Oot and Aboot with Some Canadian Skeptic

The first, and hopefully last post I write about Dennis Markuze

2011-08-18T13:16:00.000-04:00

For quite a while, I've decided not to make a blog post about Dennis Markuze (a.k.a. "Mabus"). I thought that the best way to deal with him was to ignore him, since clearly he fed on people's attention. It turns out, that ignoring him was the exact opposite way to handle the whole situation.

Most people reading this blog already know who Markuze is. But for the uninitiated, or those of you in the future, reading this years from now, (newcomers to skepticism hopefully won't have any dealings with him), here's a very brief primer:

Montrealer, and Christian extremist, Dennis Markuze has been sending out reams of harassment emails and comments to skeptics, atheists, and scientists for over 15 years. These went well beyond the typical "troll" behavior we might expect of internet aggression, and eventually escalated into increasingly incoherent ramblings that threatened skeptics with torture, decapitation, execution etc....

He attended the American Atheists Convention in Montreal last fall, where the long-time target of his harassment, PZ Myers, was speaking (tell me of a single internet troll who dares to attempt a physical confrontation). His newfound boldness, coupled with his increasingly explicit threats, pushed people into action in new, and innovative ways.

For more detailed background of this entire Markuze affair, I highly recommend Tim Farley's post on the matter.

In the above image, this is just a portion of the harassment I received in one day. Included in the messages to me, were the usual targets: skeptic friends of mine such as Jonathan Abrams, Elyse Anders, and Nicole Gugliucci. Part of Markuze's tactics were to look through anyone his victims have been communicating with, and attack them too. He also sent harassment letters to Green Party leader Elizabeth May, as well as my local Member of Parliament, Stephen Woodworth (who is public about his devotion to Christianity), both of whom I was having non-skeptic related political discussions with.

Just about every skeptic who has received his attacks knows his tactics, and many of us have to apologize to people for getting these awful messages at unawares.

On July 6, I received this (and many others like it) message. It was unlike the others, because it was an explicit threat, rather than just the insinuation-to-kill that was his usual M.O. I gotta admit: I felt a little nervous. Internet trolls don't talk like that. Internet trolls are paradoxically inventive and crude (as any gamer can attest to). This was pretty straightforward:

"...we are going to torture before we execute you"

Without batting an eye, I called the RCMP, who forwarded me to the Waterloo Region police. After I had spent a long day at work, the police came over to my house and I filed a report. The police officer hadn't been briefed upon the nature of the threat (ie: that it was an internet threat), and my partner and I had to spend about 15 minutes explaining to him what Twitter was, how it's not Facebook, or how it's not email. It was pretty exhausting. Not to mention baffling ("What's Twitter? Oh....it's this...internet....thing that....has hundreds of millions of users....that....are you sure you've never heard of it? TWIT-TER!").

After about an hour and a half, the officer saw my screen shots, seemed to understand what was going on, and he said to me, "My advice to you: Don't worry about it. This guy is just trying to get inside your head, and you're letting him".

Needless to say, I was disappointed at this attitude. I kept pressing him, "Regardless of what we might think his intentions are, he is uttering death threats, and it's my understanding that that is illegal."

He told me that for the the law to be able to act on a death threat, a death threat must have two things: Intention and agency. It's obvious that Markuze meant what he said (and has been saying for over 15 years), but the officer could not reasonably assume that it was a threat he could act on. From his perspective, he sees an internet troll in Montreal, who would have to drive to Kitchener to cause me harm.

As a side note, uttering a death threat does not require the ability to carry out that threat, so the officer I spoke to was wrong (though I didn't know it at the time). See here for the law covering death threats. In Canada, if you utter a death threat, that's a crime. If you utter a death threat and you make a person feel unsafe, that's a worse crime.

The officer left, telling me that he would file the report, assuring me that, "If half the things you're saying were true, then the Montreal Police are aware of this guy, and they are keeping an eye on him." He also told me that more people need to file reports, because it helps build an intelligence file on him. I've been relaying that message on twitter and facebook ever since.

Well, fastforward a little over a month: A change.org petition, a twitter campaign, and some key media involvement later (again, read Tim Farley's post, it's excellent and well-detailed), the Montreal police finally got involved.

Yesterday, at around 6:00 pm, I received a call from a Montreal detective who told me what everyone on Twitter had already been talking about : Markuze had been apprehended, and is in custody.

In all likelihood, he will be released on bail, and with conditions that he not use a computer. Markuze will probably not spend any time in prison, but that's okay: He's not a criminal, even if he has committed criminal acts. It's obvious to anyone with an Armchair Degree in psychiatry that Markuze is not a well man: He is mentally unstable.

If the judge orders him to get psychiatric evaluation, maybe he will finally get the help he needs. He's been making these attacks for over 15 years, with a posting rate that can best be described as 'obsessive'. If he had been identified in 1995 (when he was asking for help in obtaining a bomb to blow up federal buildings), maybe he would have been getting the help he needed back then, and he might now have been a productive member of society.

The Mabus/Markuze story may not be over. It's possible that when he's released, he will be released without conditions that he surrender his computer and stay off the internet. It's entirely possible that in a month, we all may be seeing the same harassment letters we've been deleting non-stop. And yet, I question the wisdom of people demanding his immediate incarceration, and that the full hammer of the law be brought down upon him.

Now that Markuze is in custody, there is a real chance that a mentally ill person will get the help that he needs. For the first time, I have honest, and real hope for Markuze.

Website Hit Counters

Why we Fight

2011-07-06T13:49:00.000-04:00

My friend and fellow skeptic Joey left a thoughtful comment on my post yesterday, and as usual with Joey, I got to thinking. I think her comment needs addressing, because her point is shared by many, and I think it's getting lost in the fighting.

Joey said,

"To be sure, women and visible minorities do receive an equal, and fair hearing in our lot. So why then, is there still such an imbalance of the genders and the colours?"

Can't speak to the race issue, but as far as women go, part of the imbalance may lie with the other part of this story: I personally am dissuaded by a woman blogger exercising her right to disagree with another skeptic, and being treated extremely unfairly for it. I don't even want to be involved in this "how to get women into skepticism" thing anymore because some of the hypocrisy there is just not something I want to deal with.

Joey, I really get what you're saying. I think it pains me, and many others that it has gotten as vitriolic as it has. Today, I saw this conversation on facebook (though I'm not providing links that will identify the speakers):

Person A: Nothing can shake my admiration for Richard Dawkins.
Person B: That's a fairly sweeping statement, there. What if Dawkins turns out to be a closet child raper? Still won't shake your admiration?

I see problems with both statements, and they are reflective of the larger debate that is being played out. As Person A helps remind us, Dawkins has an army of supporters who agree with him because they share his mindset, or because they will agree with whatever he says out of unshakable admiration (also known as "sycophancy"). Person B mentions child rape, as if we didn't need enough extremism in this discussion.

However, what I've learned over the past couple of days, is that this issue has gotten bigger than the two things that got people going in the first place:

Elevator Guy and Stef McGraw.

Those were both smaller issues that sussed out a much larger culture of misogyny in the atheist and skeptic communities. The guy in the elevator sparked a discussion that ballooned up fast, and the issue of Stef McGraw is a side-distraction. Yes, Stef's issue might imply a culture of hostility by Rebecca, or a culture of entitlement when Stef speaking of her "ruined reputation," but that's not what this is about anymore.

Usually, whenever smaller events and discussions like these happen, there are a few comment threads here and there, it gets ugly, and in a week, people (for the moment) forget about it. This too, will pass. But when our most visible leader and spokesperson talks with such insensitivity and hostility to a very important issue, it tells me that we need to distance ourselves from that culture of yesterday.

Dawkins' response cannot go unchallenged, or we are all complicit.

Sadly, this has become a fight. Hopefully, no one relishes it, though I expect that many revel in the opportunity to insult, berate, and laugh at other members of our communities over feminism. This is what misogynists do: they ridicule anyone who shows an interest in feminism because they think there is no problem, or they don't care.

I see other people on twitter and facebook exclaiming that "Because I agree with Dawkins, I'm a misogynist."

Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't. Perhaps you haven't given it much thought either way (This might help). Feminism is a very difficult concept to come to terms with, because, as I said yesterday, it challenges our most basic assumptions about how the genders interact. It takes time, and very careful contemplation. I'm not suggesting that if you disagree with Rebecca, Jen, Phil, Matt, Stephanie, Barbara, PZ, Greg, or myself, that you haven't thought of it enough. I'm simply asking you to think about it a great deal more.

It took me years (including an undergraduate education in political studies) to understand feminism as I now do. There was a time when I was hostile to feminism: lumping it in with the stereotype of bra-burning and man-hating. There was a time when I was ambivalent towards it: thinking it a fine pursuit for others but not me. There was a time when I was modestly curious about it: seeing how much of a body of thought it was, and thinking I could never hope to penetrate its dense tomes. There was a time (now) when I saw the incredible value of it, and strove to learn as much as I could (while still leaving time for food and work).

For most people, the colloquial definitions of feminism are fine enough, because they're easy to grasp, and easy to approve, or reject. But real feminism, as we see Rebecca and others trying to discuss, is much more subtle. As I said in yesterday's post, understand the historical and cultural context of a feminist question first, then question. Dawkins (and his numerous supporters) asked the question without first understanding the context.

The worst, most intellectually dishonest thing anyone can do is to reject an entire discussion, as I see being done now, and in the recent past.

I see how an important discussion turning into a fight can be disheartening: it is. But we fight because we care too much, and this is simply too important to let slide. Dawkins is not the only highly visible member of our community to act like this, and its time to make it known: Skeptics (and atheists) take women's issues very seriously.

I want to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt here: he is a highly intelligent, eloquent, and educated academic, one who understands ethics better then most. Will he take this moment to truly reflect on what he said, and what others have been saying, or will he soldier on like a smug, privileged British intellectual, completely removed from society? Hopefully, time will tell.

As with alternative medicine harming people, psychics bilking people, and religions hindering education, we fight because we care.

And as for Joey, and the numerous other people that have been turned off because of this whole affair: Please come back, and please don't hold what we're doing against us. I understand why you're taking a break, and don't blame you: this has gotten nasty, exhausting, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But it is going somewhere positive, I promise. I also hope you understand why we fight: the consequences of not standing up for feminism at this moment are too severe.

When this blows over (and it will), we'll save your seat for you.

Website Hit Counters

Why Feminism in Skepticism is Now More Important than Ever

2011-07-05T00:40:00.000-04:00

I've not wanted to wade into this Rebecca Watson / Richard Dawkins / Steff McGraw / Jen McCreight / just about everyone kerfuffle, but things are getting about as heated as they can without a cage match. I generally dislike blogging on these meta-issues of skepticism, because I feel smug when I do it. And yet, I say these following words with humility, and I beg your indulgence.

Full disclosure: I consider Rebecca a friend. She and another Skepchick blogger Carrie once drove three hours, across to the Canadian side of the border to come to my house for what was effectively beer, pie, and coffee, so I'll put it out on front street: I may not be entirely unbiased here.

See? Bestest. Friends. Ever.

Also, I'll not link to many outside sources in this post, except when required for context, so as to not inflame the already raging fires more.

That being said, here are some simple lessons that I hope we have all learned:

1) Calling someone a "rape apologist" serves no one. Smarten up, and don't do that.

2) Just as when Randi publicly questioned climate science a little over a year ago, Richard Dawkins displayed some extraordinary insensitivity and ignorance to feminist issues. When our heroes get stuff wrong, it reminds us not to practice the hero-worship and sycophancy that we all aspire to avoid.

3) Feminism needs to be discussed. Skepticism is too big, too important, to not discuss it. I see too often in comment threads and in some blogs (no, I'll not be naming names here, sorry) where people (usually white, straight, and male) talk of being tired of feminist issues being discussed, because it's not really a problem. The idea that because we're a science-based community, then equality and evidence is our M.O. To be sure, women and visible minorities do receive an equal, and fair hearing in our lot. So why then, is there still such an imbalance of the genders and the colours? Well the answer is simple, but no less challenging: we have equality, but we don't have equity. The outcome of our collective input still favours those with white skin, and penises. Of if you like, Whitey McPenises.

4) If problem A is 10 serious, and problem B is 3 serious, it's still okay to oppose problem B. One does not subtract problem B from A in order to assess how serious a situation is. Feminism is not a zero sum game, where lots of oppression somewhere makes a little oppression seem like people should not complain.

5) Women have a different set of shared experiences then men do. I am normally loathe to speak of identity politics and post modernism with any sort of weight, but here it applies: It is wrong, ethically, morally, and culturally to assume that the male standard(s) of social interactions can be any sort of measuring stick against what is largely (but not uniquely) a female experience. Men: stop it.

6) Atheists have often trumpeted (or parroted) the words of Dawkins with respect (or lack of respect) to religious persons, and too often have the religious been labeled as 'crybabies' when called out in the biting way that only Dawkins can deliver. Maybe now we feminist atheists are getting a taste of the sting that the religious feel when Dawkins insults them, to cheers of applause from atheists. Respect: It's time we all learned it, and not to define others by what they believe, but by how they act.

7) Don't let the extreme right wing, or any armchair political analyst fool you: "radical feminism" is not a body of thought in the feminist literature, at least not in the way you are being led to believe. What they call "radical feminism", I call "white guy thinks vaginas are out to take his job away". Radical feminism is about abolishing patriarchy, not men. During this whole affair, nowhere did true radical feminism come into play.

8) It's fine to "just ask the question" about why one simply cannot push the elevator button to escape, if your intentions are *truly* out of intellectual curiosity. But it's also a huge leap of arrogance to assume that a) you already know the answer and more importantly, b) you can ask that question without a broader understanding of the cultural context of said question. This is feminism 101: Understand the history and context, then see if your question still applies. More often than not, feminist issues are not simple, and they have more baggage behind them then most are prepared to admit, or accept.

Going Forward (hopefully)

This is the challenge of feminism: to seriously challenge and question our own assumptions on how society operates with respect to genders. We skeptics (and atheists) take pride (and boast) about phraseology like "critical thinking" and "challenging the status quo". And yet here, our most most basic assumptions about human and gender interactions have been brutally challenged: do we have the courage to continue to ask questions about them, or do we dismiss the conversation wholesale, and make no effort to learn anything?

It's easy to denounce religious-motivated female genital mutilation; this is the extreme. The hard part is seeing gender power imbalances in the mundane, everyday experience. Men: we don't experience life the way women do. We just don't.

P.S.
Special shout-out to Stephanie Zvan who compiled a helpful list of links in a recent post, where you can read many links and get more context about what happened, what didn't happen, and why feminism is still an urgent, important issue.

Website Hit Counters

On flying...

2011-05-11T00:12:00.000-04:00

Do me a favour, head over here and vote this up, if you're so inclined to accept my awesome funniness.

Just in case you thought this joke of mine was in poor taste: According to the source of the original photo, in this incident, no one was killed, or even injured. I chose this image carefully.

Website Hit Counters

17 Years later: Kurt Cobain.

2011-04-05T14:39:00.000-04:00

Today is a sick-day for me. I woke up with a terrible pain in my throat, barely able to speak or swallow. It's probably a cold that will pass in a few days, but when you're a teacher, it's best not to risk spreading viruses around to kids and other teachers.

I was going to use today to write a post about the upcoming federal election. Those of you who follow me on Twitter might have noticed a much higher tweet volume than usual. But today is April 5, and this day means something significant for me, as well as many people born between 1975 and 1982.

17 years ago today, Kurt Cobain pointed a shotgun to his head and pulled the trigger.

Kurt Cobain's suicide note. I still haven't read this yet...not sure I can.

I won't talk a great deal about Kurt's suicide, his drug addiction, or his depression. Not today. I'd instead like to talk about the legacy of music, culture, and art that Kurt Cobain left. I know this has been done countless times by writers far more eloquent than I, but I've never put my own words on Kurt down before. This article is for me as much as it is for you.

As a teenager in the 90's, Nirvana was the giant in our music and our culture. There were many bands that were going strong at the same time the people identified with: Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Soul Asylum, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots....all great bands that stood strong on their own merits. But there was somehow, something different about Nirvana.
_____

It might have been the awful singing. It seemed that Kurt was determined to avoid every lesson a vocal teacher would have told him: "Don't use your head voice! The power comes from the diaphragm below your lungs, not from your throat!". Kurt would then use this head voice to whine out lyrics so incoherently, that it was a widespread joke. Some speculated at the time that there were no lyrics, and this was intentionally part of the grunge "Fuck You." Weird Al Yankovic parodied this aspect of Cobain's singing style in 'Smells Like Nirvana.' (Indeed, Yankovic's parody of Cobain was so popular it helped revitalize his career, reminding the world that he doesn't just parody Michael Jackson songs). Kurt was a terrible singer, but like a lot of things, we didn't care about that.
_____

It might have been something in the way of Kurt's apathetic demeanor. The 90's counter-culture scene was one that dripped of apathy, nauseatingly so (captured wonderfully by the Simpsons). This might be selection bias or confirmation bias on my part, but there seemed to be something genuine about Kurt's apathy. He seemed to carry himself as a man who had entirely given up, and was simply going through the motions of living. We learned later that this was indeed the case, as Kurt had long suffered from chronic depression.

Cynics today (and some at the time) admonished Kurt for being a self-centered crybaby while being the biggest rock god on the planet. Sadly, depression is not a condition that is influenced by how others see the individual. Kurt felt alone, worthless, and that there was no escape. This is not to downplay the role that Kurt's well-documented heroin addiction had in exacerbating his depression, but to illustrate that no matter how much genius gets recognized and rewarded at the time, depression still can take down our very best.

The tragedy of the 90's counter culture was that we all celebrated the sense of hopelessness and apathy that, when it was genuine, helped contribute to Kurt's suicide.
_____

It might have been the songs themselves. At the time that Nirvana made it big (along with the wave of Seattle grunge that followed immediately after), rock was dominated by the second wave of over-produced hair bands that were desperately trying to mimic the guitar gods of yesteryear, and this is to say nothing about the music that actually seemed to be intentionally hollow (DJ "Jazzy" Jeff and the Fresh Prince, M.C. Hammer and Deee-Lite all come to mind).When Nirvana and Grunge came along, they threw out the whole playbook. They were poor musicians, poor singers, and the didn't give a shit. In this respect, they were a lot like the punk movement 10 years prior. But unlike the punk movement, the grunge musicians still wanted to make music for the sake of making music and expression (as opposed to making music for the sake of saying "fuck you"...a noble goal nonetheless, but not one I identify with).

The songs of Kurt ranged from the mellow and desperately expressive:

To the incredibly defiant and energetic:

The style of Lithium was to later be one of the defining characteristics of many 90's rock and grunge tunes: soft, quivering verses, punctuated by heavily distorted and screaming chorus.

It was partially in pursuit of this style of polarized music that drove Kurt to design the Fender "Jag-Stang:" a hybrid of Fender's Jaguar (traditionally used as a jazz guitar) and Mustang (a whammy-bar reliant guitar popularized by 60's Surfer music) models.
_____

It might have been his suicide. If a rocker reaches the level that Kurt did, and they died before their time, they always seem to have a mythic sort of quality to them: Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Bob Marley, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison...these rockers have a fan base whose dedication goes beyond simple fandom. It's a kind of quasi-religious like reverence.

I remember the day Kurt's death was announced. I was in the 9th grade at the time, and in my first period music class. My friends and I (all budding musicians) shared the news with each other, and we all reacted like it was the death not of a a good friend but of a kind of leader. As a teenager in the 90's, it was hard to not feel the sense of hopelessness and apathy of a world that was going to do whatever it wanted to, and to hell with the young people (contrast this today with the culture of entitlement that teenagers and the youth have). Whether this apathy was misplaced or not, we all felt it (and teenagers have a way of confusing feeling with reality). Kurt was the one guy who seemed to be most affected by our collective hopeless culture, and he spoke both to, and for us all. And he was gone.

Our parents were baby boomers, and we were too young to be Gen X'ers. No one gave two shits about us but ourselves. we were a forgotten generation that just lost its only ambassador. We were told our whole lives that we missed the greatest parties ever, and nothing will ever be as great as the Beatles ever again.

Kurt Cobain was our John Lennon.

Our odd form of 90's counter culture kept going a little longer after Kurt's death, but pretty much gave up once the Spice Girls came around. Love it, hate it, mock it, or be indifferent to it: this sense of hopelessness and apathy was the identity we all shared, and it was ripped away because of heroin, depression, and a shotgun.

Just as there will never be another Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon or Bob Marley, there will never be another Kurt Cobain.

Bye.

Website Hit Counters

The Abortion Monologues: Feminism done (mostly) right

2011-03-27T01:37:00.000-04:00

Last night, I attended a local performance of a new play, The Abortion Monologues. The idea behind this play is fantastic: encourage women to talk about a very uncomfortable topic with the hope that with communication comes understanding. In the spirit of The Vagina Monologues, it is all about getting the stories out there. No judgment, no condemnation, no endorsement: just communication. Ostensibly, women who have had abortion experiences will feel a little safer and less like social outcasts if they understand that they're not alone, not by a long shot.

The play was well written (personally, I've never been a fan of the monologue style of theatre, so it was a bit of an adjustment for me), and well performed. It detailed the stories of 23 women who've had abortions in varying circumstances. Most of the stories were largely centered around the commonplace abortion story, with little discussion of the extreme cases (rape, incest) prompting abortive instances. I learned later that this was intentional by the author, who insisted that it shouldn't take extreme cases to allow for regular discourse in public*. I heartily agree.

There is a certain sense of apologetics and accommodation that gets involved whenever we try to encourage a dialogue using the fringe examples. Why must we have to bring up the cases of when a drunk uncle rapes a teenager to discuss something that happens every day? This brings up some interesting issues when dealing with civil rights concerns.

After the curtain call, the director invited the audience to participate in an open discussion. Most of the questions and comments shared were by women, voicing their approval with how the play was written and performed. Some commenters discussed the stigma that abortion incurs, and others on the state of abortion access in Canada (in short, abortion has been legal in Canada since 1988, but women still have to jump through hoops to get them). All in all, a constructive discussion.

Until...

One woman commented on how great it was that so many men were in attendance (I'd put it at about 33% men), and many women in the audience roared with applause and approval. The director (but it might have been a cast member...hard to see from my vantage point) agreed and said something to the effect that it's great to see so many men, and that the men in this audience are an example to the rest of men.

Now, don't get me wrong, this was a well-meaning comment, and put forth with nothing but the best intentions and in the spirit of fellowship. I understand and appreciate that.

But...

This attitude is part of the problem. As one of the men in attendance, I didn't really feel like I belonged there. It felt like a girl's club (yes, I know the irony there, so don't bother pointing it out), and the men were simply welcome to come along. There is a fundamental difference between being 'welcome' and 'belonging'.

By making this gesture to the men in the audience, the well-meaning, thoughtful women who applauded painted every man there as an 'other'. This is unfortunate, because abortion is not just a women's issue. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing more obnoxious than some guy standing up saying "WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!?" This is not what I am doing here.

Abortion is not just a woman's issue. It is also a men's issue. It is also a children's issue, a cultural issue and a class issue. By artificially making abortion a women's issue, it alienates many people who are also affected by abortion, even those of us who are supportive and pro-choice. I felt welcome in that hall, but I did not feel as though this was an issue that had anything to do with me.


This is one of the logos I was able to find of the play, but not the one for the performance I attended in Kitchener, ON. This logo, while certainly not exclusive, is definitely not inclusive either.

This might have been alleviated had there been one character in the play who was a man that had an abortion story. If the writer wanted to show how commonplace and everyday this experience was, perhaps just one narrative from a male perspective would be beneficial. After all, abortion is an issue that affects more than just one half of the population, but you'd hardly know it. Men may not be part of the discussion, but they are part of the equation. There may be something to be gained by some feminist women / groups seeking ownership of abortion issues for women, but it effectively leaves half the affected people out of the discussion.

Obviously, this is not intentional nor mean-spirited. My point in writing this post is that maybe more men would feel sympathetic and be supportive on this issue if they felt a sense of belonging and ownership. Abortion is a men's issue too, and I'd like to see more understanding of this by the well meaning pro-choice community.

* Ostensibly, it is to this point that explains the absence of any narratives involving LGBTQ experiences of abortion. A conspicuous absence, I thought, for a progressive play that opened in 2009.

Website Hit Counters

Let's all forget the lessons of racism! a.k.a. St. Patrick's Day!

2011-03-17T12:58:00.001-04:00

Every year, March 17th rolls around, and people invariably ask me one version of the question, "Steve, you're pretty obnoxious with the way you wear your Irish heritage on your sleeve. You must LOVE St. Patrick's Day and you you probably love to drink green beer and get drunk!"

These people are "Irish for a day". Lovely.

That's like saying, "Hey, you're black! you must LOVE to talk during a movie and dance

around white people!" or "Hey! You're Muslim! You must LOVE to blow up buildings!"

Well, no I don't like St. Patrick's day. I hate it. I can scarcely walk down a city street today without being called a leprechaun by some drunken (or sober) asshole (No, I'm not making this up). For years I've found it to be the most nakedly racist "holiday" on the calender. Irish heritage celebration in North America is basically a neo-blackface routine.

It....was a different time....

Since about 2005, I've been writing pretty much the same article for one media outlet or the other, and my opinions since last year's post (and every other year I post this) haven't changed, so I'll just re-post it here (with a few updates):

St. Patrick's Day: Still Racist after all these Years:

Every year we “celebrate” St. Patrick’s Day by drinking ourselves stupid, beginning in the middle of the afternoon, then maybe getting into a few fights. This is acceptable behavior because, we’re told, this is the one day of the year that everyone is Irish. Why is this flagrantly racist stereotype still so eagerly embraced? I believe it is because it is still widely acceptable to think the worst of the Irish, at levels unthinkable among other minority-groups.

I did a google image search for St. Patrick's Day, and this came up. Seriously.

And rightly so: these are all horrible racist stereotypes that reduce huge swaths of diverse peoples into the most negative imagery that is usually reserved for the old-racist-kook fraternity.

Why then, is it okay to celebrate ‘be an Irishman day’ (and lets be honest, March 17^th has nothing whatsoever to do with the patron saint of Ireland) by getting slobberingly drunk, making complete asses of ourselves, and be loud, obnoxious pricks? Even to the point of calling in ‘sick’ the next day, and actually getting away with it? I've worked at places where people would call in sick on March 18th, and the bosses chuckled, and left it at that. Oh really? Can I do that on Sept 3? Or May 7 (the day after my birthday)? No, of course not. But I bet that if I did it the day after people pretend to be their racist ideas of what it means to be Irish, it'd be super-dee-dooper, lassie!

This friendly little guy is the emblem of Irish respect in North America. We all act like this. At least when we're not a)drinking b)fighting c)drunkenly beating our wives, or d) having too many children.

I hear the rebuttals, the same every year:

1)“It’s just an excuse to get drunk!"

2)"It’s just an excuse to have fun with my friends”

Do you really need an excuse to have fun with your friends? Of course you don’t. If you do, maybe you're a bad friend. Do you need an excuse to drink? Maybe…but is it necessary for the Irish-drunkard stereotype to serve your loathsome late-night frivolities of licentious lewdness and lunacy?

Society has (rightly) shunned people who use words like nigger, wop, chink, and kraut. Yet it's still okay to spend $10.00 on plastic leprechaun-wear, get drunk in the middle of the afternoon, and get kicked out of 4 bars in a night because, “Hey! On March 17^th, we ALL get to be Irish for a day!” and then begin the drunken chorus of Danny Boy.

If you truly want to celebrate Irish heritage, that's fine. If you want to celebrate for no real good reason, that's fine too. Might I suggest a friendly conversation over a couple of pints and a couple of songs. The Irish don't have a monopoly on that, but it's still fun, honest, and respectful to you and your friends.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to celebrate some else's Italian heritage by controlling a union and eating a spicy meat-a-ball.

Or by playing with these Italian plumbers who stomp on "Goombas"

Website Hit Counters

The Restaurant-Food Paradox

2011-03-11T19:45:00.000-05:00

Food that you don't make yourself is always at least two of three things: affordable, fast, and good. I think it's impossible to get all three. Maybe a fourth bubble, "Reasonably healthy" (or perhaps "Not Solidified Battery Acid on a Bun" might suit better) needs to be added.

While this barely qualifies, I'm still counting this under my Infographics for Skeptics. My blog, my bendable rules.

Of course, you could always go directly to the source and vote it up.

aWebsite Hit Counters

Quantum, Quantum, Quantum

2011-03-06T21:19:00.000-05:00

Despite line at the bottom of the image, I did make this. You can vote for it at the main page, and check back here for more Infographics for Skeptics.

Website Hit Counters

Fox News again uses Canada for Political Manipulation (And gets it wrong, again)

2011-02-23T10:52:00.000-05:00

There is a very sad story going on that involves a terminally ill one-year-old boy in a persistent vegetative state, whom doctors give no hope of recovery. Worse still, little Joseph Maraachli's condition is deteriorating, and both the doctors and the family know that he will die. At the time of this writing, he may have already died. There is no silver lining to this story. It is altogether tragic, though that word seems barely able to fit.

The doctors were unable to obtain consent to remove Joseph's breathing tube (which was keeping his airway clear of mucus), so they are seeking consent from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) Joseph's parents want to bring their son home to die in comfort, surrounded by loved ones, and not in a hospital. But in order to safely bring Joseph home, he needs a tracheotomy performed. As if this story couldn't be any sadder, Joseph's parents, Moe and Nadar Maraachli went through this before, eight years ago, as their daughter had the same condition Joseph has. Then, the tracheotomy was performed, allowing their daughter to spend her last moments of life at home.

But doctors have concluded that a tracheotomy is too risky for Joseph, and would surely cause great discomfort, pain and infection, leading to a very painful, extended death.

If the doctors leave the breathing tube in, Joseph will deteriorate and slowly die as parts of his brain die off piece by piece.
If the doctors remove the breathing tube, the fluids in his body will fill into his lungs, and he will choke and die.
If the doctors perform the tracheotomy, Joseph will experience a great deal of pain, get an infection, and die painfully.

Like I said, this is a terrible, tragic story, and there is no silver lining. Joseph will die, and there seems to be no way that this story could get any worse. One would have to be a heartless cynic to use this story to further their own ideological goals. What kind of despicable human would exploit the desperation of the parents of a dying child? And yet....

Oh no. Not this again.

As if on cue, the Fox News propaganda machine jumped in and attempted to re-frame the story as another reason to fear 'Obamacare.'

They've used a Canadian story before in order to scare Americans from public health care. In the Summer of 2009, there was a story of Shona Holmes, who was suffering from a brain cyst. She was put on the waiting list to have the cyst removed, but was unable (or unwilling) to wait for the procedure. The type of brain cyst that Holmes had was definitely bad (causing temporary partial blindness and discomfort), but would have caused no permanent injury, and was not fatal. Fox News declared that it was not a cyst, but a brain tumor, and told American audiences that our heartless Canadian socialized medicine was willing to let the brain tumor go unoperated because it's too expensive. A lie that Holmes was only too happy to perpetuate.

Unlike the Holmes story, this story can have no happy ending. There is no operation waiting, at great expense, for him at the Mayo Clinic. Still, the Fox News pundit, Megyn Kelly (shown here, talking about the "news") brought Joseph's father onto her show to get his story, and afterwards had a discussion about how the Canadian Courts intervened because of a 'cost issue.'

(video source)

Obviously, the father's story seems heart-wrenchingly desperate. All things considered, he is being remarkably brave and thick skinned as he is trying everything and anything he can to act in what he believes is in the best interests in his son and family.

However, in the segment after Joseph's father, Kelly spoke to two others, and it didn't take long for the discussion to go where Kelly was leading:

MEGYN KELLY: Dr. London, do you think that there is something going on here in terms of Canadian health care system, which pays -- you know, they pay for all of the medical care. Do you feel like that's playing any role here?

DR. KATHLEEN LONDON: I can't believe that it would, because again, a tracheostomy is such a simple procedure, and the parents are saying they are going to care for this child at home. So I'm not really sure how this could be a cost issue or anything else. And I'm actually quite confused and wondering what details are we missing, and is there something else?

KELLY: What do you make of it, Wendy?

WENDY MURPHY: Well, look, I think it absolutely is a cost issue because putting in the tracheotomy will allow the child to live longer which costs the hospital that daily cost care. Please --

LONDON: No. They're taking him home.

KELLY: But he could come back.

MURPHY: No, but I understand. But they also then have oversight responsibilities. Whether the child were -- have a tracheotomy and stayed in the hospital or go home, they still have oversight responsibilities, which costs money every single day that that child is alive.

This is what I'm worried about with Obamacare. You know, it's not quite likely to be that bad. We don't really have death panels as people have come to understand that term. But we are going to have government agencies and panels making decisions based on cost, and that's a lot closer to the Canadian model than we've ever seen in this country. So we should be worried. It won't get this bad, but it will come close. [Fox News, America Live, 2/22/11]

This is hardly an earth shattering revelation, but it's clear that the facts don't matter to Kelly and Fox News. The story has nothing to do with the costs incurred by our health care system, but is about the rights of the parents, the rights of an infant in a persistent vegetative state, and the knowledge and expertise of the doctors involved. This is a discussion worth having.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (which I'm assuming is the "Death Panel" Kelly and company is referring to) is a public protection safeguard designed to intervene when the best interests of a person are not protected. It doesn't just intervene (on request) with cases that involves patients in a persistent vegetative state, but also in matters of estates, guardianship issues, and in making substitute health care decisions (such as intervening when a person gets in a car accident, and no known next of kin is able to be reached). The OPGT exists for one sole purpose: to protect Canadians who aren't being protected for one reason or another.

This sad case of little Joseph may fall under their scope, and they may intervene. Whatever their decision, it's not about the costs. If they decide that the doctors should not remove the breathing tube, or perform the tracheotomy, they will be doing so out of protection of Joseph, not in consideration of the costs. The OPGT is an office of the Attorney General, which makes is part of the Judical branch of government. The scope of the judicial branch cannot, by constitutional convention, encompass decisions of financial costs of the health care system, which falls under the legislative and executive branches (Canada has a fusion of powers, not a separation of powers like the US does) of the Federal and Provincial governments. That's why the judicial system exists: It protects the laws and rights of Canadians no matter what the elected bodies decide...it is outside the scope of popular opinion, because it has to be.

If any organization were to intervene due to costs (which isn't happening), it would be the one of these branches of government, NOT the court system. Of course, if the legislative branch were to make a decision based on the costs, the OPGT would block the decision, because when it comes to individuals constitutional rights, rights trump costs. Any discussion of "death panels" or the supposed overburdened costs of Joseph's care crowds out the serious ethical and legal discussion that needs to be made.

Make no mistake, this issue is not about our socialized medicine, or the idiotic scare-mongering of death panels. This is a case of the rights of the family to chose the manner of death for an infant in a persistent vegetative state. I'm not weighing in on whose voice should take precedence: the family's or the doctors'. I'm not an involved party, and I think it irresponsible for anyone to question or condemn the parents or the doctors involved. I have as much sympathy as I am able towards all involved party, and I hope that something, anything that is not terrible comes of this, but I'm not too hopeful. This story is bad all over.

This story is gut-wrenchingly sad enough as it is, and it doesn't need cynical politicking and scaremongering from Fox News to scare people away from socialized medicine.

__________
Sources:
Media Matters
The National Post
The Calgary Herald
CTV News

Website Hit Counters

Three years and life in county...

2011-02-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

Today, this silly little skeptic blog turns three. It no longer uses a diaper, and I expect you all to buy it a tricycle.

Three years ago today, I launched this blog for three reasons:
1) There didn't seem to be a significant Canadian Skeptic community at the time (or I simply couldn't find much)

2) I read Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, and wanted to get active. Phil was one of the first commenters on this blog, and it was really flattering to my young-skeptic blog to read his support.

3) I wanted to learn how to be a better writer. I was a regular astronomy columnist for my university paper, and I felt it was time I branched out.

Over the course of the last year and a half, this blog has seen a lower content output than is perhaps ideal, mainly because I put much of my writing in Skeptic North. However, this blog has seen a recent spike of content, my Infographics for Skeptics series, and I'll always think of this blog as my first home.

My one regret with this blog: Blogger. It's a fine platform to start a blog (especially if you're like me and know very little about web design), but once you want to expand, it is severely limiting. I can switch to Wordpress now if I want, but when one switches platforms, one also loses internal links (when I link to my own blog entries). If there can be an easy (and I do mean easy) porting tool that allows me to leave Blogger, I'll happily switch. If Blogger upgrades their software to be more Wordpress-esque, I'll happily stay. If nothing changes, I'll grudgingly stay.

Anyway, enough shameless self-congratulations. Onwards, and upwards...and...outwards? Whatever. Thanks for reading, and thanks for following me on Twitter! ;)

Website Hit Counters

How Does Homeopathy Work?

2011-02-19T18:23:00.000-05:00

Let's get this out of the way first: there is no credible, replicable body of scientific literature that supports the position that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo. Not only is there no measured effect, but there is also not an ounce of plausibility, given what we know about physics, chemistry, math, biology etc.

Yet, homeopaths and their supporters continue to cling onto anything they can come up with, in order to bolster their claims. And ho boy, do they come up with some doozies! On this chart below, I've compiled a small list of the claims that homeopaths put forth as the mechanism of action of homeopathy. You can see some of them yourself here and here. Some of these things can sound very intimidating. However, Once you look into these claims yourself, you discover that they're complete bullshit.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the mechanism of homeopathy is. Homeopaths claim that there is an effect, and when we put that effect to the test, homeopathy fails. There is no effect, and it doesn't matter how you tart it up, homeopathy is junk.

Check back often for more Infographics for Skeptics!

Website Hit Counters

A Skeptic Scope

2011-02-18T10:25:00.000-05:00

There are many issues that fall firmly into the camp of political activism, scientific skepticism, and humanism. There are some chance intersections (but only insomuch as they are tangentially related), and other intersections where issues come clashing together head on.

Whether you fancy yourself a libertarian, an atheist, or a high school chemistry teacher, (or any combination thereof) it's important to remember the context in which you find yourself, and your current set of values and interests (which are, hopefully, always subject to change, pending new data).

Below are some issues that skeptics often find themselves dealing with in some manner, and a diagram showing where they are, and where they are not.

Hint: Libertarianism is not the logical outcome of scientific skepticism, but that doesn't mean that a skeptic can't also be a libertarian. It just means that said person should stop conflating the two.

Check back often for more of my sumteen-part series, Infographics for Skeptics.

Website Hit Counters

Who is afriad of 2012?

2011-02-17T11:11:00.000-05:00

This could just be my own confirmation bias, but I seem to be hearing less of the 2012 fear mongering lately, compared to how much I've heard in the past three years. Might be because the crappy 2012 movie has come and gone, or it might be that I don't have cable anymore. But still, there are people who are afraid of 2012. Question is: Who?

Check back tomorrow for another of my series, Infographics for Skeptics!

Website Hit Counters

Why Take Naturopathic Products?

2011-02-16T13:42:00.001-05:00

Naturopathic products cover a staggeringly wide range of interventions ranging from ginseng to homeopathy. There is embarassingly little evidence that these interventions work, so why do people still take them?

Check back soon for more Infographics for Skeptics!

Website Hit Counters

Alternative Medicine Marketing 101

2011-02-15T11:18:00.001-05:00

Want to sell some alt-med products? I know how you can sell them! You don't even need to show that they work, just say that they do, and Health Canada will approve just about anything!

Check back soon for more Infographics for Skeptics!

Website Hit Counters

A Skeptic's Landscape

2011-02-14T11:26:00.000-05:00

There are plenty of intersections between what is popular, what is science, and what is hokum. Here are just a few of those intersections that skeptics often find themselves discussing.

Check back soon, and often for more of my sumteen-part series, Infographics for Skeptics.

Website Hit Counters

Why do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

2011-02-13T21:46:00.001-05:00

I think I figured it out.

I made a few of these Infographics For Skeptics. This is the first one, so check back soon for more!

Website Hit Counters

An Overdose on Sleeping Pills! Or as I call it, "Best Superbowl Sunday Ever!"

2011-02-06T22:33:00.000-05:00

Today, I could have died. I nearly joined the Choir Invisible and I might have been pushing up the daisies by now.

I speak of course, of my attempt to overdose on the homeopathic sleeping pill, "Calms Forte". These guys:

I'm not the only one who tried to do this. Today, and yesterday, skeptics from around Canada and the world ingested huge amounts of homeopathic preparations (I am hesitant to call them 'remedies' since they don't remedy anything but boredom and a thick wallet) in an effort to 'overdose'. Not all skeptics took the same thing that I took, but many did. Most skeptics ingested whole bottles of some form of supposed sleep aid.

The always organized and effective Vancouver Skeptics (and CFI) had a great demonstration:

The logic is simple enough for even a homeopath to understand (and yet they never seem to): Homeopaths claim that their pills have an effect. If so, taking them should show that effect. Taking all of them should definitely show something.

Well, you're reading this, so I can assume that you've figured out I survived. We all did. Good for us. No one fainted, got drowsy, and if we were technically qualified to, any one of us could have operated heavy machinery.

Pictured: Our small, but spirited group. Not pictured: dead people, tired people, stupid people.

Homeopaths hate it when people actually put their claims to the test. They resort to ad hominem attacks, and exclaim that an overdose can't possibly work because homeopathy just doesn't work that way (in that sense, we agree), because taking that huge number of pills still accounts for taking one single dose. Well, if that's the case, then shouldn't patients of homeopathy take half a pill, or a millionth of a pill? Aren't homeopaths grossly overcharging? I'm all for consumer freedom, but this sounds like a 200 year old con-job!

Homeopaths are on the ropes in the UK, and taking some serious, well-deserved beatings. In Canada, a skeptical eye is being turned on them too, and not just by skeptics, but by the mainstream media. Homeopaths don't like this, and will encourage their supporters to deliberately obfuscate the issue and blind people with personal anecdotes and harassment.

There is a high probability that homeopaths or their supporters will leave a comment below exclaiming, often (but not always) as a last resort, that I:

a) Simply don't understand it.
b) I need to read 21 papers that support their position.
c) Until I've read these 21 (or more) "scientific studies", I'm not qualified to be talking like this.
d) I am speaking out of my simple minded, music teacher ass (Bryce Wylde once derisively called me "Music Man" and in the next breath said that I was stewing in bitterness.)

They will also call us communists in the pocket of their favourite enemy (after skeptics), "Big Pharma:"

The skeptical movement is an offshoot of the Communist Party. (Really: see the top two links below.) Its top organizers were hired by pharmaceutical company and medical industry representatives to recruit malcontents in bars to spread hate propaganda against non-conventional medical systems. One of the first such skeptic groups referred to itself as “Skeptics in the Pub”. Not surprisingly, their rants against Homeopathy sound like the drunken cacophony of soccer hooligans."

The above quote was pulled from a new pro-homeopathy website owned by Kitchener-area homeopath Tracy Poizner. (To me, it sounds like "poisoner"). Communists Party offshoot. Drunks. Hired by pharmaceutical company and medical industry reps to recruit malcontents in bars.

To Tracy Poizner: You provide no evidence of these claims, and make no mistake: this is slander, libel, and deliberate character defamation on your part. If you cannot provide evidence, I suggest you remove this, before some skeptics with a skin as thin as yours decide to take legal action against you. Your tactic is despicably cowardly, as we already know what McCarthyism did to a culture.

It's now been 9 hours since I took 50 homeopathic sleeping pills. It's just past 10:00 pm as I write this, and I've been up all day. I just yawned. Homeopaths: don't claim this as a yawn in your favour. I'm just bored writing about you.

Because it's not homeopathic. It's homeopathetic.

And no, I don't think that's very clever of me.

Website Hit Counters

Bryce Wylde: Cause-and-Effect Might not be for You

2011-01-15T19:32:00.000-05:00

Bryce Wylde, that wacky TV personality who advocates that you take homeopathy for cuts, bruises, the flu, and cancer (wait, what?) has had a bit of a confusing relationship with how time flows. (and a few Skeptic North members). Here's just a few of the madcap online adventures he's been having lately:

1) He got into a twitter fight with a bot yesterday. In fairness to Bryce, once it was pointed out to him that it was a robot (how he couldn't guess that the twitter user @AI_1023 was a robot is a bit surprising), he took it with humour, so I can't give him too much flak. After making a silly mistake like that, laughing at oneself is the best reaction, so I can look the other way and shrug, "Oh well....at least he knows"

2) In response to a very well done CBC program that looked into homeopathy, Bryce helped to launch a campaign for his supporters to flood the comments section at the CBC with pro-homeopathy comments. Thing is though, this campaign was launched BEFORE the program even aired! It's not just skeptics who noticed this, but the CBC caught wind too. Rightly, they devoted an entire page showing all of CBC's readers this embarrassing tactic.

From Bryce Wylde's website, put up before the program aired. And he wasn't the only one resorting to this tactic either!!

You know, Skeptics often get attacked by homeopathy supporters as being dogmatic, biased, and dishonest, and this CBC show was attacked on these same grounds. But even a first grader could tell you not to badmouth something before you even see it.

3) Regular readers of Skeptic North will likely know of the complicated relationship that we have with Bryce Wylde. Last April, I wrote a piece about how sad I find it that Wylde is on TV advocating his business and products (thinly veiled as "health advice" on a dedicated program). A few months later, Kim Hebert wrote a similar piece about him being on Canada AM. This got Wylde's attention, and he even left a comment, politely suggesting that we skeptics read 21 on his 'favourite' papers in support of homeopathy. Kim responded that she would, but it would take some time. Bryce wasn't satisfied with Kim taking the time to read the papers, saying that he was "aghast." Well, true to her word, Kim (with some assistance from other Skeptic North readers and members) spent a great deal of time and energy pouring over the articles. Her conclusion: All the papers where either of poor quality, used incorrect controls / statistical methods, or they actually supported the opposite of what homeopaths think they said. Wylde's response? I think 'flippant' would be a fair way of describing it. What do you think?

After Wylde was encouraging people to denounce a TV show that they (nor he) hadn't seen yet, I was poking around his site for a while, when I noticed this:

Note: Not too long ago, an outfit who call themselves "Skeptic North" posted an online thread criticising Bryce and his "21 Favorite Papers" on homeopathy. Well, those papers are not his only favorites. I hope anyone with a scientific mind will enjoy reading below. Music teachers and OT's are welcome too."

Regular readers of Skeptic North or this site will well know that Kim is the OT (occupational therapist) and I am the music teacher. Is it just me, or does this comment seem awfully petty, passive aggressive, and borderline childish to you?

Other commenters have tried to use my profession against me before. It's as if because I'm a music teacher, I can't read, add two and two, or know what science is. And it's also as if Bryce can't say what he means. Well, I have little patience for that kind of pettiness. I say what I mean, and I mean it here: Bryce Wylde: My college education (in MUSIC, fer crying out loud!) and my university education is worth far more than your homeopathic education. Far more. But I'm not the one trying to give health advice.

If you want to learn how to play any instrument you can think of, my rate is $20 for a half hour. What do you charge for your homeopathy consultations? Oh. $225 for the first hour and 15 minutes. I wonder if I can accuse you of being in the pocket of Big Boiron (which makes far more than Merck, a Pharma giant. Small wonder, given that Merck actually has a research budget).

Oh, and Bryce Wylde: After that stunt you pulled to get people to condemn a show that has yet to air: you NEVER get to call anyone dogmatic, biased, or closed minded EVER AGAIN.

Website Hit Counters

Don't Ever Order Ibanez Products!

2010-12-01T01:48:00.000-05:00

Forgive me for not discussing skeptic or science issues for a moment. But I need to get this off my chest. Musicians: You would do well to read this post, it just may save you a lot of time and aggravation.

As some of you know, I'm a music teacher. I love my job, and frankly, I'm good at it. Over the course of a week, I teach just under of 60 students in a primarily one-on-one setting. I mainly teach guitar and drums, but I also teach saxophone, piano, ukulele, and bass. I accept payment in money. My students range from age 4 to 55. As a teacher in a position of trust and authority, my voice holds a certain level of sway over many people within the community.

You'd think that if you were a company that dealt with me, you'd want to make sure I was a happy customer.

You would think that, wouldn't you? But if you were Ibanez Canada, you would be thinking of several other things first. Most likely, "DUM! DUM! DUM! DUM! DUM! WE LIKE TO SAY DUM! DERP!"

Through one of the schools I teach at, I ordered an Ibanez bass. Like most responsible, well-run private music schools, they make sure that teachers can get affordable access to the materials that they need to be a good teacher, and I am afforded a generous discount when dealing with certain companies. I ordered a transparent red Ibanez GSR 200. Not a great bass, but it was all that I needed. It's hard to teach bass if you don't own a bass. I've lost students (and hence, income) because they didn't like being taught to play bass when the teacher only had a guitar.

I placed this order in the second week of September of this year, 2010. Ibanez told my employer that it would be in, in 2 weeks, tops.

My employer quite reasonably assumed, as just about anyone would, that the bass would be delivered to me in 2 weeks.

What the Ibanez guy on the phone really meant, we found out when three weeks had passed, that it was being shipped to THEIR warehouse. But now that it was here, we were assured, it would be shipped shortly.

But, foolishly, we assumed that it would be shipped once it got off the trucks. No, it had to be sorted, accounted for and wait in holding for the mysterious Ibanez Goblins to play out all the kinks first.

A month passed. One of my co-workers had earlier ordered an adapter from the same company, and was experiencing a similar experience with their unpredictable business practices. "What happened to that adapter I ordered?" My co-worker asked.

"Oh" Said the sales rep,"That's sitting here on my desk."

To which my co-worker replied, "Great. How are you going to get that over to my desk?"

"I can ship that out right now!"

"Great", said my co-worker, "While I got you on the line, where is that bass that you said was going to be shipped?"

"Oh! I have that bass! It's sitting right here on my desk!"

"Great....wanna ship that too?" Replied my co-worker, no doubt smacking his forehead.

"Sure thing! I'll ship it today!"

Three weeks pass.

We call again, "What the crazy-sauce is going on with that bass?"

"Oh! We were waiting for all the adapter to get here before we shipped the bass out"

The bass, which had been sitting in their office, was waiting for the adapter, which was also sitting in their office. The sales rep lead my employer to believe that they had already been shipped.

30 minutes later, my employer gets a call from the Ibanez billing department, asking for the school's credit information. Translation, the bass was getting shipped immediately.

On Monday, I got the bass. Nearly three months late. IN THE WRONG FUCKING COLOUR!


Pictured, my new bass, NOT in transparent red.

This was a miserable fucking experience with Ibanez Canada. You would think that if you dealt with a music SCHOOL, you would do your best to make sure the teachers ordering their products are kept happy. I mean, who knows, maybe one of those teachers is a regular blogger and has a reach of several thousand readers here, and via other outlets.

Over the course of this excruciating waiting, I have told nearly every single one of my students (who can understand, and/or care enough to remember) about this experience. My voice as a teacher to these students, some of whom are at a very impressionable age, carries considerable weight.

To anyone who has ever taken music lessons: if your teacher told you to never buy a particular music product because you won't get what you ordered and you'll wait forever for it, wouldn't you remember that for a long time, and probably listen to this advice?

Now, Ibanez products are perfectly fine. If you see one on the shelf that you like, by all means, buy it if you're willing and able to. Buy them as gifts. I'm not saying this just to avoid getting into trouble, I like their products, I truly do. Ibanez has some especially great guitars and basses for intermediate players (which are, let's be honest, most players). The bass that I now have plays just fine. It's got a fine tone, and is fun to play slap style. But, the moral of this story is...

NEVER ORDER IBANEZ PRODUCTS!

Buy them on the shelf if you like, but if you order them, you'll be treated like a piece of trash.

Website Hit Counters

Whole Life Expo Updates

2010-11-30T00:57:00.000-05:00

First, let me say a hearty thanks to everyone who shared yesterday's post about my Whole Life Expo experience. I'd like as many people as possible to know how they treated us, and your kind words and networking support is helping in this regard.

I also want to say thank you to everyone who attended the event with us. The Association for Science and Reason (formerly Skeptics Canada, the same organization that hosted me for a Skeptics in the Pub last January) were well represented, as were the CFI and CASS (Centre for Inquiry and Centre for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism, respectively). Of course, there were several Skeptic North bloggers in attendance, as well as some regular commenters and readers of the various outlets. Thanks to everyone who came: Your presence was a tremendous support network that we can all now use when these sorts of SNAFUs happen.

I mentioned in yesterday's post that there would be new updates, and there are.

Firstly, Skeptic North blogger Mitchell (whose experience was even more hostile than mine) wrote his review of the event, and I encourage you all to read it here.

Secondly, Justin Trottier, president of CFI Canada also provided an account of some more sobering events, including the threat of physical violence. Read it here.

Pictured, "Gary", whom I mentioned in the last post, and one of the principal aggressors.

That's all for now, friends. Keep reading, and keep watching the skiis!

Uh, skies.

Website Hit Counters

"There are skeptics in the building dressed in black!" : Inclusivity and welcoming at the Whole Life Expo.

2010-11-28T23:41:00.001-05:00

This post is going to be written in a flurry, as I want to get everything down while it is still fresh in my mind.

Today, along with around 15 other skeptic friends, I went to the Whole Life Expo in Toronto. The experience was, to put it mildly, unsettling. I went last year with fellow Skeptic North bloggers Mitchell and Scott, and I got a decent amount of writing material out of it (Here, here, and here). Last year we took pictures, engaged exhibitors in conversation, and generally were awed at some of the claims being made. While it was a bit of a mind blowing experience, it was not altogether negative in any significant way.

This year, however, I received a taste of the subtle fascism of hidden agendas.

Readers of Skeptic North will know that we announced on our blog that several of the Toronto-area bloggers and friends would be attending this year. In the comments section, we were met with a bizarre combination of belligerence, welcome, and insult at our desire to attend a public expo. There were even some comments from one of the Expo organizers, Julia Woodford, who expressed herself with a modicum of civility (a trait, I later learned did not fully extend into the real world).

After we bought our tickets, we all went upstairs to the convention hall. My little sub group of four people walked in first, and we were tagged instantly. Without exaggeration, we were not more than 4 steps into the hall when Mitchell was stopped by a man (I will call him "Gary," because he reminds me of a jerk Gary I once knew) aggressively asking, "Are you with Skeptics North?"

"Uhhh....yes", replied Mitchell.

To which "Gary" pointed a stern finger, warning, "Get my picture off your website. Now!"

It took me a while to figure out what the heck "Gary" was on about, when I saw his face again (because he was following us), and remembered this photo thread in the Skeptic North comments section, where Mitchell provided evidence that the Whole Life Expo sold illegal ear candles last year.

Less than 5 minutes later, we were again tracked by "Gary", and another event staffer named Jodi (which was on his name tag). Jodi was carrying a large sign in front of him that laid out the Expo's rules against recording anything on the exhibition floor without the permission of the exhibitor. He had his muscle ("Gary", a physically imposing man) in tow, and he made sure, quite aggressively, that we all understood the Expo's rules (which were nowhere to be found on their website). We calmly explained that we did, and that despite his claim that he would confiscate our cameras if we broke the rules, he was not legally allowed to do that.

We did not photograph the sign that Jodi was carrying, but the exact wording was,

"Video, Audio, and Photography may only be recorded in the exhibit hall and lecture areas by accredited media pre-authorized by Whole Life Expo show management. (All others risk confiscation of their recording devices)"

After Jodi and "Gary" "walked away" (which really means they kept us in sight for about 30 minutes until we scattered), only 5 minutes passed before we heard on the Public Address (P.A.) system (and to the best of my memory),

"Attention to all Exhibitors: There are four members of Skeptics North in attendance dressed in black carrying unauthorized recording equipment. If you see any of them taking pictures, please report them to event staff".

About 15 minutes passed, and we heard another similar announcement:

Attention to all Exhibitors: A reminder that there are skeptics in black from Skeptics North with unauthorized recording equipment. They are not authorized to take pictures or to record. Please be diligent!

To my knowledge, no similar announcements were made for anyone else in the crowd who might have been taking pictures. They clearly singled us out and wanted to send a loud message to everyone: Look out for the Skeptic North people! Report any wrong doing! Skeptics in Black are here! Fear! Foes! Awaken! Fear!

Courtesy of Mitchell Gerskup via Flickr

Most of my time in the Expo was relatively uneventful. I asked several exhibitors some questions, and never once did I raise my voice, or openly challenge anything that was said. I tried that once last year and got into a fruitless argument with an anti-vaccinationist who advocated taking colloidal silver to prevent H1N1. This time around, I simply asked questions, grabbed some 'literature', thanked the exhibitors, and walked away.

One exhibitor does get a special shout out here. His name was Stephen, and he ran a chakra-balancing booth with his girlfriend. Stephen granted us all requisite permissions to record him in any way that we wanted. That kind of openness, I can respect. He also admonished the peculiar anti-skeptic announcements on the P.A., saying, "That was uncalled for. You guys aren't doing anything wrong at all. We need skeptics like you!" Needless to say, I don't agree with Stephen's assessment of chakras, but his openness and his mature sense of accountability (largely absent at the Expo) was a heartwarming highlight. Stephen's basic sense of respect was so charming, that I'm even going to link to his website, Celestial Healer. Stephen and I may not see eye to eye on this, but I know that if there were more respectful, honest people like him, we at least could have some potentially productive dialogues.

Stephen, thank you very much. You truly were the highlight of the day for me. I wish that the event organizers and staff were as honest in their pursuit for truth as you were.

After about 2 hours of mingling about (I also bought four really cool looking stones for a great price. And hey, pretty stones are pretty stones!), our group decided it was time to leave. We had agreed that we would leave at around 12:30, and meet near the entrance to wait for the rest of the party. It was at this time that we were "kicked out".

Jodi had returned and he was bragging that he had kicked our friends out for breaking the rules (taking pictures), and told us that we were also kicked out. The people who took pictures were not in the exhibit hall, but outside it, on a catwalk. According to their ad hoc signage, this was not forbidden.

Again, we were leaving. So he kicked us out. It's a bit like one of those madcap 80's sitcom jokes of "You don't quit, you're fired!"

I wasn't sure where all the group was, so I decided to wait around for any stragglers. It was at this time that I spotted Julia Woodford, doing some cheap imitation of subterfuge, taking pictures of the others as they were leaving, and of me as I was standing there. After the aggressive speech they gave to us about not taking pictures, I thought this a bit rich. I calmly walked over to Julia and explained to her that I'm not against her taking pictures of me, and she needn't hide it. She need only tell me, and I'd be content. She told me that they were not going to publish them, and that they were only for their own "internal records."

Translation: Don't ever come back. We know who you are. If you try to come back, we'll stop you.

After watching Jodi continue to get angry and aggressive with my friends, I took the time to thank Julia for ensuring that illegal ear candles were not sold at the Expo, as they were last year. Followers of Skeptic North might have noticed a rather heated debate in the comment thread regarding ear candles (which are illegal to sell in Canada), and Julia assured us that they would not be sold this year. For all the animosity that was thrown our way by Julia and Jodi that afternoon, I felt it necessary to make sure that she knew I appreciated her compliance with the law, and explained to her that we don't choose which laws we wish to obey. What probably could have been a rather ugly encounter with Julia ended lukewarm (at best), so there is something positive that came out of that discussion.

But any sense of diplomacy I may have gleamed was quickly washed away a minute later. As the remainder of our party (sans a few others, which I will explain in a moment) waited in the main Convention Centre lobby, we noticed that we were once again being photographed by convention staff! A blonde woman was quite clearly taking pictures of us as she sat behind the ticket counter. I let loose a roaring laugh when I saw this (theatre of the absurd knows no bounds), and I think several people waved.

Now, I mentioned that there were a few people missing in the lobby. Several of my friends got kicked out. As I understand it, and my memory may be incorrect, here's how it went down: Two (or more) skeptics were taking pictures from outside the exhibit hall, looking in (from atop a catwalk one story up, and not part of the exhibition hall). They were kicked out. Some aggression ensued on the part of the Expo people (Jodi and "Gary"), and they also issued a threat of physical violence. I was not there, and the incident did not involve me directly, so I cannot comment much. But I can say that police reports have already been filed. But I promise you, you will hear more about this in the weeks to come. Threatening physical violence is never okay, and it's a crime.

Last year was kind of fun, whimsical and eye opening. This year was largely ugly, dirty, and third eye opening.

Walking away from this, my second Whole Life Expo, I have a few questions:

Why were we not allowed to take pictures? I should think that all the exhibitors and organizers would echo Julia's call for "a healthy dose of skepticism". If they are legit, then the VERY LEAST they can endure should be photos.
Why did the announcements single Skeptic North members out, and not the countless other people I saw with recording gear (and no press pass)?
Most, nay, all of the exhibitors I talked with were civil, polite, friendly, and respectful. It is a courtesy I returned, because being nice to people is a lot easier on my nerves (and probably theirs too) than being aggressive. Why was this a trait to be found in the exhibitors, and not the organizers?

It was immensely clear that for all the talk of welcoming and inclusivity that we often hear (and did hear) from the purveyors of these sorts of events, reality was far from theory. They talked a game of openness, but as soon as this openness was put to the most basic of tests (ie: recording the claims for, well, for the record), the "healthy dose of skepticism" turns into a microcosm of fascism.

They threatened to confiscate our cameras (which they're not allowed to do), photographed us with subterfuge (like the Scientologists and other cults do), attempted to intimidate us with physical gestures and verbal harassment, publicly singled us out (as though we were enemies of the state), and even threatened us with physical violence.

I'm sure that once this story gets out there (and it will, I promise you), the Whole Life Expo people will try to spin this to their advantage, painting us as troublemakers who showed up just to cause trouble. But I will remind you: We broke no rules, and broke no laws. Nobody was rude, disrespectful, or aggressive. I sadly cannot say the same for the organizers of the Expo.

Also, to Julia, Jodi, "Gary" and the guy who called us "fuckin' losers" as I was leaving, know this: If we ever have a Canadian skeptics conference, you are all welcome to attend. Depending on how the event is organized, you may even be allowed to take pictures, and no one will follow you, threaten you, or insult you. Every time you slam the doors of debate shut, we'll keep prying them open, inviting you in. Every time you try to control information, we'll make sure that it's accessible.

Website Hit Counters

Hear me! Hear me!

2010-11-15T11:45:00.000-05:00

Okay, last week was pretty trying. I'm not going to get into further detail, but I want to thank everyone for their kind words of support and friendship. This coming week should be a little better, and I'll tell you why!

I was the guest on a recent episode of a neat new podcast called, "Meet The Skeptics", hosted by Chris Brown. Chris has interviewed the likes of Jay Novella, Derek Colanduno, and James Randi, so I'm honoured to be counted in such company. Chris and I chatted for nearly two hours and he whittled our conversation down to the usable bits. If the sound quality seems a little low on my end, that's entirely my fault. My internet has been maddeningly slow since I moved here, and the skype call kept dropping, so we chatted on the phone.

To hear the episode of Meet the Skeptics, go here!

This Friday, at 8:00 EST, I'll be making another appearance on Skeptically Speaking! I'll be on with fellow Skeptic North blogger Erik Davis to talk about the difficulties in accepting consensus science. The impetus for us coming on was primarily the recent (and ongoing) WiFi hubub, but we'll also be discussing AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and "alternative medicine". The topic is pretty deep, and the discussion promises to be interesting and engaging. I will probably make dick jokes and fart noises.

Tune in this Friday! Call in, question everything. Ask difficult, probing questions...but softball questions are also welcomed ;)

Website Hit Counters

Flick's Story.

2010-11-10T15:08:00.000-05:00

This entry won't be skeptical, political, or funny in any way. It's just a personal story that I need to tell for my own sake. This is my catharsis. If you don't read this, I won't take it personally.

My cat died today. Her name was "Flick" and this is her story.

When I was 16, I got a gray tabby named "Shadow". She was bad, had peed everywhere, and was aggressive and anti-social. But on the night before I moved away to college for the first time, Shadow came into my room and lovingly cuddled up onto my chest and slept with me. Every time I came home she ran to the door to greet me, and when I was done college and moved back home, she was always my cat. In the early spring of 2003 she suffered liver failure and had to be put down. I was in the room with her, holding her little paw as the lethal cocktail was injected into her sickened body.

Shadow, 1996-2003.

I was pretty devastated after that, and felt like I failed her. We had other cats and a dog, and I loved them all, but Shadow was my friend: she never got along with other people the way she snuggled and played with me.

Then in the late summer a neighbour angrily appeared at our door holding a little kitten by the scruff of the neck demanding to know, "Is this yours?!" (We had a bit of a reputation in the neighbourhood as being the house with the animals). My dad said no, but he would look into it. By "look into it", he meant "Get one of the kids to deal with it". An hour later I went to the woman's house and picked up this little waif of a kitten (who looked like she hadn't eaten in days and whose long fur was beginning to mat) that she had cornered in her backyard shed, and I carried her home as she struggled with fear at every passing car and noise. Once home, I put her in a little room that I used for gaming and gave her some milk and wet food, which she devoured. I gave her seconds, and she ate them at the same speed. Then she slept. And slept. And slept.

I went to work, returning to learn that she had not woken up once. I was beginning to think she was sick, but after a 32 hour nap, it was clear that she was just tuckered out, and for the first time in her life, she felt safe. So soon after losing Shadow, I wasn't looking for a new cat, but this little ball of fur and tree sap was just to much for me to resist. A few dead-end calls to the animal shelters asking if anyone had reported a lost tortoise shell kitten later, I took her in, and named her Flick.

After a few days we introduced her to the "general population" of cats and a big doofy dog. She held her own against the matriarch, Marble (who accepted her), and played with the lovable one, Space. The dog wanted to meet the new family member, and flick greeted her with a swipe on the nose and 5 years of playful torment, ambush and chasing.

As Flick got older, she grew into one of those really interesting cats. You know the kind: the ones with weird personality quirks. She was the only cat would would dare (and was allowed) to sleep on the kitchen table, whereupon she would stand up on her haunches and bat her front paws up in the air like she was boxing.

She was one of those "princess" cats who would, after playing/sleeping outside, would whine and cry to get you to let her come back inside. Once you opened the door, she would lay down, sprawl on her back and get you to pick her up and carry her inside.

Many times, I saw her sleeping on the roof under the stars. I envied her for that.

She would eat at our house, and demand to be let out. Then she would go to the neighbours houses and get food there too. She would sometimes sleep on their couch.

She she didn't feel like venturing to the neighbours, she would scamper upstairs and spend the day with my grandmother.

Marble, 1987-2008.

Space, 1991-2010

When I moved away for good, I couldn't take any of the family cats with me. Flick would be especially hard to take because she was such an outdoors cat (and was very clever in finding ways to get outdoors). I eventually did get my own cat, Genghis, but I always had a special place in my heart for the family pets, Marble, Mation, Space, Flick and Chance.

Marble and Chance died in 2008. Marble at age 21, Chance at age 16. Both respectable ages, and I know that they both lived long, happy lives. Space, my beloved orange tabby, died earlier this year at the age of 19.
Space was a particularly affectionate cat, and his death shook me kind of hard too.

My girlfriend and I went back to my parents house for thanksgiving this year (A note to my American friends, Canadian Thanksgiving falls on the first Monday of October) and Flick occasionally popped in to say hello, and "get pets" from the hoomans. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary, because Flick was young, and in her prime. She still had many a mice to torture yet.

Fast forward two weeks and I get a call after work from my mom telling me that Flick has been drooling steadily and not eating as much. They took her into the vet and it was discovered that she had a very fast-growing lump under her tongue. The vet took a sample and sent it off to the labratory for testing. My family (and later, I) was told that nothing was conclusive at the moment, but it didn't look good, and we should prepare to put her down. After confirming that it was the most aggressive form of cancer that a feline can get, my sister made arrangements to do what had to be done.

One week later I drove home to visit Flick. I knew that it was less a "How are you doing, Flick?" and more of a "Goodbye, Flick" kind of trip. It was harder to deal with then I expected.

When I saw her, she was sleeping on my parents bed, nestled snugly in a sunbeam. Her fur was heavily matted and her paws and tail was wet from her drool. She couldn't close her mouth all the way, but she was very happy to see me, and started purring gently. I wanted to make sure she got her rest, so I walked off to the kitchen. She got up and followed me. She kept looking up at me, no doubt expecting to be let out or fed.

I made her a bowl of some high-quality soft wet food, and a bowl of warm water. After placing it on the kitchen table (her "spot"), she happily jumped up and started drinking. This was what partly was so bothersome: she was still happy. My family picked up a kitten early in the year and Flick growled at her she she came near. Flick still had her fire. She looked up at me and gave me her customary meek little meow and then I saw the growth in her mouth. Her tongue was curled up to one side and looked like it had been inflated to 5 times its normal size. But she was still hungry, and wanted to eat. So she very slowly and carefully took in tiny bites of the food, tilting her head to the side of her mouth where the tongue hasn't bulged. What would have taken her 1 minute to eat just a month prior, took her 30 minutes this time.

Because her tongue was incapacitated, she couldn't lap up her drool. I tried to wipe it away with a tissue, but she growled at me when I got close to her food....something she has always done with everybody, human or animal.

Her personality hadn't changed at all. She was purring, growling, playing, trotting, and even meowing. She stared longingly out the window for many hours. In her mind, such as it exists in housecats, she was perfectly fine. With the other cats, their minds and bodies started to deteriorate slowly, and together. When they passed away, we all knew it was the right time. But Flick was fine just three weeks earlier when I saw her last. It wasn't fair, and it's not her time.

I, like I'm sure many of you, get very attached to my pets. When they die unexpectedly, it's especially hard to deal with. A happy, purring, playing cat should not have to struggle to eat a few grams of soft food. And as with Shadow, I can't help but feeling I failed her.

I was one of Flick's guardians, one of her caretakers. Yet right when she was in her prime, she was struck down by a heartless, thoughtless disease incapable of distinguishing a young and happy cat from an old and senile one.

I feel as I let Flick down, and I want to apologize to her, but I can't.

Flick, thank you for being my cat. I'm sorry I let you down, and I'm sorry I don't get to see you grow old. It's not fair to you, and I'm sorry.

Flick, 2003-2010.

I love you, Flick.

Website Hit Counters

Oh Where, Oh Where has my Stephen Gone?

2010-10-31T02:15:00.000-04:00

I know that I've not been keeping this blog with the care and attention that I did a year ago. I feel kinda bad about this. After all, this blog was my first forray into skeptical activism, and I've not been around here much lately.

But like a guy who plays upright bass, fret not, dear readers! I spend most of my blogging energies over at Skeptic North, and have been ever since we started on October 1, 2009.

Get it? Fret not!

So rather then let this blog fester into the place where I go to complain about atheism (which I don't really care about these days) and politics, I'm also going to start regularly be posting brief summaries of my Skeptic North articles and give you a brief rundown on what I've been doing for the last year, skeptically speaking.

Podcasts:

Speaking of skeptically speaking, you can hear me on a few episodes of Skeptically Speaking! (this episode, and this one). In case you missed it, I was on episode 228 of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe last year, and this episode of RadioFree Thinker with fellow Skeptic North blogger, Ethan Clow. I'll also be on an upcoming episode of Meet The Skeptics...details on this appearence will be up shortly.

"Skepticism 101" at Skepchicon 2010. Pictured from left to right: Greg Laden, Lois Shadenwald, Pamela Gay, Me

Live Events:

At Toronto Skepticamp

I gave a 40 minute talk at the Toronto Skeptics in the Pub, hosted by the Association for Science and Reason on January 22. As far as I know, no footage exists of it. I had fun, and thanks again to Dave, Lisa, Aysha (another fellow Skeptic North blogger) for having me. This past summer I was on two panels at Skepchicon 2010 in Mineapolis. Once again, I don't know of any existing footage, but here's a funny photostream instead. Recently, I gave a presentation at the first ever Toronto Skepticamp, and footage DOES exist of the talk! Listen here. I'll be condensing this presentation into blog form shortly, so stay tuned. Also, if you're in/near the Kitchener/Waterloo region, come on out to the Drinking Skeptically events, which I'm regularly at.

Recent Articles

I wrote a review of Daniel Levitin's wonderful book "This is your Brain on Music"

In response to a referendum that was held in Waterloo, I wrote a piece on the old panic of water fluoridation (hint: it's perfectly safe and ethical!)

Perhaps most importantly, if you're in Ontario, you've probably heard about the efforts to ban WiFi from public schools. It's idiotic, senseless, and the people leading the charge in this cause leave much to be desired in the areas of expertise and being unbiased.

My first piece covered the basics
My second piece uncovered some ridiculous facts about the people behind it.
My third piece is a little fiery, but hopefully some people with power will take notice this time. The people behind this anti WiFi crusade are wrong, wrong, wrong, and they need to be stopped. They've already got the government wating their time and our money looking into something that the whole world knows is safe.

That's about all the updates for now. Forgive me for sounding so ego-centric, but there was a lot of ground to cover because I've been so lackadaisical over here lately. Every time I post something new on Skeptic North, I'll provide a summary here, and you can decide if you want to head over there. But you should be doing that anyway, becuase it's a great group blog that I'm proud to be a part of.

Website Hit Counters

Can I Get a Witness: An Act of Near Child Abuse

2010-10-09T19:18:00.000-04:00

Forgive me for getting a rage-on here.

Despite my insistence that I'm not really focusing my energies on atheism, little things keep popping up in my life that remind me that a) I am a minority, b) the majority (religious people in the broadest sense) will not cease until I have joined them, and believe in truth by revealed wisdom, rather than by reason, logic, and evidence. I repeatedly hear the often right-wing cry of the religious, "Why can't atheism leave the rest of us alone?!"

Well, I try. I fucking try. I don't EVER proselytize or advertise my atheism to someone if they have not explicitly asked what religious beliefs I hold (it never occurs to the religious that "none" might be an answer, and the default question often revolves around this conceit that I must somehow be an adherent to one form of superstition or another). I don't wear atheist t-shirts, and I don't laugh in the face of the religious (as many atheists are prone to do). There are active debates/fights/discussions within the atheist community about how best to present ourselves to the public which outnumbers us. For me, I take the stance of respect, but unapologetic atheism. I won't back down from a fight about religion/atheism, but I will never start or instigate one.

Sadly, there are regular reminders in my life that the religious community will not grant me the same courtesy I grant them: They refuse to leave me alone.

Another reminder of this obnoxious preaching happened to me this morning, as I was preparing to leave for work, and has caused me so much anger, that I am still able to be stirred by the rage I felt all day.

At about 10:15 or so, I heard a knock at the door. It being Saturday morning, I should have known that an unsolicited visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses was going to occur sooner or later, and so they did. Now, I've been very respectful to JW's in the past, but unflinching in my position against them that they have so far been unable to shake. This morning, however, I was met with a different tactic that I was quite unprepared for.

As usual, there was a middle-aged woman dressed in very conservative attire, but to the left of her was a little girl who couldn't have been older than 10 years old. I was so taken aback by this that I could barely respond to the innocent girl when she asked me, pressured by the monstrously irresponsible she-devil in a trench coat pressuring her, "Do you find it more difficult to trust people?"

Now, if an adult would have asked this meaningless question it would be easy to destroy: More difficult to trust people than what? More difficult to trust people then when when I was a child? More difficult to trust people in the 1950's? More difficult to trust people then then I think it should be like? But hearing this nervous little girl barely eek out such an inane question that was put on her by charlatans and idiots with power over her was completely and utterly disarming.

I had no idea how to respond, and I don't remember what I said. Hearing the she-devil in a trench coat pressure the nervous girl into asking a complete stranger (who still had bed-head) a religious question that she has no understanding of, filled me with such disarming rage that I couldn't for the life of me respond as I would have under normal (read: no children being used) circumstances.

The girl could not even look up from her sparkling pink shoes as she nervously held aloft a copy of some inane magazine riddled with empty platitudes of family, fealty, and faith. Feeling terrible for the poor girl, I could just barely muster up enough strength of will to say to the she-devil in a trench coat that I was on my way to work in about 10 minutes (which was true, and that panicked, "I might be late for work" state I was in, might have also contributed to my blubberingness). I had an honest way out of that situation, but I wonder how I would have otherwise dealt with that unlikely pair.

Armed with hindsight and pride, I can say that I would have liked to invite the woman inside for a minute, and told her how despicable I found her tactics to be. But in the moment, shocked by the sight of a nervous child (and worried about being late for work), I just sounded like a stammering idiot.

I'll say it as bluntly as I can: Getting children to perform religious recruitment/missionary work constitutes child abuse. One would never pressure a child to canvass for a political party, or get them to spread the glorious doctrine of Marxism or neo-liberalism. Or if they did, they would rightly be castigated by society at-large as forcing their ideology onto innocent minds undeserving of adult baggage. "Let children stay innocent," we might say, "there will be plenty of time for them to make their own minds up later".

Religion, like any political ideology, is a learned set of beliefs. I agree with Richard Dawkins that no child is born as belonging to any religion, just as they are not born republicans, democrats, or Marxists. Children should be given the intellectual freedom to be children while those precious few years last, and if they want to join a particular religion, fine. But to force it upon them at such an early age, and to use them in such a cynical tactic of proselytizing, is beyond reproach. I would dearly like to inform the older woman how heinous her actions were, and being that I accepted one of their smaller pamphlets (a ridiculous pamphlet which depicts children feeding a lion and a bear as being somehow "idyllic"), they may come back, but I'm at a loss.

I could use some insight here. If/when they come back with a child in tow (and I have the time), how should I react? My actions would be limited, as I obviously cannot admonish the adult in front of the child, nor can I get into a sophisticated philosophical discussion with a 10 year-old who mindlessly parrots the empty words of the older snakes that she is forced to befriend. I want to make sure whatever adult is present that they know how despicable I find them, but I also don't want to drop that baggage onto a child who is, after all, an undeserving victim of religious indoctrination.

How should I react next time a Christian proselytizer comes with a child?

Tips for Conference Goers

2010-08-06T07:50:00.001-04:00

Cross-posted at Skeptic North

I've been to a decent number of conferences over the past few years. Some academic, some popular, and most recently, my first skeptic conference. I noticed a few peculiarities at Skepchicon and I think some lessons I learned need to be shared. These peculiarities are not unique to Skepchicon, or to skeptic conferences, but they do seem to be endemic to most conventions where there are panel discussions, Q&A's, and in the case of CONvergence: costumes. Now with TAM8 over (yet again, without me), and Dragon*Con around the corner, I humbly offer my

TIPS FOR CONVENTION GOERS

What follows are a series of blockquotes and a brief explanation. These are not actual quotes, but are paraphrased versions of things I did hear, or was likely to hear. They are strictly illustrative, and nobody said these quotes as written.

Section A: Audience

I grew up in a small shack in Puckerbrush, Kansas, in a very religious household. I was always discouraged from critical thinking because of my older sisters' interest in sports, even though I was also a decent baseball player. It wasn't until I went to college until I met a professor who was remotely interested in science and baseball. Anyway, what do you think about global warming denial?

1) Don't share stories: Time is at a premium at these sorts of things, and sharing your life story (this is not an exaggeration: I heard several actual life stories from audience members at Skepchicon) is especially effecient at gobbling up this time. It's rude to the panel, and boring to those in the audience.

You mentioned 15 minutes ago that skepticism need more women. But I find that odd because appealing to tokenism only hurts our movement and distracts our energies.

2) Don't go overboard in offering your opinions. It's fine to have a brief discussion with the panelists, and it can make for an engaging topic, but make your point, then politely drop it. You'll probably get a chance to approach the panelist afterwards, because panels are designed and timed that way: For 30 minutes at the end, the panelists will hang around for further informal discussion. It's also an exercise in humility, because remember: the audience came to hear the panelists' opinions, not the opinions of the audience, however insightful they may be.

With regards to your point about blogging and expertise: You said that people should stick to their expertise and not argue the science if they're not qualified. But don't you think that the very spirit of peer review requires an idea to be subject to the scrutiny of everyone?

3) Don't try to disguise your opinion as a question - This kind of phraseology is endemic at academic conferences, and are the reason that I usually step out during the Q&A period. "Don't you think that..." is a bad way to introduce a point. It's patronizing, and you're not fooling anyone. When you do this, you're clearly not trying to engage the panelists or the audience in a discussion: you're just preaching and you may be trying to impress people. Kindly re-phrase it, or sit down. The clock is ticking.

I just want to respond to the gentleman who asked a question earlier: Do you really believe that skeptical activism is best served by catering to every religious sensitivity? Where do you draw the line?

4) Don't have conversation with people in the audience - you can find them later, and again: time is at a premium. This is even more rude than monopolizing the time of one of the panelists. It's flat out telling the entire audience and panelists to shut up and listen to two people who nobody came to hear from. Definitely one of the most rude things you can do at a panel is to pretend the panel doesn't exist. This crosses the line from thoughtlessness into first-class jerk behavior.

I have a followup to my followup, because I'm not sure you answered or addressed my question exactly the way I wanted you to.

5) Don't go overboard with too many questions. Ask questions if you have them, but don't think that the panel exists at your leisure. Other people want to ask questions. Polite behavior at panel discussions allows for one question from a given audience member, and maybe a followup, depending on the context and time remaining.

When you said what you said about being polite to believers, you're risking giving too much of an overinflated voice to peddlers of woo, and that's hurting us all!

6) Don't argue with a panelist. You can always argue with them later if you must, but people are there to hear what the panel has to say, not your trumped-up opinions. Disagreement is fine, and you can, only once during the time slot, insist a panelist be brought to explain something better, but you need to take into consideration

the time of the slot (time may be running out)
size of the audience (other people want to ask questions too)
the size of the panel (maybe let, I don't know, a panelist address a concern?)
the context (if you disagree with a panelists' prior statements on global warming, a panel about atheism is not the time to bring that up)

Section B: Organizers/Panelists

1) Don't have too big of a panel. One of the best panels at Skepchicon was an atheism panel. The panel was packed with fascinating people with interesting things to say, but because there were 10 of them, I hardly heard more than two sentences from each person. The second panel I was on had 7 people, and I barely had a chance to get a word in edgewise. I'd recommend a panel cap of 5 people, or 6 with a moderator. Speaking of which...

2) Get a Moderator! Moderate! Even if your panel doesn't have an assigned moderator, someone could step up (even if they weren't even on the original list of panelists) and act as a mod. Panelists can go on and on if you let them, and an effective moderator can help keep them (and the audience) on task. Rebecca Watson jumped on as an impromptu mod on one panel about skeptical blogging, and did a great job at making sure panelists and audience members stayed on topic and in time.

Section C: Conference Goers

Costume Awareness: I get it. Wearing awesome costumes at an awesome con is awesome.

I think we can agree this costume is awesome

I'm not saying you should take off your costume before you attend a panel. But if your costume displaces as much water as a small boat, or if it has sharp, clear-plastic points: Be aware of how you are now shaped. You're likely going to bump into people, forcing them to spill food and drink on themselves, or you're knocking over furniture that people are trying to sit down in. If you can't control your own backside, maybe it's best to leave the backside at the hotel for an hour.

That's about it. I hope that this guide was somewhat helpful, and I hope to make sure I remember these lessons myself for future conferences. It makes the whole conference more fun and interesting for everyone if individuals take a moment to check themselves just a little bit.

Website Hit Counters

Skepchicon 2010: In Which I make Skeptics feel Uncomfortable

2010-07-05T23:10:00.001-04:00

Well, I did it. I went to Skepchicon 2010, and I made a LOT of well-known skeptics feel uncomfortable. It seems they can't handle my gritty, in-your-face approach to skepticism.

Rebecca Watson refused to accept that it was okay for me to carve a pumpkin altar in her likeness...

Surly Amy denied my request to make science-themed cufflinks for my underpants (while I was wearing them)

Rebecca told Maria Walters (a.k.a. Masala Skeptic) that that smell came from ole "Double-Pits" back there.

Pamela Gay didn't like my idea of re-naming it "ASStronomy Cats: MEOW!"

Maria didn't reserve her tickets....to the JUNK SHOW!

Carrie (carr2d2) is decidedly not ticklish.

Bug Girl didn't think that rash is anything to worry about it, and would I please stop trying to warm her drink with it.

Greg Laden was entirely unamused by my antics, and didn't think that it needed "to open that wide"

Tim (Tim3P0) was touched....at the JUNK SHOW!

Dr Jen Newport actually did think the rash was a concern, but not as much as the racist comment it happened to spell out.

Kammy (a.k.a. "Procrastinatrix") thought it said something else, that was also racist.

Surly Johnny thought about it, but no: He didn't want a thorough neck-shaving.

Ted Meissner thought it looked painful: Just me. I just looked painful. At life. Painful at life.

PZ Myers misunderstood me: I said I WOULD be willing to douse myself in squid urine, so long as it was low-calorie squid urine.

Surly Amy just made me feel uncomfortable.

Thanks to everyone who were patient enough to pose for this ridiculous photo project, and thanks to everyone else who made my first conference a memorable one. I'll write more about the actual conference at a later date, but right now, I'm still reeling from the 20 hour drive home

Okay, one more photo for your *ahem* "pleasure":

Rebecca Watson. Photobomb Terrorist.

Website Hit Counters

Winds of Change

2010-06-24T08:21:00.001-04:00

I returned home from work last night at around 9:35 pm and my sister called me almost immediately as I walked in the door, informing me that my hometown (Midland, Ontario) was hit my a tornado.

My family, home and pets are all fine, as are most of my friends. But it seems that the storm was very powerful and "it kind of split the town in half" said Midland Mayor Jim Downer last night on CTV newsnet. The storm touched down near a long-standing fruit market, crossed over the lake (Little Lake), tore through a trailer park, and continued on through the south end of the main street's commercial district (damaging several business and homes).

Some of my west/east coast friends may be used to big storms due to their proximity to the oceans. My friends in the American south have to live with a regular tornado threats every summer. But that's one of the reasons why I love the Great Lakes regions so much: very pretty, and the weather never gets too unpredictable.

I've never experienced a hurricane, a tornado, an earthquake, or a tsunami. In 1985, a tornado ripped through the city of Barrie, and it became a bit of a local legend: The Barrie Tornado was taught to us in elementary school as this crazy, freak thing that simply doesn't happen to us. We would get big storms, sure, but a tornado? That's something that happens to other people.

"Other" people.

Well, this tornado was a sobering reminder that these sorts of things can strike just about anywhere, and I have a new-found respect for anyone living in the so-called "tornado alley" I've gone through a few hundred pictures and seen images of familiar and friendly places torn to shreds. I've got a few friends that live in the trailer park that was nearly destroyed, and I still have yet to hear from all of them...I'm sure that at least a few of them are now homeless. Considering how bad it could have been for me and mine, I got off pretty easy, but the next time I go home is going to be jarring.

Also, please don't make any jokes about how tornadoes always seem to hit trailer parks. I have friends in there.

Website Hit Counters

Skepchicon 2010

2010-06-13T20:14:00.001-04:00

Minnesotans, Manitobans, Wisconsans, and miscellaneous Mid-Westerners:

I'll be headed to Minneapolis, MN for Skepchicon 2010! I'll be speaking on two panels ("Skepticism 101" and "Bulls**t Detection Kit: Why Pseudo-Science Doesn't Deliver"), sharing the tables with Pamela Gay, Greg Laden, Stephanie Zvan and others! The full skeptic track schedule can be found here.

I'm very excited to finally meet my skepchick (and other) friends after all these years, and this should be a good consolation prize for my not being able to go to TAM (again). If you're going to be in the region, come on out to what should be a really cool, intimate-but-not-that-kind-of-intimate get-together!

Website Hit Counters

Definitions Fail

2010-06-01T21:21:00.000-04:00

I know I'm not really doing the atheist thing much these days, but I saw this on my way home from work tonight, and I thought you'd get a kick out of this one.

Website Hit Counters

Solar System Family Album: Complete!

2010-05-31T02:03:00.000-04:00

About a year ago I spent an entire night with my camera and telescope on a very particular mission: To see every planet that was in the night sky at that time. From dusk till dawn, I viewed and imaged the Moon, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Neptune. I hadn't seen much of Mars before that point (it was just starting to return to our skies) and I'd never seen Neptune before at all. I'd gone on long astro-missions before, but that was the first time I pulled an all-nighter for such a purpose. During the first summer I had any usable equipment, only Jupiter was in the sky, so the next year was a treat to be able see all those planets. This past weekend, I had a chance to do it again.

This summer will be another great one for viewing, because of another fortuitous planetary conjunction. As with last year's conjunction of Jupiter and Neptune, our planet-king will be parked extremely close to Uranus for the next two months. This is awfully considerate of Uranus to do because it is absurdly hard to find it unless you know your way around the sky incredibly well...which I don't.

Pictured: Uranus. Really, that's it.

Another summer treat? Jupiter itself. As Phil Plait reported a few weeks ago, one of the large bands that circle around Jupiter has vanished. It's probably sunk below the visible cloud level, but the net-result is Jupiter looks really different.

Compare this picture I took in July:

With this picture I took on Sunday morning:

The light pollution is a little worse where I live now (compared to where I lived last year), which is partially why the detail isn't as fine as I'd like it. Also, I just need a better camera (with more megapixels). I'm accepting donations of $1000 dollar cameras.

Over the course of the night, we (the Missus and I) saw (and imaged) the Moon, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and Uranus. It was a refreshing opportunity to get my butt out there with my awkwardly-large equipment, made even better because I got to share the sky with someone special. Now, my solar system family album is finally complete, and it just took a bit of patience, skill and some modest equipment.

My Solar System collection, from left-to-right.
Top row: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Moon

Second row: Jupiter, Saturn

Third Row: Uranus

Fourth Row: Neptune, Sun

Background: Comet Lulin.

For more of my astro-stuff, be sure to check out my sorely neglected astronomy flickr stream, or read my most recent Skeptic North article about why the sun looks squished and red at the horizon (with more of my photos)!

Website Hit Counters

Justice 4 Julian

2010-04-21T13:16:00.000-04:00

Since launching this blog over two years ago, I have been deeply humbled and flattered to find that I have a regular readership. I have a louder voice now than I have in the past, and I would be betraying much of what I believe in if I didn't use this voice to occasionally help out friends in need.

Everyone who goes to college or university needs to find that one professor with whom he or she can develop a profound understanding with...that one person who seems to get you, who has done it, and who seems to be in possession of some weird brain that is like your own, but much more developed. When I was in university, that professor was Julian Ammirante. I happen to know he reads this blog, so I'm probably embarrassing him in this post, but he'll just have to suck it up.

I had Julian in my 3rd year for a half-course in American Politics. In a school where post-modernism and elite-theory were the dominant discourses, Julian took several approaches, making sure we not only understood the aforementioned theories, but also in competing theories. This seems like it would be a no-brainer for a humanities course, but such a treatment was a rarity at Trent University.

Julian is a major reason that this blog exists, continues, and that I make sure I don't forget my political science academic roots. He was an intellectual inspiration for me at a time when I needed some intellectual guidance, and he's been a reliable friend when things I need one.

Julian's most recent position, a professorship for Laurentian University, took a turn for the ugly. The Laurentian politics department dismissed Julian from his position, but did so without following due-course, due-diligence, and (it has been argued, but I can't comment on) without just-cause. I know Julian well: he can rub a lot of people the wrong way, and I expect that Julian's unforgiving honesty only served to expedite whatever professional grudges his superiors might have had against him. Julian has gone head-to-head with some of the finest minds in the country, and its been my sad experience to learn that sometimes, the finest minds also have the thinnest skins.

I can't comment on specific instances that lead to his dismissal, but I know full well the kind of small-minded provincialism that infests the halls of the humanities academy. Self-righteous, sophomoric thinkers and researchers (who don't ever DO anything with what they think about) in the humanities have little patience for disagreement, and will (and have), at the drop of a hat, engage in an active campaign to discredit and embarrass dissenting opinion (again, I'll send you to my experience). It's this kind of behavior that makes it hard for humanities people like myself to convince the rest of my science-minded colleagues that we're an intellectual discipline worth pursuing.

It is, in short, the very worst aspect of a humanities education: parochialism.

Some of Julian's most recent students have organized (he taught them well!) a website in protest of the university's decision, and in support of Julian. It serves as a testament to not only his teaching ability, but his ability to inspire his students to enact positive change, and to defend what they believe to be just.

To my regular readers, this blog will probably not mean much, and a good number of you may have skipped this entry entirely. But please understand that Julian is a personal friend, a professional colleague, and an intellectual model to me, and I would be remiss were I not to use my slightly louder voice.

If any of my old Trent University friends come across this entry and has not yet signed the Letters of Support page, I ask you to do so now.

Thanks for your indulgence.

Website Hit Counters

To Bone-ly go....

2010-03-24T00:52:00.000-04:00

This is my sister's dog, Faith, a 2 year old papillion.

On Faith's head, is a little bit of Wil Wheaton-worthy pareidolia:

Your move, everyone else.

Website Hit Counters

"Let's Celebrate Racism!" or "St. Patrick's Day!"

2010-03-17T02:14:00.000-04:00

That's like saying, "Hey, you're black! you must LOVE to eat watermelon!" or "Hey! You're Muslim! You must LOVE to blow up buildings!"

Well, no I don't like St. Patrick's day. I hate it. For years I've found it to be the most nakedly racist "holiday" on the calender. Irish heritage celebration in North America is basically a neo-blackface routine.

Celebrating Irish culture and heritage. These people are "Irish for a day". Lovely.

Since about 2005, I've been writing pretty much the same article for one media outlet or the other, and my opinions since last year's post haven't changed, so I'll just re-post it here (with a few updates):

St. Patrick's Day: Still Racist after all these Years:

Every year we “celebrate” St. Patrick’s Day by drinking ourselves stupid, beginning in the middle of the afternoon, then maybe getting into a few fights. This is acceptable behavior because, we’re told, this is the one day of the year that everyone is Irish. Why is this flagrantly racist stereotype still so eagerly embraced? I believe it is because it is still widely acceptable to think the worst of the Irish, at levels unthinkable among other minority-groups.

I did a google image search for St. Patrick's Day, and this came up. Seriously.

People don’t pretend to be Mexican on Cinco De Mayo by standing in an unemployment line and selling oranges on the street-corners. On Yom Kippur people don’t wear shirts that say “kiss me, I’m Jewish” while wearing a cheap elongated nose while fake money falls out of their pockets. Black History month isn’t celebrated by enjoying an all-you-can-eat-fried-chicken buffet and starting a gang-war. And rightly so: these are all horrible racist stereotypes that reduce huge swaths of diverse peoples into the most negative imagery that is usually reserved for the old-racist-kook fraternity.

Why then, is it okay to celebrate ‘be an Irishman day’ (and lets be honest, March 17^th has nothing whatsoever to do with the patron saint of Ireland) by getting drunk, making complete asses of ourselves, and be loud, obnoxious pricks? Even to the point of calling in ‘sick’ the next day, and actually getting away with it? I've worked at places where people would call in sick on March 18th, and the bosses chuckled, and left it at that. Oh really? Can I do that on Sept 3? Or May 7 (the day after my birthday)? No, of course not. But I bet that if I did it the day after people pretend to be their racist ideas of what it means to be Irish, it'd be super-dee-dooper, lassie!

This friendly little guy is the emblem of Irish respect in North America. We all act like this. At least when we're not a)drinking b)fighting c)drunkenly beating our wives or d) having too many children.

I hear the rebuttals, the same every year: “It’s just an excuse to get drunk…and it’s just an excuse to have fun with my friends”. Do you really need an excuse to have fun with your friends? Of course you don’t. Do you need an excuse to drink? Maybe…but is it necessary for the Irish-drunkard stereotype to serve your loathsome late-night frivolities of licentious lewdness and lunacy?

We like to pat ourselves on the back with how progressive we have become through the delusional artifice of pluralism: the colours of Benetton have become united at last! Yet we cannot look past our beer goggles when the clock points to an excuse to drink that, as it so happens, pokes fun at the Irish. Society has (rightly) shunned people who use words like nigger, wop, chink, and kraut, but it's still okay to spend $10.00 on plastic leprechaun-wear, get drunk in the middle of the afternoon, and get kicked out of 4 bars in a night because, “Hey! On March 17^th, we ALL get to be Irish for a day!” and then begin the drunken chorus of “Danny Boy”. I’m a student, but in my spare time, things bother me. St. Patrick’s Day bothers me a lot.

If you truly want to celebrate Irish heritage, that's fine. If you want to celebrate for no real good reason, that;s fine too. Might I suggest a friendly conversation over a couple of pints and a couple of songs. The Irish don't have a monopoly on that, but it's still fun, honest, and respectful to you and your friends.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to celebrate some else's Italian heritage by controlling a union and eating a spicy meat-a-ball.

Website Hit Counters

Set phases to stun!

2010-03-09T04:31:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the slow rate of update friends. There certainly is a lot to talk about, but I've just been terribly busy. The trouble with being a music teacher is that I have to a) make regular updates to my lesson plans and b) learn a huge library of songs for the sake of my students. But that's no excuse: we all have lives to lead, and I've simply fallen behind. But I have a neat photo for you to make up for my relative silence:

This is a mosaic of 16 different phases of the moon that I've taken with my Canon Rebel XT over the last year and a half. I've still got around 10 more to get, and it may take another year (the weather doesn't always cooperate, and I'm not always able to get outside) to collect the rest.

Living in the Niagara region (in the suburbs, no less), the light pollution problem is less than ideal: Toronto is an hour away, Hamilton is 30 minutes away, and Niagara Falls (which is a glorified outdoor casino/amusement park/carnival) is 25 minutes away. I hardly ever get to do any observing anymore, but I promise that I'll share the best photos with you as soon as they come in!

Website Hit Counters

Happy Blogday...blogiversary? Whatever...

2010-02-21T13:53:00.000-05:00

Oot and Aboot with Some Canadian Skeptic turns two years old today! Two is my favorite thing that happens when you add one thing to another thing!

S'been a fun blog to maintain. Although I've been maintaining an online blog since 2002, this skeptic blog was a new thing, so I was a little unsure how long it would last. I mainly started this blog to offer a Canadian skeptic voice (two years ago there was only a small handful out there), and to learn how to write a little better. Looking back at my writing from those early days, I can at least be certain that I've accomplished both goals reasonably well.

Over the last two years, my skeptic and science activities have granted me some notable highlights, such as...

1) Having one of my photos featured at Bad Astronomy
2) Having several of my photos featured at the new planetarium in Sudbury, Ontario
3) Having some of my writing posted at the JREF and Grassroots Skeptics
4) Two appearances on Skeptically Speaking (One, if you exclude my technical difficulties which demanded it being dropped from the podcast version)
5) An appearance on the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
6) Giving a talk at a recent Toronto Skeptics in the Pub

Most meaningful for me in this journey has been my role as Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic North. I've spoken about it at great length in numerous other outlets, and my feelings of fondness for it are well-known. I'd like to point out that it was primarily this blog that helped me meet most of the Skeptic North team! I'd like to thank a ton of my colleagues and to name names here, but I won't, at the risk of accidentally excluding anyone. You all know who you are, and I owe you each a tremendous debt of thanks (and beer....or ketchup chips).

Those of you following me on Twitter may have noticed that I've been posting "Classic" entries. It was really just my subtle lead-in to today's post. The ones I've been posting are the entries that have gotten the most attention, or the ones that I happen to like the best:
1) Some health care lies about Canada
2) When I was accused of anti-Semitism and threatened in private.
3) How to NOT learn the piano
4) Libertarian education gone-fail
5) Why Green is the best colour in the world (actually one of my favourite entries)
6) NASA, and the Commodification of space
7) When I fought with my old University (and learned more about academics than I cared to)
8) Bored of Atheism
9) My Top 10 Astronomy shots of 2009
10) Exposing a Vancouver homeopath

Okay, that's enough ego-stroking for now.

I want to thank everyone who has been reading this blog, and to those who have taken the time to write me over the past two years. I can't get back to all of you, but I promise that do read every one that I receive. Since launching Skeptic North, I've not had nearly as much time to update this blog like I used to. I will keep the blog alive and active, so thanks for sticking with me!

You can follow me on Twitter, or stalk me on Facebook. You can see some of my astro (and other) photography on Flickr, or see me rock out on Youtube.

I don't know what my next two years are going to be like, but I'll do my best to keep making entries worth reading if you keep coming back.

Thanks to everyone!

Website Hit Counters

Yet Another Reason to Love Kevin Smith (and hate airliners)

2010-02-15T08:46:00.000-05:00

I've been following Kevin Smith's career since just after Mallrats (when Chasing Amy was a thing to look forward to). I, like probably most of you, are fans of (or at least familiar) with his work. Smith has always been the champion of the geek community (back when geeks really were social outcasts), and of people not born with the fortunate genes for physical prowess. He's the exemplar writer who has truly lived up to the lofty ideals of what a meritocracy should be: it's not supposed to matter how big, fast, strong, rich, or handsome you are, because if you're clever and civil enough, you can rise up and thrive.

Smith and ?uest Love. Goddamned awesome.

I've also hated airlines. Oddly enough, I've never flown before (I've driven over 20 hours to get to Halifax, and I'd be happy to do it again), so I can't relate any airliner horror stories that I'm sure many of you have. I just hate airliners, or rather one single airliner, and for entirely unrelated matters. As such, I have decreed that all airliners behave the same way: cheap, evil, and inconsiderate. Despite the billions of dollars of taxpayer bailout money, the airline companies find new ways to charge every extra hair on your body, and have near carte-blanche control when it comes to their own corporate law-enforcement.

Southwest Airlines tried to pull that crap on Kevin "Too-Fat-for-the-Sky" Smith. Some people have been on the receiving end of Smith's wordsmithing in the past, and the results have always been captivating for those hearing the story. Smith never tells a story out of malice, it's just that storytelling comes as naturally to him as sitting on my couch comes to me. Southwest made the mistake of not only giving Smith a story to tell, but they also made him mad .

As you've all heard, by now, Southwest Airlines may be well on their way for the worst PR disaster in airliner history. PZ Myers, the most read science blog on the planet, mentioned it...and you all know how PZ can amass an uprising if he wants. But that pales in comparison to the BBfuckingC making it a story.

I remember being on Twitter (p.s. follow me!) the evening that he was putting up with the abuse and humiliation from Southwest and thinking, "Oh man, the SModcast is going to be GREAT!" And it was better than I expected: Smith became absolutely unhinged as he heaped an hour and twenty-five minutes of scorn and derision on a company that deserves it. I can't put it into better words than Smith himself, so you should really take the time to listen yourself.

In frantic damage control, the Southwest Airlines Twitter account has been actively trying to make nice. Also, the Southwest Airlines blog is also offering up many apologies (and a few lies, such as the supposed attempts to call him on the phone, which Smith has denied). I found the "Customer of Size" policy to be particularly....interesting. If they're going to make overweight people feel embarrassed and have to buy an extra ticket, then short people like me should be able to get a discount and sit in the human-equivalent of a compact spot (are you listening, airlines?).

The one question that I still have left over is this:

Why the hell does Southwest airlines even HAVE a blog? I know this is web 2.0 and everyone has a blog these days...but....FFS!

Pictured: Blogger

And a followup: What kind of sad-sap actually READS the blog of an airline company? And who follows them on Twitter?

Whatever. I could care less. Congratulations, Southwest Airlines. You lost every customer service prize imaginable. Smith has already immortalized this on his hugely popular podcast, and will likely tell this to every Q&A, campus, and radio speaking engagement that he has for years to come. I hope you, and every company that treats human beings like ATM machines, at least learned something from this.

Website Hit Counters

This Space For Rent?

2010-02-03T05:10:00.000-05:00

As Phil Plait already discussed on his blog, Barack Obama unveiled his plan for the NASA budget.

Phil is well-experienced and qualified to discuss the implications of the budget and I pretty much agree with everything he said. In summation:
1) The Constellation Program was unready and overbudget and needed to be canned.

2) There is a tremendous increase in the budget that emphasizes science.
3) The functioning life span and scope-of-science of the ISS gets extended.
4) Private companies (such as Space X) will be able (it is planned) to launch humans into space before the existing shuttle program is retired....meaning that there will be an uninterrupted flow of people being sent to space, without having to pay the Russians or the Chinese for a lift.
5) The Moon and Mars plans are, once again, a huge question mark.

There is one thing that Phil left out of his analysis, and it's a decidedly political angle. Yes, Phil did talk about the Congress and the right-wingers that lay within who will probably mangle the proposed budget to within an inch of its life, but I'm not talking about partisan politics here, as valid as that discussion may be. There is more to politics than a partisan angle: there is an issue of political economy to this budget that I find a mite-bit distressing.

Commodification of Space? Maybe...

What is commodification? In short, it is the process by which a *thing* gets transformed into a commodity. The *thing* (a good or a service) in the process of commodification may or may not be traditionally considered a sellable or tradeable commodity. In other words: taking a free (or absurdly cheap) thing, and turning it into a piece of property to be bought and sold.

Just about anything can, and has been, commodified:
Damage to the environment? Check. A company can literally buy and sell the ability to pollute.
Your own health? Check. Think about how many people can't afford to see a doctor in the United States. I won't bother providing any links in this regard. Hopefully, you all know full-well that as it is today, access to good health is not a right but a privilege in the United States (and the situation is getting worse in Canada, but that's the topic for another post).
Land? Check. Think about that for a moment: the very earth you walk on is owned by someone else.
Air? Check. Didn't think that someone would have the audacity to sell you the air that you breathe, huh? Right now, it's a pretty harmless flight-of-fancy for the worried-well and the worried-rich, but I wonder what will happen when/if our air becomes too toxic to breathe safely (pure speculation, I'll freely admit).
Water? Check. The commodification of water has had a particularly sobering effect in Latin America, where bottling companies have been hard at work trying to get the local governments to make it illegal for citizens to have access to drinkable water that is not produced by their company. It sounds absurdly unlikely, doesn't it? But Bechtel tried it in Bolivia, (where it would have been illegal to even collect rainwater!) and other companies tried it in various parts of the United States. In all water-commodification cases (that I could find) the efforts have failed (do to popular opposition, or in the case of Bolivia: armed revolt and violence), but I have little doubt that some company somewhere will heartily convince a government that only their corporate water should be made legal.

My friends, the invisible hand of the "free market" will not only gently nudge you into capitalist complacency, but it will also strangle you for every dime it can.

What does this have to do with the Budget?

Maybe nothing, and I certainly hope so. But....

The cost of sending anything into space is, well...astronomical. Just sending a single litre of water costs $11,000! Ostensibly, having a private space industry that is capable of heavy lifting could be seen as a way to download the costs of lift, which then would free up funds that NASA could then dedicate to science (especially at the ISS and for space telescopes). This may be where the story ends, and I hope it does: I'm all for a government/civilian partnership when it comes to space exploration/habitation, especially if it means that we (and by "we", I'll remind that the Canadian Space Agency is intimately tied to NASA) won't have to rely on partnerships with less-than-friendly states that have similar capacity (Russia, China).

However, due to the axing of Constellation and the Ares programs (however scientifically necessary it may have been to do so), there is currently no-clear indication of when the NASA will have its own means to get people into space again. The idea of having a private company as being the only American resource for heavy-lifting into orbit is a little unsettling in this light. If the private companies continue to offer human-to-space travel for cheap to the government (NASA), what motivation will the government have to start its own program? I'm sure that NASA will try and figure out new ways to send people into space, but without that fire under their ass (ha!), NASA is not exactly known for doing things it doesn't immediately have to.

The reason why this is important is because NASA, though it is civilian-operated, is still part of the government, which makes it owned by the tax-payers. It is directly accountable to the President, Congress, and the citizens who are footing the bill. The good thing about having a public space program is that it *can* operate at a financial loss, because the government can bring other financial sources to bear in order to fund it. NASA is not a private company, and so its motivations and aims are meant to benefit the United States of America.

Space X, however, as admirable and groundbreaking a company as they may be (and they deserve tremendous credit for their engineering success, and I truly wish them well), they are a private corporation. This means two very important things need to be discussed: 1) They are accountable not to civilians, but to their shareholders, and 2) Since they are accountable to the shareholders, what happens if the company starts to operate at a loss? They will have to make, and maintain a profitable space-industry. And that, my friends, is how the commodification of space begins.

Space X can easily increase the bill for sending anything up into space, and what is NASA going to do? Use their own vehicles? Nope, they'll be long dead and buried. Ask the Russians or the Chinese? Better hope they don't charge through the nose either, and that their vehicles are safe! Space X would have unprecedented private access to low-earth orbit, and there would be next-to-nothing preventing them from using their rockets to appease their shareholders who only exist to see profit (and could care less about science or progress). I'm not suggesting that the U.S. would let Space X use their rockets for military purposes (the militarization of space is currently illegal by both international and U.S. law), but the U.S. government would be helpless to prevent whatever privatization and surveillance endeavors that Space X decided to rent their rockets out to.

I kind of expect that most of this apparent doom-and-gloom will not come to fruition. But I think it's important to compare a two-tiered space program with an increasingly two-tiered health program in Canada. Private health clinics can charge whatever they want, and they can pay their doctors whatever they want. If you need to see a doctor for a non-emergency (especially a mental health issue), you could spend your life-savings to see a private specialist, or you could sit on a 2-year waiting list to see a specialist in the public sector. Private clinics are sapping away the specialists from the majority of Canadians who can't afford private health care, resulting in a specialist shortage. This means long waiting lists (the doctors are, in effect, abandoning the poor in favour of the rich), and healthcare is mainly reserved for those who can afford a private clinic (which is not most of us).

Similarly, if for-profit corporations (which is, all corporations) can charge whatever they want for their services (and if they're the only ones launching loads and people into space, they certainly will charge whatever they want.....no pretense of free-market competition applies here), they can also pay whatever they want. I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that with the promise of huge paychecks, they may lure in a large number of former-NASA scientists and engineers, furthering NASA's problems.

I think it is reasonable to assume that with the increasingly unequal power and capability balance being tilted in favor of private interests, the access of the general public and of science will take a tremendous back-seat, favoring those means which show a hefty return. Space itself will be effectively owned and operated by companies not entirely unlike Haliburton, Coca-Cola, Bechtel or Monsanto.

Believe me, I really hope I'm wrong here. But history shows that when a for-profit system is pitted against a non-profit government entity with fewer resources, the people never win: money does. I honestly don't know if I want this budget to pass: the long-term, big picture costs may simply be too great.

Website Hit Counters

She's therapying as fast as she can!

2010-02-01T13:51:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder why your wrist starts to act up for no apparent reason (despite what should be obvious because you sit at your computer for 8 hours a day)? How about that crick in your back from the chair with no lumbar support? Are you concerned that the word "therapy" has entirely too many pseudo-scientific practitioners stealing the word to suit their own needs? (Though I fully support Futurama-Therapy)

Well, Close Personal Friend Of Steve (tm), and Skeptic North colleague (Associate Editor) Kim Hebert has created a blog just for you! Well...and for me too...don't bogart my internet! It's for everyone, really, and I'm happy to do my meager part to help get the word out there about the blog.

Science Based Therapy

I've had many therapy-related questions for Kim (such as "what is the difference between physiotherapy, recreational therapy, and occupational therapy?", and "if I want to target fat-burning in one particular area but I can't do X because of a prior injury, what might I want to try?"), and she's been very helpful. I've no doubt this blog will be a regular resource for me (and I hope you, too!) and I love seeing another "science-based X" added to the panopoply of skeptic blogs.

For those of you who saw my talk at the Toronto Skeptics in the Pub, this is what I was talking about: This is why we have experts in our community: they're becoming increasingly free to do what they're expertise is in!

Website Hit Counters

The western hemisphere of Mars: that's the best hemisphere!

2010-01-31T06:53:00.000-05:00

Tonight, I was finally able to snag a decent shot of Mars. This is extra special for me because a) I've been after one for well over a year, but the planet was either on the opposite side of the sun, or hanging around at terrible hours in retrograde(my previous attempts at photographing Mars have been fantastically lackluster), and b) this marks the first time I've ever photographed some surface detail of another planet. Sure, I've photographed some cloud detail before, but actual surface features? That's a new one for me (and no, I don't count the moon, silly). Unless I get a super-mega backyard scope, Mars may be the only surface detail I'll ever be able to photograph in our solar system, but it's still a nice milestone.

If you look really closely, at the upper-left of the planet you can see a thin sliver of white - that's the northern polar cap.

Right now, Mars is reasonably close to the Earth, and just a couple of days ago it was at "opposition", a term that essentially means that, from our perspective, the planet is on the exact opposite side of the sun. Previous times when Mars has been at opposition it was much closer, but we're still afforded a reasonably nice view. Mars is currently shining at -0.81 apparent magnitude, which makes it one of the very brightest objects in the night sky right now (after the moon, it is just slightly dimmer than Sirius, the brightest night-sky star). As an added bonus it happens to be at a particularly neat position: Sitting smack-dab in the constellation Cancer, bright-orange Mars shines nicely with other bright shining colourful objects, such as deep orange Betelgeuse, bright-blue Rigel, and crystal-white Sirius. Procyon, Castor and Pollux are in the region too, and if you wait a few more hours, another orange-star, Arcturus will show up. The winter sky is putting on a particularly nice show, and will be for the next few weeks. The great thing about the bright winter sky stars is that even in a light-polluted city, you can still see the colours of the stars.

But there's something else which occurred to me as I was loading up these pictures onto my computer: Because the Earth sits between Mars and the Sun, our world would only visible to Mars viewers in the twilight hours. Like Venus is for us, Earth is Mars' morning and evening "star". There's something about that that makes me smile.

Website Hit Counters

Why so Furious?

2010-01-30T16:08:00.001-05:00

First off, I know that making a Dark Knight reference so long after the film's release is a little lame.

Second off, I get it: accuracy is important.

Third-off, I know that writing about these meta-skeptic issues is awfully presumptuous of me. Believe me, it makes me a little uneasy trying to tell my fellow skeptics about skepticism. It's arrogant, I recognize this....but I need to get something off my chest, and Skeptic North is not the place for it (since these are my own words and opinions, and not necessarily of anyone else). I ask your indulgence. (How Canadian is this? I'm apologizing for expressing an opinion! Sheesh)

Now, on to the meat.

In comedy, this is what is known as a "2 %'er"

I don't know if it's just me, but I've been noticing an increase in aggressive, condescending rudeness in the guise of pedantry and accuracy. I (and several other of our Skeptic North colleagues, as well as some of my friends over at Skepchick and elsewhere) have been accused of playing foot-loose and fancy-free with the facts to either a) suit a 'skeptic agenda' , or b) fulfill some poetic license which constructs a pre-conceived narrative.

But here are some of the comments that have been coming through (usernames and URLs will not be included for what I hope are obvious reasons) lately:

While you're on your "There's no link between Mercury and Autism" rant, here's a link to an article from Science Daily you might find interesting.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424120953.htm
Since you claim to be so knowledgeable on the subject, I'm sure you're familiar with the article, but maybe you'd now like to point out that Science Daily is a woo-based rag pushing the anti-vax agenda......

Or,

Great. After having just done so to a great degree, such a disclaimer is meaningles [sic]and empty. Not to mention that you've set us up to make any disagreement with you appear as a personal assualt. [sic]Way-to-go with the manipulation.I fail to see anything in your post that speaks to skepticism, objectivity, balance, accurate history (aside from the obviousness of the foolishness of holocaust denial), or even a reasonable degree of non-bias.

I know this is a hostile comment, and I intend it as such. Your post is incendiary, heavily biased, emotionally triggered, and woefully subjective. So I am responding in kind, though I am attackiong [sic]the post, not you, even though the structure of your post makes that a near impossibility.I do not and never have celebrated mass murder, whether it is defensive or offensive. That was then, this is now. It's time to stop destroying the people of the world for the sake of political, religious, and corporate expediency. And that starts with stopping the celebration.

Or,

Blog readers cannot be mind readers, and should not be required or expected to be.

Blog writers (all writers) should avoid the trap of presuming/assuming comprehensive common ground or universally understood information and experience even within a similar cultural milieu.

A proficient writer avoids the trap of assuming that the reader knows what is unstated and buried within the writer's personal experience.

Or,

This would appear to be but a thinly disguised right wing diatribe to denigrate one of the most respected families in US history. Yes , their dirty laundry was hung out for all to see. But not content to celebrate (discreetly , of course) the assasination [sic] of the two borothers [sic] , John F. and Robert , and demonize in death the late Senator Ted Kennedy , their family is dragged through the mud over scientific data that may be inaccurate. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin would have been proud of you.

Or finally,

Sorry, Steve, you are an asshat and don't even realize that. These people know what they are referring to, but that fact just flies over your head. It's normal for stupid and ignorant people to think that everyone, whom they don't understand, is stuid. [sic]
In reality t's[sic] the opposite.

Is this what qualifies as civil discussion to these people? There are many more examples I could have pasted, but the list is long enough as-is. Some of these complaints are just naked aggression with little-to-no pretense, but others are enmeshed in the language of how important it is for me, as an author to be ABSOLUTLEY 100% precise with every single word and phrase that I type.

While there is obviously some merit to this, I find it troubling that people forget that language is not 100% precise. Language is not an equation: You can't add this preposition to that participle and get a meaning that means the exact samething for everyone every single time. Because language is fluid, context matters.

Okay, this looks like a stuffed cat. Creepy.

What bothers me is when "the importance of accuracy" is phrased in naked aggression. A friend of mine put it to me quite well, (and I paraphrase) "It's the difference between saying, 'I think you're incorrect about X' and saying 'You're wrong, and are a fuckface'". Not only am I, the fuckface, apparently wrong, but I'm also ruining skepticism, hurting the reputation of what ever outlet I write for, and I should just step aside or otherwise produce better (by the commenters' definition of "better") content. Content which, I'd like to add is free, and I don't get paid a dime for producing.

A typical comment that I'm referring to might go something like this:

Pardon me? You're wrong about that statistic! It's 21.8%, not "just over 20%"!!!. Way to be imprecise! I thought that you would have taken the time to b more honest in your writing, but I gues knowing that numbers are different isn't a skill you've mastered, despite somehow manageing to stop hitting yourslef in the head long enough to drunkenly mangle together enough words to produce this MASSACRE of word-salad that you call a blog! Make this free thing better, you amateur!

This does sound a little extreme, but over the course of any given week, I'll see a comment (or connected series of comments) not too dissimilar from this one. Some people have even decided to take their complaints to my email inbox (which I "love" to read after 6 hours of teaching electric guitar to kids). Oftentimes I'll see comments accusing the author of poor spelling or grammar in a comment that is itself, riddled with grade 7-level mistakes.

I don't know precisely why we / I get these sorts of comments. They are certainly not representative of MOST of our comments (which are generally respectful, civil, helpful and insightful), but it's one thing to correct a single typo that slipped through the net (it happens everywhere), it's quite another thing to cry foul that because that typo, I am an embarrassment to skepticism.

It might be because a) It's the internet, and trolls no longer live under bridges, b) Skepticism can attract a certain, pariah-type personality that is prone to thinking that contrarianism for its own sake is what matters, c) We (both Skeptic North and my own independent material) are getting more traffic, and this could simply be an artifact of those increased numbers. I really don't know what's going on here, but it really stinks when you spend hours to produce some content that some know-it-nothing then decides it is their solemn duty to point out that because of this one turn-of-phrase in one side-point that has little to do with the main issue is not 100% up to agonizingly detailed standards, that I'm somehow and idiot.

In short, I'm sick of being called an idiot by assholes.

If you take issue with something I, or any other blogger anywhere, has said, then point it out with civility and maturity. Leave the passive aggression at the door. If not, don't cry "CENSORSHIP!" or "YOU'RE SILENCING CRITICISM!" when I ask or insist that you play nice.

Thanks for allowing me to stand on this soapbox. I honestly don't like doing it, but I hope you understand that I think I have good reason to.

Website Hit Counters

...It's the Final Shout-out

2010-01-24T22:49:00.002-05:00

It's been a slow week at Oot and Aboot, mainly because Some Canadian Skeptic had stuff-to-do coming out the wazoo (which is, if you check, where it comes out). I won't bother listing everything that I had to do this past week for fear of sounding whiny, but I would like to say a final word of thanks to the ASR for a great Skeptics in the Pub talk on the 22nd! I also owe a thanks to everyone who came out and asked questions and shared drinks and conversation. I had a wonderful time and it was great to learn that digital friends were actually real people, and that I have a lot of new skeptic friends out there in Toronto.

"eh? Eh? EHHHHHHH????"

This is the only picture I have of the event (thanks to Richard for the shot), so if anyone else has some, could you please send them to me?

While the talk primarily dealt with Skeptic North, it also dealt with the pros and cons of inevitable amateurism (read: non-expert) in science-advocacy, and how much skepticism needs to embrace "web 2.0" as much as possible, or we risk becoming socially irrelevant. Skepticism has, even as recently as 5 years ago, been a top-down, leadership-driven movement primarily communicated through print-media. But these days, with the proliferation of self-publishing (blogs, you-tube, flickr etc...) and digital social networking (Facebook, Twitter), skepticism is in the midst of a fundamental change in the zeitgeist: we are becoming less of a top-down movement, and more of a bottom-up community, led by grassroots amateurs (and remember, amateur does not me unprofessional)...the experts and big names no longer set the tone anymore, and if us amateurs are leading the fray, we have to be very careful with how we act. Also, this should not be misconstrued as suggesting that experts and "big names" no longer have relevancy: quite the opposite. But all that was laid out in the talk ;).

I'm glad the talk went as well as it did, and I'd like to port it to other venues. So if you'd like to have me speak at your venue, my speaker's fee lies somewhere between a Ferrari and a sandwich.

Speaking of expertise, there are only two (maybe three) areas of knowledge that think I can justifiably call myself to have any level of expertise: Music (and I guess by extension music education) and political science. Since the former doesn't often come up in skepticism (very rarely), and the latter is explicitly out-of-bounds at Skeptic North, I was considering offering more political analysis as it relates to skepticism here at this blog (which, as you'll note in the disclaimer, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the team at Skeptic North). However, I realize that this is a potentially problematic idea. I'd like to get your thoughts on this issue:

I'm a left-leaning political economy kind of academic, and any politics/skepticism analysis will reflect such an intellectual framework. I'm starting to miss academic political science, and am considering using this venue to explore what I was exploring before taking this teaching job.

Would readers be turned off if I experimented with this, or do readers agree with me that there is not enough of a political discussion (from those educated in the area) in skepticism?

Website Hit Counters

Toronto Stephen's in the Pub

2010-01-22T01:21:00.000-05:00

Just as reminder to all my Toronto-area skeptic friends, I'll be speaking at tonight's Toronto Skeptics in the Pub, hosted by the Association for Science and Reason.

The event will be at the Fox and Fiddle (across from Wellesley Station), and begins at 7:00. If you're on Facebook, why not RSVP?

I'm really looking forward to meeting so many of you who have only existed in a digital world for me, so I hope you can all make it out for some nice food, drinks and conversation!

Website Hit Counters

The Book of Daniel

2010-01-19T01:31:00.000-05:00

Daniel Loxton may be Canada's most prominent skeptic, and I've always looked up to him as a model skeptic and a model Canadian: civil, thoughful, deliberate, and humble. I'm very proud to be able to call Daniel a colleague and a friend, and his impact on me as a skeptic activist has been enormous.

I'm very, very pleased to do my part to help get the word out on Daniel's new book, Evolution: How We and All Living Thing Came to Be, which is NOW on sale!

Furthermore, this book will come free with a minimum donation of $100 to the Skeptics Society.

If you've ever lamented how children just don't understand science these days, this would be a great way to combat that feeling!

This book will surely affect many kids to think about science, and it wouldn't be the first time!

Great work, Daniel!

Website Hit Counters

2010 Skeptic Predictions

2010-01-10T14:17:00.000-05:00

A year ago, I made my skeptic predictions for 2009, and compared to certain big-ticket psychics, I did remarkably well. I think that I did so well largely because I used every psychic trick in the book for these sorts of things, specifically use of vague and open-ended criteria and liberal use of wide error-margins. Psychics often make predictions of things that won't happen, and then claim victory. I'm reasonably educated, and I read the news, so I would stack up my political insights over any psychic around.

Last year I made 16 predictions, but scoring was kind of difficult: it took a ridiculously long time to check up on everything, and some predictions had up to 6 points of information that I had to research. In order to save some time and frustration next January, I'm going to limit my scope and size.

So, what do I predict will happen in 2010?

1) An election will be called in Canada, and the Liberals will win a minority government.

2) There will be a modest civil rights demonstration in Vancouver during the Olympics.

3) The price of oil will not change more than 30% from current prices (as of today, A barrel of oil costs $82.94).

4) Just like in Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia legislatures will pass laws granting naturopaths the right to prescribe science-based medications.

5) The Democrats will lost their filibuster-proof majority in Congress after the November elections.

6) Iron Man 2 will be the biggest summer blockbuster, followed by the next Twilight movie.

7) Scientists will observe what they think may be water on an earth-like extra-solar planet.

8) The Mars Spirit Rover will go offline.

9) Space X will continue their success, and expand their operations

10) The BCA will drop their lawsuit against Simon Singh

11) The extra-solar planet count to over 500 by year's end, thanks largely to NASA's Kepler Mission.

Okay, that's all I feel like writing for now. Check back in a year and see how I did. Better yet, check back often and keep reading :)

Website Hit Counters

I'm coming soon to a bar near you! (if you're near Toronto)

2010-01-09T20:40:00.000-05:00

Now that the holidays are over I've been busy doing meta-skeptic issues more these days: fewer skeptical analysis, more skeptical activism. I've been busy with Skeptic North, doing my part in trying to work out how we're going to expand into the near future, but there are two things in particular that I'd like to draw your attention to:

1) Grassroots Skeptics printed a guest post of mine that primarily deals with how Skeptic North was formed, and the type of actitivism we're trying to engage in. Thanks to K.O. Myers for printing it!

2) If you're in the Toronto area on Friday Jan 22, why not come down to the Toronto Skeptics in the Pub, (hosted by the Association for Science and Reason, formerly Skeptics Canada) where I'll the guest speaker discussing digital social networking in skeptic activism and how to organize, execute and promote skepticism. Thanks to the ASR for allowing me a chance to speak, and thanks to fellow Skeptic North member Aysha, who no doubt offered some Grima Wormtongue-like advice to the ASR brass in making the recommendation of me.

"You should invite Steve Thoms to speak. He is goddamned awesome...."

So I hope to see you all at the Skeptics in the Pub (directions can be found at the ASR's events page). Come say 'hi', and maybe we can have a good discussion about skepticism, astronomy, alt-med, and Arrested Development!

P.S.
For some more Some Canadian Skeptic goodness which fuels my ego (and, strangely enough, my Mechano Set), don't forget to check out my appearance on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and my joint-appearance on Skeptically Speaking.

Website Hit Counters

2009 Skeptic Predictions: The Final Tally!

2010-01-03T08:45:00.000-05:00

A year ago, I made my 2009 Skeptic Predictions. I wrote these predictions the way any psychic would: some with vague, open-ended criteria, some with extremely specific information. With the vague ones, it would be easy to claim accuracy, and if the specific ones turned out to be accurate, then I could WAY focus on those (and if I turned out to be wrong, the file drawer-effect of the memory of the believer could easily forget my misses). I also tried to include vapid, superficial predictions from the celebrity world (which I don't follow at all). I'm going to score myself, where each prediction is worth 2 points (which would allow me, and any psychic who does this sort of thing, to claim a prediction to be half-right). Let's see how I did:

1) Unemployment rates in the United States and Canada will reach levels between 8-10% by April, drop slightly over the summer, and plummet to 10-12% again in September.

Well, looks like there is a error in what I wrote...I think when I said "plummet" I mean to say rise. But regardless, in April the U.S. the unemployment rate was 8.1%-8.5%, and in September was 9.8, so that's close enough for a psychic to say it's correct. (source) In Canada, the numbers weren't all that different, but in September, we fared slightly better than the Americans (source). There were six points of information in this prediction, and 3-4 of them I'm claiming turned out to be true. So for this one, I'm scoring myself a 1.

2) A senior state official in the Middle East will be assassinated by March, and another by October.

In October, several Iranian state officials (commanders) were assassinated, but I couldn't find any assassinations for March. 1 point.

3) Lindsay Lohan will be seen in public being intimate with a man, throwing doubt on her homosexuality (and will make headlines again).

Ugh. I can't believe I bothered with this one. AND THAT I WAS RIGHT! 2 points.

4) Britney Spears will briefly re-lapse into her crazy-fits, but she will find solace and sanity from a religion and loved ones.

While Britney did indeed embrace religion, it largely started in 2008, and this year was a slow one for her anyway. 0 points.

5) Contrary to many psychics predictions, there will be no significant race-riots in the United States beyond the odd bar-fight among hillbillies.

I know, I know. I predicted that something wouldn't happen. Psychics do this all the time. And this prediction turned out to be right. 2 points.

6) Afghanistan will destabilize further, forcing some states to withdraw their troops entirely, and the remaining states to increase troop presence.

Sadly, This VERY turned out to be true. No special insight required here. Just a basic understanding of the history of conflicts in that area, and a close attention to the news. 2 points.

7) Much to the disappointment of Paramount Studios and Star Trek fans, the Star Trek film will be a commercial failure, and Paramount will release a statement that the franchise is now dead.

I'm very glad that this prediction turned out to be false. The movie was rad, raked in a tonne of cash, and there will be two more Star Trek films under the J.J. Abrams helm. Star Trek was made cool, possibly for the first time, and it's worth be getting 0 points for this.

8) Facebook will face major legal battles with the governments of China and the United States surrounding police crackdowns in the former, and leaked access of information in the latter.

China is fighting Facebook, and Facebook's America troubles are mounting, and in both cases, it's for the exact reasons I predicted. 2 points hardly seems enough to reflect my awesomeness.

9) The price of oil will regain some of its value by May-June, rising to $70/barrel, but will not rise further unless the economy can recover

It's almost scary how accurate this was. 2 points.

10) The death-toll from anti-vaccinationists will reach a fevered pitch, causing widespread vilification and backpedaling of people like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey.

The former is true, but the latter is not. This is 1 point I wish I didn't get to grant myself.

11) A major psychic will claim to make contact with the spirit of Heath Ledger.

This turned out to be true. And goddamnit, it's this asshole:

Pictured: This Asshole

2 points. Goddammit. Asshole.

12) A 70's rock star will get involved in a near-fatal car accident while an 80's rock star will be implicated in a sex-scandal.

I spent all the time I felt like trying to find if this turned out to be true. Doesn't appear to be. 0 points.

13) Oprah Winfrey will come out of the closet as a lesbian

Again with a gay thing? Sheesh. Anyway, as best I know, this didn't happen. 0 points.

14) The price of food staples will become so high as to result in as much as 10 million deaths in the developing world

This one was intentional. Food staples are always too expensive for most of the world to be able to afford. 10 million deaths of starvation is a modest estimate. 2 very sad points.

15) Several countries will nationalize some of their major industries, much to the chagrin of the United States and the IMF, who will both be powerless to stop it.

Iceland nationalized the Straumur Investment Bank and the savings bank SPRON. On January 15, 2009, the Irish Government announced plans to nationalize Anglo Irish Bank in order to secure the bank's viability. The United States also pseudo-nationalized several of its investment firms and auto-companies. 1 point.

16) Russia will attempt to overthrow one of its neighbours governments by either military means, or by economic means (such as controlling the flow of resources).

Russia has been steadily putting the heat on neighbouring Georgia for the past two years, but I can't claim victory on this one. 0 points.

My score:
Out of a total of 32 possible points, I scored 18, or 56%! Since most psychics generally get 10-20% right, this is a pretty damned good score. Why, even the folks at Australia's The Skeptic Zone podcast manged to do only slightly better at 60% Not bad for my first try!

Obviously, I don't have any magical powers, and I would bet my left thumb that no one on earth can see into the future. If a person pays reasonably close attention to the news, they'll be able to accurately predict a surprising amount of things. Remember that the next time you see Sylvia Browne prattle on about her past accuracy.

In a few days I'll make my 2010 predictions. Maybe less than 16 so that next year I don't have to spend so much time researching my accuracy.

a

Website Hit Counters

My battle with my old University

2010-01-01T20:09:00.001-05:00

I've been wanting to tell this story for a while. But it's a big story, and a up until now, the rage that I felt when thinking about it prevented me from writing too much about it. Many people in my immediate and academic circles know full-well this story, and some of my skeptic friends only know bits an pieces (told in fragments, and heavily truncated because I didn't want to talk about it), but I think I can tell the story now, and in full (any errors and omissions are due entirely to errors of memory, not because of deliberate falsification). It's long, but I need to tell this story while I still have most of the memories. Here it is:

When my University Tried to Silence, Censure and Blacklist Me

Early in my 4th year at my old university, Trent , I wrote an opinion-piece in our student paper (the original link, along with all the articles from that year have since been removed) criticizing my department (politics) for over-embracing post-modernism. My point was that although there is a value to post-modern analysis, its application into political matters should take a significant step back to more difficult issues of historical materialism and political economy. I found (and still do) that when we obsess on matters of identity to explain politics (also known as identity politics), we engage in little more than narcissistic academic navel-gazing. There's work to do, and post-modernism, identity politics, and phenomenology (that ruled the roost at the Trent politics department) had little-to-no praxis with which we could use. But this entry is not about post-modernism.

A sub-section (and largely un-related) of the politics department has graciously offered publish to the article on their own website. To read it, click here.

Well, the article itself set off what can best be described as a "shit-storm", but I would also classify it as a "hissy-fit".

The reaction from the student body was fairly mixed: of those that agreed with me, I found many surprising friends and allys in what would later become a fight. But if a person agrees with an article, chances are their voices of support are drowned-out by the angry voices of opposition: I've heard my name ridiculed by people in my own department, in related departments (such as Cultural Studies) and in entirely un-related departments (such as Nursing). The fact that the reaction spread far outside the boundaries of the Politics dept kind of underscored my point about the entire university being usurped by postmodernism, but I suppose that the irony was lost of those calling for my head.

The list of personal insults thrown my way online, in print, and in real-life, ran the gamut: I was called a poor-scholar, an idiot, a fool, stupid, and a Marxist taskmaster. They said I should have gone to class more, should have read more of the original source material,and I should not have spoken about something that I clearly don't have any idea about. In the same comment thread, I was accused of being a Marxist extremist AND a Bush-Cheney neo-liberal. Remarkable that a person can be accused of these things because of an opinion piece! I noticed that a lot of the negative comments came from a smaller number of students who had a close relationship with the heads of the department. I might call them cheer-leading fan-boys of the professors, but I'm trying to be objective here.

But it was the reaction of the professors and administration that was especially damning, and taught me more in a few months about the academy's reaction to dissent and disagreement than 5 years of study.

I've debated internally whether or not I should say names here. I've decided to include their names because a) It's a matter of public record, b) it's my blog, and c) they did a lot more than simply "say" my name: they used official university channels to drag my name and reputation through the mud...so all I'm doing is telling what happened.

The then-head of the department, Professor Elaine Stavro (who taught a course that was actually named "The Political Imagination") devoted an entire 2-hour lecture in front of 40-50 of my fellow students to explaining to her 4th year students why I was wrong. Professor Nadine Changfoot (teacher of "The Politics of Creativity" and in another course had an assignment where she wanted the students to "bring in a physical manifestation of their inner-academic...in a 4th year course!) devoted 30-minutes of her 1-hour lecture in a similar way, also asking her students, "Which one of you is Steve Thoms?". Professor Veronica Hollinger (of the Cultural Studies dept) at least took the time to respond in the original forum (the student paper), but her argument wasn't an argument at all, but a bibliography effectively saying, "read this, then complain!" In the year that I wrote the article, I did not have any of these professors as my instructors. However, there was one of my detractors that I did have:

Professor James Driscoll, while teaching my class, "Law and Constitutional Issues" threw out the following line in lecture, "...The hell with Steve Thoms". I'll remind you, this was a tenured professor, during lecture time, at a public university, who was defaming one of his students, who was sitting right there. All because of an opinion piece in the student paper. I kept my cool during the remainder of the lecture and did not confront him until class ended. He confessed that he did not know who I was to look at me, and his eyes widened when I explained to him that I was the student that could go to hell. He re-composed himself, patted me patronizingly on my arm saying "its all in the same spirit". "Not really" I responded. I pressed on him for information, since he was the first department professor that I actually was able to talk to.

I asked him about a recent meeting that the politics department faculty had, where they called-in the editors of the student paper. I wanted to know why they called-in the editors of the piece, and not the original author. He didn't have an answer beyond "We're politics professors, we play politics". I asked why they threatened the editors with libel. He said "We did not threaten them with libel, but we did express concerns that there were some slander issues with the piece". Again, I asked "so why not take the issue up with the author?", and continued with "Can you point out a single instance of slander? Because there isn't any, and I think you, and the entire department shouldn't offer a thinly-veiled legal threat against two inexperienced editors when the author is waiting around watching everyone talk about him, but never TO him. I think the behavior of the departments betrays a lot if immaturity and insecurity and I think you owe me, and the student paper an apology"

Needless to say, he didn't take the call for apology well. He started walking out of the lecture hall, and that was the last time I saw him.

I decided that I couldn't let the issue rest there...a university professor can't talk about a student like that, and not let it go unchallenged. I made an official complaint to the then-Dean of Arts and Sciences, Christine McKinnon, who invited me in for a meeting. The details of the meeting are confidential, but I can say that I walked away furious, feeling like I had little-to-no recourse, and that the Office of the Dean was professionally and/or ideologically aligned with the politics department.

Over the next few months, I had heard countless other insults thrown my way, many of whom came from supposedly 'professional' professors of the department. I was well-within my rights to sue the university, and maybe I should have. I had hoped that we could settle this with words like adults, and I didn't want to use the legal system that the department was eager to use before trying to even engage in a dialogue. University was really tough on me after that. I lost a lot of sleep, my health plummeted and it was all underscored by a regular twitter of "Steve is an idiot" popping up every now and again, often from people in positions of authority.

I've toyed with the idea of going back to academics, but I keep thinking about that terribly poisonous experience, and then I remember that these days I'm very happy teaching music to kids. I may have committed academic suicide by writing this entry (or maybe an academic appendectomy or amputation might be more accurate), but I have never compiled my side of the story in writing before. It's been more than 2 years since the original article, and even though I've pretty much severed all my ties with Trent, I'm glad I finally got this out there.

I wonder if this will find its way to the computer screens of some of the professors and students* who thought it was very important to use university time/money to call me an idiot when they could be teaching students instead. Judging by their reaction, they will think about ways they can sue me, realize that they can't, and then dismiss me as a jaded former-student who tried to bite the biggest dogs in the yard. They may think of other ways to get back at me, because these are powered people who are not secure or mature, nor who can handle criticism from someone without power. They may have all kinds of power, but these days they have little power over me.

Some people in that department taught be well: I know my right to free speech very well, and I'm not concerned.

* I ask that unless you have a personal or professional relationship with the professors named in this article, that you do no send them this article. I don't wish to spam of flood anyone's inbox, even if they do deserve it.

Website Hit Counters

Atheism is Boring to me now! What Happened?

2009-12-30T01:18:00.000-05:00

Atheism is boring to me now.

I look back at some of the stuff I wrote in the past on the subject, I find it odd how little I care about it these days.

Don't get me wrong, my feet can still be found in the waters of the non-believer. It's just that nowadays I find the topic so mind-numbingly dull that I can't get worked up over it anymore. For me, the journey to non-belief (I'm hesitant to call it atheism in this context) is a very internalized, personal affair, and even if others feel the need to externalize it, I don't. My non-belief is my own, and I don't really care about your belief, or your lack thereof.

Mind you, there are still atheist issues that I can take an interest in, such as a) if a person loses their job because they declare they're an atheist, b) if a soldier is forced to attend prayer meetings, or c) if a government outlet displays religious iconography. But these are issues of oppression, and I would be similarly interested if the issue was about gay rights, ethnic rights, class-issue, and yes: religious rights.

Truthfully, I get rather nauseated by the segment of the atheist activist community that treats the believer like a mindless automaton, one who is so incapable of thinking for themselves that they need to sell off their brain to an old man in a funny hat because they're basically scared, stupid little children. Many of the leaders of the atheist community don't act like that, but huge swaths of the rank-and-file do (just read some of the comments at Pharyngula, Richard Dawkins.net, and the Friendly Atheist), and I'm stepping away from it.

I get tired of people treating every single religion (and those that follow them) with the same degree of derision that they would heap upon Scientology or the Branch Davidians, and pretending that there are no differences at all between them. I get tired of being lambasted for refusing to point my skeptic-arrow at Catholicism. I get bored with the endless navel-gazing about how best one can not believe in something.

I think one of my skepchick friends said it best recently (I forget who, I'm sorry!), "I'm sick of debating philosophy, there's work to do!". Skeptics have a LOT of work to do, especially with regards to fighting the anti vaccination movement, alt-med, and ensuring that creationism/ID is kept out of the science classroom. Do I really want to spend my time and energies focusing on atheist issues when naturopaths are getting the right to prescribe medications in my home province, and are poised to do the same in other provinces?

Other large organizations have been working very hard to erase the distinction between 'Atheism' and 'Skepticism', but if these past few months since starting Skeptic North have taught me anything, it's that we NEED to not conflate the two intellectual traditions. A theist can still be a skeptic, and a skeptic can still be a believer. Skeptism has become too big for the britches of atheism, and if we start calling Catholics archaic hangovers from a superstitious bygone era, how can we expect the majority of Canadians to listen to us in the next breath when we try to impress upon them the importance of a science education, or that we should get the H1N1 vaccine?

What am I supposed to say to follow that up? "Now that I have your attention, acupuncture has been shown to be no better than a placebo!" Please.

I'm still sympathetic to the atheist/humanist/secular project. But unless there is actual oppression is going on, I'm afraid I just won't be too interested: I'll be busy with actual skepticism.

Website Hit Counters

Some Canadian Skeptic's Top 10 Astronomy Shots of 2009

2009-12-23T02:08:00.002-05:00

As regular readers probably know, I fancy myself to be a bit of an amateur astronomer and astro-photographer. I've only been doing this for about a year and a half by now, but in 2009 I've had my some of my work win a photography contest, get shown at Bad Astronomy, and be part of a planetarium video at a Science Museum. I'm going to dedicate this entry to my 10 favourite astro-photography photos of 2009.

* * *

10)Whirlpool Galaxy (M 51)
I took this on March 15. I like this one because it was the first picture of a Galaxy that I've taken after the easy-to-find Andromeda Galaxy. It's mostly invisible to the naked eye, and takes some knowledge of the sky to find, so this picture holds a special place in my heart not just because it's a pretty galaxy, but it was taken at a time when I was really starting to understand how to read the map of the sky.

9) Neptune
I know this picture doesn't look like much, but Neptune is absurdly hard to spot, even with an 8" scope like mine. I like this picture because, like the Whirlpool Galaxy photo above, I had to know exactly where to look, but unlike the Whirlpool Galaxy, it's position changed slightly from one night to the next. In mid-summer, Neptune crawled within close apparent distance to Jupiter, otherwise I doubt I would have been able to find it. Considering that I was also in the light pollution of my old city of Peterborough, Ontario, I really shouldn't have been able to come out with such an obvious picture of a planet that wasn't discovered until the mid 1800's.

8) Comet Lulin
Comet Lulin was a double-tailed comet that flew through the bottom side of the constellation Leo during the month of February. I had a little difficulty finding it, because the night that I was able to get out to the observatory, it was absurdly cold and the clouds kept playing peek-a-boo with me all night. This image has been processed a little bit to bring out the rich green colour of the comet. This was also my first comet photo, so I liked how fortunate it was that just as I was figuring out some pretty cool things I could do with my gear, a comet whizzed by!

7) Crescent Moon
This is just a simple composite stitch-together of 8 images taken through my 8" reflector in mid-Feburary. I just really dig the epic-blackness of everything that isn't the moon and its craters.

6) Saturn & Saturn
I've always liked it when impressive results can come from cheap, easy-to-use technology. The top shot of Saturn was taken by simply holding my Canon Powershot A340 (which is a standard, albeit outdated, point-and-shoot camera) up to the eyepiece, and zooming in. No special equipment beyond the telescope, and this early-summer shot of Saturn shows clear ring contrast (though I'm fairly certain the pinkish hue is a digital artifact). The bottom shot was taken with my crappy cell-phone camera (no, I don't have an iPhone or anything like that....my cell phone is over 2 years old) held up to a 5.5" refractor. No ring detail, but pretty impressive considering how low-tech I went!

5) Jupiter, with Io transiting
Mid summer, Io took an hour-long-transit in front of Jupiter, and the seeing (fancy-pants'd astronomer-word for atmospheric turbulence, usually in the form of moisture or smog) was really good that night. This turned out to not only a capture of tiny-Io, but also a fairly decent picture of Jupiter as well. The pinkish-blur in the middle-white band is Io, and the off-orange oval in between the dark band and lower white band is the Great Red Spot.

4) Venus
Another low-tech photo, all I did was use my DSLR with a telephoto...I like how the thin-crescent shape is clearly visible. The black lines in the foreground are the tops of my neighbour's trees. During march of this year, Venus was VERY close to the Earth, and it appeared as an extremely bright evening star, shining at around -4.7. This photo was seen on Bad Astronomy (thanks, Phil!)

3) Jupiter (w/Ganymede and Europa)
I don't get to do a lot of astro-photography these days, and when my Peterborough days were winding down, the weather was very cooperative on a regular basis: very little wind, humidity, clouds, or rain. Some of my best pictures were taken during August, and I miss climbing on top of my roof with my telescope, camera gear, and my ipod. I miss listening to the Douglas Adams library on Audiobook while I struggled with some piece of gear trying to focus on a target in the night sky. This picture was taken on August 27th, and that ugly splotch near the middle of the main white band is Europa and Ganymede transiting Jupiter together. It also happens to be my favorite picture of Jupiter that I've taken so far.

2) Orion Nebula (M42), Running Man Nebula (NGC 1977)
The Orion constellation is like an old friend to me. It was the first constellation that I learned to identify as a kid, and as an adult, I'm fascinated at how much you can learn from it. It's an excellent road-map that points to other stars and constellations (like Sirius, the brightest star in the northern hemisphere's night sky), and the individual stars in it have beautiful colour contrast: Betelgeuse is a dark orange and Rigel is a bright blue. The belt and sword both reveal some fascinating clusters of stars, and it is home to many nebulae, including the brightest of all: the stunning Orion Nebula, seen here. It is one of the only nebulae visible to the naked eye, and even with a pair of binoculars (and REALLY steady hands) you can make out some of its cloud-structure. This image is a 228-second exposure taken in mid-February, and it wasn't until I took this picture home to view on my computer did I even notice the Running Man Nebula at the top-left!

And now, my personal favourite astronomy photo that I took in the year 2009....

1) The Milky Way Galaxy
This image is a stack of two photos, with a combined 662-second exposure looking south-southeast on the evening of May 16, 2009. The list of notable stars, clusters, nebulae and constellations is just too long to name, so I won't bother. Besides, I think that kind of takes away something from the vast sense of wonder that I feel when I see shots like this. This image has the centre of the galaxy in the right-side of the picture, and goes as far as the southern-tip of the "Summer Triangle" and the constellation, 'Sagitta'....so this shot covers barely one-quarter of the plane of the galaxy that can be seen at that time of year. I needed a rather dark-sky to take this image, and considering where I live now, I can't imagine that I'll get a chance to get a shot like this again in the near future. Furthermore, this image can be seen at the new Planetarium at Science North in Sudbury, Ontario, so if you're in the area, make sure you pop in and see my handiwork (I have about 5 pictures in the planetarium's pre-show).

* * *

So that's it for 2009! I'd like to thank everyone who has been offering me kind words of support over the past year, and to Phil Plait, for drawing a lot of people to my blog right when this stuff was starting to take off for me. I'd like to send a very special word of thanks to John Crossen, who runs the Buckhorn Observatory. John has been a great help to me, and it's at his observatory where all of my deep-sky photography got done. I'm going to be pretty busy with Skeptic North and holiday stuff over the coming weeks, but in the meantime, I hope you enjoyed the fruits of my astro-labour, and I hope to do this again next-year!

Website Hit Counters

Randi and the Maturation of Skepticism

2009-12-18T11:06:00.001-05:00

Just a quick note of reminder: despite my role as Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic North, the words/opinions expressed on this blog are entirely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Skeptic North. Skeptic North is not taking a position on this issue, but people have asked me what I think of the Randi/AGW controversy. So here it is, the non-Skeptic North stance on the issue, as told by me, Some Canadian Skeptic (which was here first!).

By now, you all know what happened: James Randi wrote an entry at the Swift blog expressing his concerns, confusion and doubt with the idea of global warming being anthropogenic in nature. (AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming). After a ker-huge uproar in the skeptic community blogs, Randi wrote a followup, as did Phil Plait, and a whole slew of others. The list of names is so comprehensive and obvious that I think I hardly need provide any more links.

What really fascinates me in this whole story is the degree to which people are taking this personally. I expect that part of this is because we all identify with Randi: the man that most of us cite as one of the primary causes for our journey into organized skepticism. If James Randi can make such an amateur mistake, then what does that say about the entire movement? Another part of this is probably because since the Skeptic community is so small, many people got to meet him in person, and have an additional relationship with him, on a personal or professional level, so it's a bit like having a friend announce during Christmas dinner that he just doesn't trust Italians and Jews. Lots of people feel personally affronted by this, and I can understand that feeling (I share some of it), but it's important that we all take a valuable lesson here:

James Randi is our hero, but he is not our priest. He does not interpret scripture for us.

When Randi posted his article, the skeptic blogs tore it to pieces! This is a very, very good sign that maybe we're maturing as an intellectual / popular movement. If Randi had posted something like this in 1997, it would have set the agenda for the entire JREF, and maybe would have set the tone for the whole of organized skepticism. But people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer have taught us very well, and we generally have a good understanding that no one is above criticism or scrutiny, and even the best skeptics can express some profoundly un-skeptical analysis from time to time.

If this Randi ordeal has taught us anything, could it be that maybe organized skepticism is no longer a top-down community, but a bottom-up movement? It strikes me that the leaders and spokespeople no longer get to set the agenda by virtue of their position, eloquence, and skill. Just like in the meat-grinder that is the peer review process in the scientific community, an idea in the skeptic community must pass-muster. Skepticism 2.0, for all the dangers of amateurism, also brings to the table a base-level of amateur-peer review, one that which not even the mightiest among us are capable of contravening.

AGW denialism (yes, denialism) is, in the words of a prominent Canadian skeptic, the greatest shame of the skeptical community, and this uproar has shown that most of us accept AGW. It's up to the rest of us to start stamping out this AGW denialism fire that goes against the existing scientific consensus.

It's important to remember that most of us are NOT climate scientists, and we should NEVER argue for or against the science if we're unqualified. The default position of every non-expert skeptic should be to accept the given scientific consensus at the time. Not everyone needs to have an opinion on every issue, and I think it was irresponsible, foolhardy and hasty for Randi to cite his lack of understanding (his words), and then truck-in with the fringe.

The role of the non-expert skeptic should always be to argue the argument, not to argue the science.

I think that the skeptic community was forced to take a long, introspective look at itself this week. I wonder that we may be at the turning point in the skeptic zeitgeist: we're graduating from the top-down, leadership and organization-based community of decades-past, and becoming a grassroots-level movement. We have powerful intellectual tools at our disposal, and we're getting so good at using them that even the hero to us all can be forced to look square into the scrutinizing light of peer review.

Website Hit Counters

Viking Dad tries him sum science'n!

2009-12-09T02:13:00.002-05:00

I'm not entirely sure he answered my question the way I was expecting. Doesn't really matter now, since I'm trying to actively kill said out-bred population of mountain lions.

Website Hit Counters

Stephen's Guide to the Universe

2009-12-05T09:03:00.001-05:00

It's been a crazy week, but I'll get into it some time later.

In the meantime, make sure you download today's episode of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, to hear an interview with yours truly. I didn't mention this blog even once, (which, given my propensity for shameless self-promotion, I'm a bit surprised at myself), as the point of the interview was to talk about Bill 179, and Skeptic North.

I'd like to thank Steve, Jay and Bob (Evan and Rebecca were not in on the call) for a fun, engaging conversation. I haven't heard the interview yet, so I don't know what got left on the cutting-room floor, but I remember feeling pretty good about it on wednesday (when we recorded)

Website Hit Counters

As per request, my Naturopathy comment

2009-11-30T05:05:00.002-05:00

I've had some very kind requests to post a list that I made recently at the National Post's naturopath rebuttal to Scott's article. Thanks to everyone for the kind words of support so far in this Bill 179 issue. I would write more about this at the moment, but it's 5 am and I've been writing all night. I'll copy and paste comment, and go to bed for about 3 hours.

The science-based community is always at a disadvantage in these sorts of outcries, because we're limited to the evidence, and we can't just make stuff up. There's a lot to respond to.

1) With 23,000 doctors in Ontario, and fewer then 1000 naturopaths, the argument that granting naturopaths prescription rights will ease the burden on the healthcare system is a bit silly.

2) The assertion that the body has the potential to heal itself is not a scientific one. When given "natural" support only, the body will die by the age of 45, probably of infectious diseases. Modern advances in medicine make long-life possible, not herbs and roots from a 2,000 year old playbook.

3) Saying "science" doesn't make it so. The call of "the healing power of nature at work" to be not magic, but good science, is ridiculous on its face....the human body is really good at succumbing to pathogens and injury, and the "natural" world is really good at killing us.

4) Old and tradition do not a science make. Yes, herbal supplements have been around for centuries. So has prostitution. Old doesn't mean effective. It means old. I want my medicine to be new, awesome, and if possible, administered by a robot from the future.

5) Regulation does not a science make, even if it was 85 years ago.

6) I wonder, what is the naturopathic remedy for a broken bone? For that matter, how effective is naturopathic birth control?

7) Why the natural fetish? If you're dying from a disease, do you really care if your treatment is "natural" or not? Why take an herbal supplement that a person tells you *might* work, when you could take the most recent advances in medical technology that we know *will* work?

8) Natural doesn't mean safe. It doesn't mean effective. Arsenic, poisonous mushrooms, gravel and bird-crap are also natural and you don't see me putting them into my body.

9) Lets not forget that many people see a naturopath because they're dazzled by the word "Naturopathic Doctor, or ND". Let's be perfectly clear: Naturopaths are NOT doctors. The Naturopathy Act, 2007 allows them to be called "Naturopaths", not "doctors." You need to go to medical school to be called a doctor. Naturopaths just granted themselves that title as a subtle PR stunt.

10) What is the diagnostic method a naturopath uses to test if a body is "in balance"? What laboratory equipment can you use to check for "wellness"?

11) The calls that naturopaths aim to treat the root cause is nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be asking to prescribe pain-killers, and anti-inflammatories.

12) If naturopathy is just as effective as medicine, then why don't these naturopaths just go to med school?

13) The medical community is constantly advocating good health, diet, nutrition and exercise...naturopaths don't have a monopoly on knowing the merits of preventative health.

14) Naturopathic college of Ontario requires a 4-year Bachelor's eduction, but does not require for a Bsc or any science pre-requisites. The historical GPA for entry to the CCNM is 3.3 (ranging from 2.8-3.7). Compare that to Med school, which is turning away people with 4.0 averages.

15) The length of time for training is meaningless if the education quality is so lackluster. I can study levitation for 20 years but it doesn't mean that I could fly.

16) "Every review of our record has recognized the safety of the more natural approach of naturopathic care." Every review? Really? Black Cohosh, anyone?

17) The authors conveniently left out the deaths attributed to naturopathic prescriptions in Washington and Oregon, showing once again their contempt for honest data-gathering and fondness for cherry-picking whatever information suits their pre-conceived narrative.

18) The CCNM is NOT associated with ANY Canadian university, and it's dishonest to artificially conflate the two together, even if you're being indirect about it.

19) "The need for NDs to have prescribing authority was accepted by every other regulated health profession" Not even close to accurate! The bill passed the first two readings because the relevant health care communities had approved of their OWN amendments, and was not reflective of the naturopathy amendments.

20) The CCNM also is also teaching homeopathy and colonic irrigation, neither of which do anything beyond a placebo effect....Back from your cherry-picking trip yet?

21) If passed, the committee to decide which drugs would be prescribed would be made up of naturopaths! Unelected naturopaths deciding what they can prescribe!

22) Since naturopaths *are unqualified* to prescribe medication, granting them these powers will create needless risk of drug contra-indications.

23) This is not about freedom of choice for the patient, and it never has been. This is about granting naturopathy legislative and legal legitimacy because it can't do so under the rules of science and evidence.
The scientific community is crystal clear on medicine, yet these people would have our very modern system degenerate with some very 19th century modalities.

Check back here in a few days, I've got some fantastic stories and picture to show you all from the Whole Life and Wallet Expo this past weekend. Hint: There's ear candling, crystals, and yes...."quantum science"

Website Hit Counters

Bill 179: What can we do next?

2009-11-21T20:17:00.001-05:00

By now, hopefully everyone who reads this blog reads also Skeptic North on a regular basis. If not, you should. Because a) There is some really high-quality analysis and writing going on, b) I'm the editor, so if you show them some love, then by the transitive property, you also show me love, and c) you can learn all manner of important Skeptic issues in Canada. Right now, one of the most urgent health issues in Canada is a political one.

Before you read this post, I suggest you read Scott's post about Bill 179, and then continue on to my own follow-up post. In brief, Bill 179 is a bill put forth before the Ontario Legislature that would, by way of amending the Naturopathy Act, 2007, grant naturopaths the right to prescribe schedule 1 drugs (schedule 1 means anything that requires a prescription). If you read this blog with any sort of regularity, I hardly need explain what a colossally blunderous and dangerous move this would be.

Proponents of the Bill have have framed this issue as a matter of freedom-of-choice: Freedom for the consumer to have access to as many alternative healthcare modalities as possible, and freedom for the naturopaths to have access to the medicines that they need.

But lets be very clear:
This is not about freedom of choice. This is about using legislative tools to grant legitimacy to an alternative treatment that cannot stand up to the standards of science and evidence that conventional, (a.k.a. effective) medicine has to abide by.

Naturopathy can't prove its efficacy either scientifically or medically, so it's supporters try to convince the general populace and politicians by appealing to their better nature of fairness and freedom. They've convinced huge swaths of the Ontario Legislature that patient safety and disease control matter less than the freedom to choose a medicine that doesn't work, and indeed may even harm someone. They're convincing people that naturopaths, acupuncturists and homeopaths are primary health care providers, all on the power of freedom and placebo.

Now imagine this man prescribing your anti-inflammatories, psychotropics, or heart-medication.

Well, Skeptic North helped to get the word out, and many of our readers dutifully responded, and emailed Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Deb Matthews and Premier Dalton McGuinty (The email link will also CC the leaders of the two opposition parties, Tim Hudak of the Progressive Conservatives, and Andrea Horwath of the NDP). I only wish that the response from the political arena was as positive as the response from the skeptical community.

By now, some of you may have already received this email from the NDP:

Thank you for your email sharing your views on Bill 179, RX privileges for Naturopaths. Ontario's New Democrats support prescribing authority for Naturopathic Doctors (NDs). There has unfortunately been misinformation circulating regarding this new prescribing authority as well as the training, practice, and beliefs of the regulated health profession of Naturopathy.

New Democrats have supported prescribing authority for Naturopaths as it is necessary to maintain NDs current access to natural or botanical substances used in the course of their practice. New Democrats support
an evidence-based, regulatory system that places the safety of Ontarians first. Although Naturopaths have been granted the ability to prescribe, the substances that will be available to them will go through a lengthy
regulatory process and grant access only to substances that NDs have the appropriate training to prescribe.

Granting Naturopaths prescribing rights is a necessary measure for the Ontarians who choose to visit these health care providers. While New
Democrats respect the choice and diversity of opinions that Ontarians have regarding the practice of Naturopathy, we are confident that this expanded right is in the best interest of Ontarians who choose to visit a Naturopathic Doctor.

Thank you again for taking the time to write me.

Sincerely,

Ezia Cervoni,
Leader's Correspondence Officer
On behalf of Andrea Horwath, MPP
Leader, Ontario's NDP

I've received several emails from Skeptic North readers advising me of their response, and yes, this is a form-letter. This response tells me a few things:

1) The NDP is either ideologically aligned with the bill's amendments, or they have been swayed by the language of freedom over efficacy
2) The NDP is lazy, or,
3) They're getting enough responses that they're finding the volume a bit much to deal with. This means that the other parties are also getting the same emails and may be facing a similar traffic issue.

Now, whether or not you've not yet written your email, here are my tips (straight from a political skeptic!):

1) If you have written, and gotten the NDP's form-letter response, then respond to their arguments, point-by point. Include links that demonstrate the poor track record of naturopathy, and the loose academic standards of naturopathic colleges. Make sure you CC all the original recipients, so that everyone can see the form letter response, and everyone knows who else is reading the same thing.

2) If you have not written, write now. We're running out of time. Use the NDP's form letter to preemptively counter the disingenuous and faulty argument of freedom, and instead stress efficacy, patient safety and the record of harm that naturopathy has. Include links, but don't overwhelm them. A link to Scott's initial piece should suffice, but another one wouldn't hurt either (something from Science Based Medicine perhaps?).

3) Be civil, polite and, yes, political.

4) Whether you're writing for the first or second time, when you close off your email, make sure you include where you are from, including your riding information particular (if applicable). Make sure you also include any credentials you may have, especially if they're in media, academics, government, law, education, or health care. If these categories don't apply to you, that's fine: We need to let them know that this is an issue at both the grassroots and professional levels. "Concerned voter" means just as much as "Professor of Pharmacology" to a politician.

5) You don't have to be an Ontario (or even Canadian) citizen to write and express your concern. If you're a heath-care professional or medical journalist from anywhere in the world, you could still make your voice heard...let the Ontario legislature has the eyes of the medical community of the world fixed upon it.

6) In your response, make sure that you do NOT refer to them as "naturopathic doctors". They're not doctors. Doctors go to medical school. They're naturopaths. Naturopaths go to colleges that teach acupuncture, colonic irrigation and homeopathy. They're not primary heath-care providers, and it's time we started calling them on their linguistic manipulation.

I wasn't able to find out when the third (and final) reading will take place, but it will be VERY soon. Please help get the word out, and we may still be able to save health care standards in Ontario. It's generally the way of things that wherever Ontario goes, so goes the rest of Canada. If we stop them here, then perhaps Manitoba and Alberta (which are also considering similar legislation) can be saved.

Please spread this on your Facebook, Twitter, and any other social networking site you can get your hands on. Ontario urgently needs your help.

Website Hit Counters

I miss astronomy....

2009-11-02T02:31:00.001-05:00

Since the move to the Niagara Peninsula, I've hardly been able to do any astronomy, or astrophotography. The moisture off of Lake Ontario blows up against the face of the high-escarpment, and then falls back down. So the entire area at the foot of the escarpment acts like a kind of heat-tunnel, which also makes everything dewey, damp, and foggy.

This means that it's very difficult for me to use my telescope or camera to any substantial degree. Jupiter-shots are nowhere near as good as they were in when I was in Peterborough, and I have to be very fast to get my moon shots before my scope (and the mirror inside it) get coated with a layer of dew. It's frustrating, and it's hard to make this place feel like home when I can't see my stars and planets.

But I am able to get out once in a while, and here is a recent half moon I stitched together, made up of 6 shots.

Click for a non-distorted, biggier-version.

I used to do this kind of thing 2-4 times a week. Now it's down to once a month. That is teh-suck.

Website Hit Counters

Skepticism + Art = Outreach to kids!

2009-10-29T03:58:00.000-04:00

A funny thing happened at work the other day. Let me explain...

Last week while teaching a class, two of the students let it slip that they believe that in 2012, the world will end. I can't resist that kind of skeptic fodder, even if it is coming from a couple of 12 year-olds, so I had to engage them in discussion. We wasted a lot of time (I blame myself....and wolves), and devoted a much smaller portion of our time to playing music than I'd like, opting instead for debunking a ber-jillion apocalypse-myths.

Yesterday, when those kids came back, one of them whipped out a copy of Skeptic Magazine to show me! I assure you that I made no such suggestions to him, and he had no idea about my skeptic blogging. He told his dad about the conversation, and his dad, no doubt sensing that his son's curiosity had been piqued, grabbed the first magazine with 2012 that he found, and gave it to him to read.

Looks eye-catching to me!

That beautiful cover was designed by the talented and active Daniel Loxton, who helped us out at Skeptic North by providing us with content on our first day.

I asked the student what he thought of the magazine (remember, I'm still playing dumb at this point: "hmmm...Skeptic Magazine, eh? Sounds interesting!"). The student got the magazine a few days prior, and had already worked through more than half of it. I soon couldn't contain my glee any longer, and I started flipping through the pages pointing out things to him:

"See that guy there? That's Daniel. That's my friend!"
"See that guy there? That's Michael. I drank a beer with him!"
"See that guy there? That's Randi...you should really read his stuff wherever you see it"

On the last point, he replied, "Yeah, I read that one already....it's pretty good" (spoken in his 12-year old nonchalant way). While I was working with the drummer (who did not get the magazine), the first student was re-reading the articles in the meantime.

To put this entry into other words:

Two of my students were scared that the world was going to end in 2012.
I dropped my skeptic-bomb on them.
One of the kids got interested.
In his interest, he sought out a Skeptic outlet for information (because it looked catchy and appealing)
He enjoyed it.

This, my friends, is why I do this. If ever you feel like you're banging your skeptic-head against a wall and making no impact at all, I ask you to remember this entry. Skepticism, in conjunction with artwork and engaging writing, is inspiring people....people who might not otherwise have heard of us if we didn't try to engage them. I consider this a great tag-team victory for Daniel and myself, and I think we have a lot to be proud of.

Website Hit Counters

Toronto Star fails, and Sarah Palin changes nothing.

2009-10-19T08:48:00.001-04:00

I think I may have to call epic fail on the Toronto Star. They posted a story that Sarah Palin has posted her resume on LinkedIn.

While you still can, I recommend you go check it out. In case by the time you read this, the link has been taken down, I'll post some screen shots of the page:

Okay, I'm no fan of Palin, but there is no WAY this is legit. Palin may be one of the most ignorant and foolish people to ever set foot in the halls of government, but she IS a former governor, and that means she has intellectual politic-type people around her to stop this kind of stupid thing from happening. It's true that she's been letting her facebook status get the better of her (is that even possible?) lately, but this is just to conveniently worded: it's just slick enough to look like a regular resume posted by a regular person (though all the information can be easily gathered from her Wikipedia page), but without the plausibility that a former governor and inexplicable GOP superstar would do something so absurdly plebeian. The problem is that Palin is not a regular person: she's a freaking former state executive, not some schlub looking to get a job at the Toronto Star.

Toronto Star: You fail.

Don't publish just anything because you think it will add to the "Sarah Palin is Crazy-and-an-Idiot" chorus. That headline is long-gone, and you haven't realized that she's an idiotic footnote to history.

Website Hit Counters

Violence and Music: Still missing links...

2009-10-19T08:20:00.000-04:00

A news story on the CBC got under my skin this morning.

A new study by the American Academy of Pediatrics was published linking 'explicit' lyrics with violent and aggressive behavior. This sort of story creeps into the mainstream media every few years, so I can't get too worked up over it. Just let me help put this into context.

The study (or at the very least, the CBC article relaying the study's findings) makes that most un-critical of logical fallacies, seen so often when people seek to point the blame at some form of media for some form of social ill: confusion of correlation and causation:

The report's authors cited research findings that children who listen to explicit and violent music lyrics and video may become more aggressive, antisocial and promiscuous.

I must give the CBC some credit when they correctly pointed out the logical fallacy:

"The problem with the evidence is that they don't know whether someone turns to that type of music because it reflects their lifestyle or whether the music is actually influencing their lifestyle," Wing said.

Exactly.

Logical fallacy aside, a very similar article was published just yesterday, citing Hardcore music as the cause of several murders and assaults. Hardcore music is a blend of hip-hop, metal, swear words and amps that go to 11. One of the more *ahem* famous hardcore acts is the Insane Clown Posse.

Murderers....who shop at Party City.

Do I even need to go into why these correlations are incredibly stupid? I thought not. An 8th grader can tear this idiocy apart. I wonder why people are so eager to blame music (and for that matter, video games) for violence. The cynic in me would say that bad parents, teachers, and officials who are to blame by setting such a shitty example and for propagating a wide-spread and deeply-entrenched system of inequality that awards/punishes people based on superficial things such as race, gender, sexual preference, and for continuing the un-checked slide into brutal poverty of millions who had been financially abused in the last 30 years of hyper-free-market capitalism which rewards not work, but investment, thereby creating a generation of disenfranchised and disaffected youth who see no way out of their station of life for themselves or for their loved ones.

Or, it could be Dig Dug and Metallica.

Won't somebody please stop him!

Remember when those Judas Priest fans committed suicide, and people blamed the lyrics so much that they were put on trial? Or how about people blaming Led Zeppelin for the rise in satanism because they're songs supposedly contained satanic messages when played backwards? I clearly remember people complaining about a man with a clock around his neck singing about an emergency service. Remember that other song that encouraged a kid to attempt suicide by drowning himself in a vat of acid?

There is a good reason that this stuff is easy to make fun off: It's extremely idiotic.

I hope to one day live in a world where people will start to look for causes of violence and abuse, not just correlations disguised as such. I wonder how Hitler dealt with people calling his favorite ICP album "violent"?

Website Hit Counters

Available for download

2009-10-11T15:20:00.000-04:00

*sigh* Remember when I used to be able to be a regularly-writing skeptic and not a self-promoting dink?

Well, at the risk of self-promoting again...

In case you missed the live recording, the latest episode of Skeptically Speaking is now available for download from the website or from iTunes. I haven't listened to it yet, but I remember feeling how good it went immediately after I hung up on Skype. I think we had a really interesting, and multi-faceted discussion and I hope you go and take a listen!

Website Hit Counters

I'll be on the air again!

2009-10-05T11:29:00.003-04:00

Remember when I said that I'll be on Vancouver's Radio Freethinker show tomorrow? Well, I'll also be on Skeptically Speaking, this Friday, at 8:00 pm EST with some of my fellow Skeptic North compadres to discuss Canadian Skepticism. It's going to be a round-table discussion with four Canadian skeptics that occupy very different roles within the skeptic community. Should be an informative, engaging discussion!

Website Hit Counters

New Skeptic North post

2009-10-04T13:58:00.003-04:00

Why are there so few humanities experts in the Skeptic community?

I try to look into it over at Skeptic North. Go check it out.

Or wolves will eat you.

Website Hit Counters

Some Canadian Skeptic will be on the Air!

2009-10-03T22:40:00.005-04:00

I'm going to be on Radio Free Thinker this Tuesday, Oct 6, hosted by fellow Skeptic North author, Ethan. The content of the interview will be based around that homeopathy-kerfuffle from a few weeks ago. It's not going to be a live interview, so I won't be taking questions.

Unless you mastered the flux capacitor by then, you can't ask me a question. And if you do, I would have remembered it from when we recorded it.

So there.

So listen.

Website Hit Counters

OMG!

2009-10-03T20:58:00.006-04:00

OMG! IT'S MICHAEL SHERMER!
And yes, this photo was staged. I had to call upon Michael's acting chops, and I think he did quite well.

He came to speak in Toronto last night to give a talk based on his "Why People Believe Weird Things" book.

I've written some attacks against Shermer's libertarianism in the past, but this talk was, by and large, just a Skeptic lecture. It reminded me why Shermer was one of the first skeptics to get me inspired, and get involved in this community in the first place. Thanks to the CFI for bringing him up here!

Website Hit Counters