be fine. Harper won't last, he won't accomplish much, what he does accomplish will probably actually be needed (senate reform, cleaning up government if that's possible), he won't outlaw gay marriage (better not, I'll see you in the streets if he does. Seriously Harper, DO NOT FUCK WITH MY CIVIL RIGHTS), he won't restrict abortion (good luck, pissed off women are a much worse enemy than any Liberal leader), and he won't change the fundamental leftiness of Canadian society.
So seriously Canada, stop worrying.
1. I called the election results 2 months ago and, if I may say so, was pretty much bang on.
2. I don't like Harper, or the Conservative party. In fact, I violently oppose 95% of what they stand for.
3. No party should govern forever, and the Liberal defeat might be for the best.
Now I realize number 3 might sound like an endorsement for Harper's win, but it isn't. See number 2 if you need any reassurance.
I didn't want the Conservatives to win, but I didn't want the Liberals to win either. And yes I know, the NDP was not going to suddenly pick up an extra 100 or so seats. Out of the options we were given though, I think we made out okay. Yes, a right-wing douchebag is our new Prime Minister. But would you rather have Paul Martin leading us into another fragile minority Liberal government with ever declining popularity?
Most of you would I'm sure, but think about this for a minute. If we'd elected Paul Martin, he'd have continued his miserable job of leading a miserable party desperately in need of a vacation. That's what Harper's win is as far as I'm concerned; a Liberal vacation.
The party was stressed out, not thinking clearly, obviously tired, and in need of some serious downtime. If Paul Martin had won I guarantee you we'd have had another election in a year or less, and Harper would have won either a strong minority or even a small majority. Then where would we be?
Nebraska.
Cold, boring, underpopulated, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-pot, anti-pretty-much-anything-that's-even-remotely-enjoyable.
Or maybe Iowa. Same thing either way.
Now, we've got a Harper minority that is as close to powerless as a Canadian government can get. Sure, he's got some significant powers as PM, but it's not as if he can actually, oh I don't know, pass a single bloody law without giving blowjobs to at least two other party leaders (or one party leader and an independent, either way not a pretty picture).
In case anyone has forgotten the next chapter in my prediction, here it is: Harper won't accomplish anything beyond frustrating most Canadians with his futile attempts to drag us back to 1950. By the time people are sick enough of him for the rest of the House of Commons to feel justified in bringing him down, the Liberals will have elected a new leader. Maybe, if we all wish real hard and keep our fingers and toes crossed, he'll actually have a sense of where this country wants to go, and maybe even of how to get us there.
Next thing you know, we've got another Liberal majority. I'd love to claim huge gains for the NDP somewhere in here, but I don't think this term will be good for them. They've got more members sure, but almost no influence.
Fortunately, they do have Olivia Chow. This is the perfect fix-all for Jack Layton. Now that he's got his wife by his side, he no longer looks like a sexual predator. Sorry Jack, personally I think you're kinda cute sometimes, but you do have a certain 'registered offender' look to you.
The moral of all this is simple: stop worrying. Seriously. Everyone I've talked to since January 23rd has been panicking their silly ass off.
Stop worrying. It's all going to be fine. Harper won't last, he won't accomplish much, what he does accomplish will probably actually be needed (senate reform, cleaning up government if that's possible), he won't outlaw gay marriage (better not, I'll see you in the streets if he does. Seriously Harper, DO NOT FUCK WITH MY CIVIL RIGHTS), he won't restrict abortion (good luck, pissed off women are a much worse enemy than any Liberal leader), and he won't change the fundamental leftiness of Canadian society.
So seriously Canada, stop worrying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
