gullyfourmyle

If you want to know more and stay up to date on developments you can buy my book: ABUSE OF POWER. To order you can PM me and I'll give you the ordering information. I don't want to be found guilty of turning this into a commercial site, or be a troll. Word about the book is spreading fast. If something isn't done about this legislation it's going to spread all over the continent. Here in Ontario where the law was broken, is the best place to deal with it before things get worse - and they are planned to get worse. Those that order the book via e-mail will get developing news via e-mail as it happens on this subject as I poke it along with a sharp stick. This topic is going to get hotter as Global is doing a show on it and a couple of us key players are featured. Global appears to be on our side in this. Mind you, the editor is the key guy in terms of how this issue pans out on TV so we'll have to wait and see. The reporter promised to let me see a preview of the show before it airs. What I'm telling people is they need to put pressure on their MPPs. But of course they can't speak to the issues properly without my book. Either that or do the months of research themselves first. Getting the book is faster, cheaper and it's a very interesting book to boot.

My comments were not about the Iroquois. There are plenty of other tribes. Have you ever heard the term 'wooden windows'? Those are sheets of plywood covering what would have been glass windows. Behind every wooden window is some sort of tragedy. Wooden windows don't hide spiritual growth. You don't experience much spiritual growth while your culture is under siege and at some point, caring about what exactly happens to the land while you are living a life of enforced boredom on a reservation takes a distant back seat. They can't be faulted for that as I've said before. And when you're forced to live in altered circumstances, respect for the land and self has to suffer. Not for all, but for most. When you have no option but to farm in a certain way, regardless of whether it's good bad or indifferent, that's what you do. Our modern methods have developed over centuries of experimentation and social change from communities that moved around to fresh locations to communities that became rooted to the spot. Until our cultures were able to combine crop rotation and technology, all civilizations before us collapsed. Our methods seemed to work best for long term but living in one spot for too long always generates disease. Fixed urban centres are also disease magnets. No living thing has ever evolved to live in that way. There has to be renewal. The fact that we abused the land at the same time and put off judgment day does not mean we won the race. The various aboriginal methods were always best for the land because they gave the land a chance to rest and revitalize. Even though native cultures didn't have much to move, it was still a pain in the ass to move. And the fact that they had to move reduced the amount of permanent stuff it was worthwhile developing since it had to be carried. Having to carry everything was a strong incentive not to develop beyond slash and burn. Dogs couldn't drag or carry as much as a man. Plus they were never 100% dependable about haring off with your stuff if they got a whiff of something interesting. That's one of the reasons horses made so much of a difference. You can't ascribe the higher sentiments to anyone who had no choice or could conceive of no choice. They also had no way of foreseeing just how ugly things would get by letting Europeans establish themselves in North America. If they'd been able to do that, the Aboriginals would have wiped out all the European settlements and kept at it. But they had no idea what they were up against. Plus they, like the tribes in Africa had all sorts of small wars going on that allowed Europeans to divide and conquer. When I visualized back in 1970 what the world would be like by the year 2000, only my art teacher felt I was likely right. Everyone else thought I was completely nuts. Too bad there isn't a way of posting images on this site. I'd show you how accurate my visions were. The point is I could see it, but most absolutely could not. So how could any native person possibly conceive of the alternatives to living within the harsh rules survival in those days meant. For any native culture to have ignored their environmental needs would have brought about their own deaths fairly swiftly. Easter Island is a great example of that. Those people thought they were living in harmony with nature but they weren't. Eventually they had to resort to cannibalism to control their numbers. Disease and starvation took care of the details.

In this I believe Wild Bill is right on the money. Slash and burn agriculture was how all agriculture started where there was bush to be cleared and it still occurs in some parts of the world. Indigenous populations don't want to move to new locations; they are forced to move. They do so because eons old experience has told them that if they don't, their next crop will be a life threatening disaster. They are stuck doing the right thing by default. Modern integrated Aboriginals are no more mindful of the land than anyone else. Worse in some cases. However, regardless of new influences, their original lifestyles were the most eco friendly civilizations ever developed. The Middle East landscape is the result of going one small step beyond the type of agriculture practiced here by the Iroquois. The thing is we need to figure out how to adapt that early process to modern times and super-sized populations. Good luck to that.

I have been an environmentalist since the age of four years old when my dad taught me how to plant trees. My first nickname was tree doctor. After that it was Froggy. I painted a huge mural titled Pollution in Grade 13 in 1970 and it hung in the school for many years afterwards. It graphically depicted 9/11 as well as the world pollution situation today almost exactly. In 2003 I started investigating the Seaton Land Exchange here in Pickering as well as the Pickering Airport proposal. There was no stone unturned and I wrote a book about it titled THE NORTH PICKERING LAND GRAB. My research uncovered numerous environmental abuses by all four levels of government connected to the Seaton area and that included some major Criminal Code offences. The significance of the offences prompted me to involve the RCMP and have them investigate the Ontario Government. They did. But at some point without explanation, they stopped and returned my material. There was nothing wrong with my science and my interpretation of the laws was accurate. In 2006, I ran for Mayor of Pickering. Part of my reason for running was to expose what my research says is the 20 billion dollar land fraud that Seaton represents. And the Genocide that will follow due to the massive preventable and avoidable increase in air pollution that will chemically injure every person in the eastern GTA and kill thousands annually. No one disputes the science because it's indisputable. When I tried to get the Green Party and the Sierra Club and others to recognise my work, the Green Party was not interested and had in any event never heard of the issues despite the fact that the Airport issue had been a big deal since the early 70s and had festered ever since. In Ajax/Pickering, the Airport is an explosive issue. The Sierra Club had heard of it but decided the issues were too big for them to deal with. They actively and intentionally excluded me from support until after their media event and then belatedly apologized when it was too late. When the Provincial election was held in 2007, I rejoined the Green Party to run in Ajax/Pickering. To make a long story short, my candidacy was sabotaged and as a result, the issues didn't get dealt with on a knowledgeable basis. I ran as an independent. They eventually fielded candidates in the area who knew almost nothing about the issues and probably still don't since I did the research and they haven't asked for it and it still stands as the benchmark. As an independent, I had to literally force my way into the debates - and then dominated them since I was the only one present who actually knew first hand what the local issues were. My experience with the Green Party was that none of them knew anything about the issues facing the Eastern GTA, didn't really want to know and weren't interested in hearing anything outside their comfort zone. What they were looking for in the way of candidates was not people who knew their stuff. What they wanted were candidates who could be managed. At the time they were compiling the Green "Manifesto" that turned out to be a monumental compendium of policy that was so big it could not possibly be used by a candidate to achieve anything. It was so big it wasn't ready in time for the election. I submitted material for it early on and all of it was "lost". Obviously they were sending me a message. But equally obviously the Greens are run in much the same way as the other parties who I've also observed as to how they are run. It turned out I was too Green for the Green Party. As Green as the Greens say they are, they are long on rhetoric and extremely short of knowledge, experience and competence. Elizabeth May knows her stuff, but my experience gave me to believe she is surrounded by buffoons. Much like other party leaders.

Alcoholism is a disease. The worst offenders are repeat offenders. They can be tracked fairly easily medically. In my view, an alcoholic should lose his or her license until they've been clean for at least two years. They don't have to be apprehended at roadside, they can be apprehended by their own doctors before committing an offence. There are other ways of nailing drunks. Doctors can be avoided. But compulsory testing could identify them at license renewal time. Keeping a drunk off the road is a hard thing to do though if the drunk is without any sort of morals. The bottom line is that drunk driving is a social problem long before it's a traffic problem and we aren't dealing with the social problem in a way that stops drunks cold. Having the police deal with an illness makes no sense whatsoever to me. They aren't trained to deal with it. At present, drunk driving is still looked at like the drunk can make a lucid choice. When was the last time you saw a lucid drunk? On the one hand our public information is telling drunks to hand over their keys and act responsibly. On the other hand, the very act of drinking reduces the notion of responsibility to near or sub-zero levels. The concept is oxymoronism in action. And the morons are those administering the legislation covering it. The entire way we deal with drunk driving is just stupid and the death toll is the measurement of just how stupid it really is. The legislators are even dumber than the drunks. In some countries, drunk drivers are executed. I believe a public flogging would be a deterrent. It's cheap, it hurts, it's embarrassing, it's unforgettable and no one wants it twice. If that fails, a tattoo on the forehead would ensure a drunk is never rented or lent a car or truck. Then there is education in schools. The mindset of young people needs a serious readjustment. Young people think getting wasted is a condition to be celebrated and striven for. Plenty of older people do too. It's a mindset that's a holdover from the early Middle Ages when alcohol was the only safe beverage to drink in urban centres. Even infants were fed wine and gin. Most people were drunk or hung over most of the time. That's why the Middle Ages were also known as the Dark Ages. A huge percentage of the population was pie-eyed all the time. It's also why we, the descendants of the survivors of career alcoholics, can tolerate alcohol and most Aboriginal people can't. We have centuries of abuse and genetic adaptation they can't begin to match. Selling booze to an Aboriginal ought to carry a flogging as well. Of course they can make it themselves now so they'd have to flog each other. Anyway, education is the best answer and so far the education that's out there isn't enough. Psychological profiling is another way to catch potential drunks before they get a license even. Those that think getting wasted is a great idea should accept the fact that until they can lose the notion they aren't a candidate for a driver's license. Preventing them from even learning to drive is a great way to reduce drunk driving. They ways I've mentioned are denying a privilege to drive not a right to innocence. Our rights are sacred. Never agree to give up a right to anything when there is a viable alternative. Our laws require diligence when examining alternatives and that diligence was nowhere in sight when the knee-jerkers were finger painting the street racing legislation. Our gullible legislators have not done their jobs. They've taken the lazy way out and the legislation is a sloppy job. That's not what we pay them for.

I must have been your choice of words or the colour of your eyes. Doesn't WIP stand for Women In Power? Either way, no offence intended. But now my curiosity is peaked...

Yes the law is illegal. Section 172 says you are guilty until proven guilty. A clearly unnecessary denial of a guaranteed right. That's because you are heavily penalized without recourse whether you are proven innocent in court or not and your property and potentially your ability to earn a living can be destroyed. Destroying innocent people's ability to feed their children does not meet the criteria for denying a right. If your car is crushed and you are later found innocent, you just lost your car for no apparent reason as well as a huge financial penalty that could ruin innocent lives. If you lose your license and your car at the side of the road you are not necessarily charged. Or the charges might be withdrawn. In the meantime, you may have no way to get to work. That could lead to loss of job, which could lead to loss of home, which could lead to marital breakdown and loss of family. Being found innocent after that is kind of like being shot and permanently wounded and not even receiving an apology. In cases heard by Justices of the Peace, the constitutional challenges are being refused. What that means is that when a case is brought before a JP on constitutional grounds, the JPs are simply treating the cases as traffic offences and not allowing the cases to proceed to a constitutional challenge. It happened to a good friend of mine. He was found subsequently found innocent. As a single parent he narrowly escaped losing his house because he almost lost his job. In his industry it can take years to land another job. He is now heavily in debt due to two police tag teaming him. It also turned out that the judge figured out the police officer was lying. Yet there was no perjury charge. Certainly the government can introduce new meanings for words to more accurately describe a thing or action. But they cannot change the meaning of a word to intentionally entrap people which is when one or more existing words already in the language will serve exactly the purpose required. They could have used the words aggressive or belligerent to describe the actions of the people they were trying to target. When new meanings are introduced that have the potential and a likelihood for the government to commit a crime against the general public that's when you have a problem and that is one of the places the government crossed the line. The government is committing crimes against the public because those who are innocent are not receiving any sort of compensation for having been wrongfully targeted and suffered theft and abuse at the hands of the police. To enact a law that carries such a high rate of collateral damage is not a democracy that any sane individual should want any part of. The 50 over penalties could simply have been applied to the existing penalties. There is no need to impound a car doing 50 over. For the last forty years people have been doing 50 over on the 400 series highways without losing their cars and the accidents involving that type of speed were less than 7% of the total accident picture. In addition, the number of speeding accidents related to the number of offences committed don't make even one millionth of one percent. Certainly accidents involving speed happen, but not with the frequency the OPP make out and speed is only rarely the action that caused the accident. This is not rocket science, it is a numbers game and I just spent some time looking at how the numbers work. They don't work the way the OPP say they work. In my view, the police are misleading the public and contributing to accidents themselves by not telling the truth. The spirit of the entrapment legislation is met with the way the legislature and the police have acted so far with street racing cases. Our laws are based on probabilities. Probabilities rely on the numbers. For something to be probable or likely, there has to be a better than 50% chance of bodily harm or death. In no instance where cars were seized at roadside could those probabilities have been satisfied legally. Entrapment is a crime that is usually levelled against the police when they try to bust drug dealers and those involved in prostitution. The law wasn't written with the expectation that the government would intentionally attempt to fool the entire public and turn the process into a profit centre. Bear in mind that only about a third of people charged with street racing are actually convicted of the actual offence but even then, the offence is not real street racing in nearly all cases. That means two thirds of the people were convicted of offences covered by previously existing moving violation legislation. That means that in at least two thirds of cases, the street racing law was applied incorrectly and a harsher penalty was added to an existing penalty. What that tells you is that the street racing legislation is not doing what it is purported to do. The other thing that people forget is that the numbers used were pulled out of context. I'm working with MTO to get the numbers. When I do, they will be published in my book. At that point, my book will be the only source those numbers can be accessed in a format where they actually make sense. The numbers as published on the MTO website are in a format that is so misleading they had to write me a two page letter to explain what they meant. Those garbled numbers that make almost no sense are what was used to convince the legislature to pass the street racing legislation. The numbers actually used were out of context and I'm fairly certain virtually none of the MPPs who voted for the street racing legislation actually understood that the numbers had been presented in a misleading and deceptive manner. Street racing fatalities are photogenic and always attract media attention. But the fact remains, the police have far more at fault deadly accidents than street racers do. You don't hear about them because the police are self insured. When you are hit by a police cruiser, in most cases your ass is grass. Those cases don't make the news. Despite public opinion, police officers are not particularly good drivers and on or off duty don't pay much attention to the law. The cop who killed the two horses and the other one who was caught "street racing" (driving like cops normally do) would never have made the media radar but for the fact that a court reporter was present and heard the case. It otherwise would have received no publicity and the cop might have gotten away with the offence scot-free. Section 33.1 is where a provincial government justifies their desire to deny a guaranteed right; in this case the right to innocence until proven guilty by a tribunal. No if, buts or maybes. The language seems a little fuzzy but you have to read it in terms of how the language was used at the time it was written and the intent of the legislation. It holds a province to account. That's why Section 33.1 has only been used twice so far. Denying a guaranteed right is a serious thing that millions of people have fought and died for over thousands of years. You don't legally deny a guaranteed right without making a very solid case and the Province of Ontario had only a weak case based on fictional numbers. In addition, the Drunk Driving aspect of the legislation should have been addressed under a completely separate section. There is a vast difference between impaired driving and street racing. Impairment is an induced state that affects judgment. It is well documented and the proper treatment of this offence can't be dealt with in a catch all half-assed poorly conceived section that purports to deal mainly with something completely different. Street racing and impaired driving are social issues that require social solutions. Those solutions will be found to be worlds apart. No one needs to go to Alcoholics Anonymous to get street racing out of their system. But they might easily get it out of their system if sanctioned tracks were provided within the GTA. The police are taking advantage of the fact that they can do to the public what they want and get away with it. How constitutional is that? How would you like your neighbour who has a friend who happens to be a cop suggest your noisy car be impounded? It can be done. Easily. No charges laid. It can happen to anyone, any time. It is happening now. Is this democracy to you? Does this strike you as a good law? IS THIS THE KIND OF LEGAL THAT MAKES YOU A HAPPY CAMPER? If you want references, you can PM me and buy my book on the subject: ABUSE OF POWER. More later.

All of the provinces have to regulate vehicles such as the Zenn independently. There is way more to that sort of investigative determination than meets the eye due to the potential for litigation. All road, weather and driving habits have to be dealt with exhaustively. If the Zenn had come along 30 years ago, we'd be driving them today. The Segway suffered the same fate. Two great pieces of technology that could be worked into our lifestyles without much difficulty. As for Elizabeth May, having met her, I don't have any fears about her ability to handle herself. She is smart on her feet and knows the issues well. That's why none of the other debaters wanted her in the debate. There is every chance she could show any one of them up. Of course the reverse can happen too but she is definitely qualified to be there. US cars are as non-foreign as we can tolerate. Canadians have a long history of not supporting our own industries. The Zenn might become an exception if it's ever allowed to be sold here. But it has a big problem. The same problem all vehicles of its type have - it couldn't live in most Canadian markets due to its short range and lack of power. In the GTA and Montreal, most people don't comprehend the vast distances other Canadians have to deal with to go anywhere. The Zenn simply can't make the long hauls in terms of speed or range without stopping for a recharge in the middle of nowhere where there is nothing but a pine tree or a fence post to plug into. Then there is the weather. Canadian winters may be warming but they haven't warmed enough to make the Zenn a reliable people's choice in most areas. But that isn't a reason why it couldn't be an effective urban commuter. So you have to wonder what the hold up really is. When I was at Auto Fest in Oshawa a couple of weeks ago, I was shocked at the demographics of the people exhibiting and attending as audience. They came in wheel chairs, with walkers, white canes, ordinary canes, scooters, and people to hold them up. Not many younger people attended. It was like family day at a giant old folks home. Old duffers surrounded by amazing automotive works of art with no one to pass it on to. All the skill and knowledge essentially ignored by the up and coming generation. That put the exclamation mark in Wild Bill's post for me. It was like being present at the extinction of the dinosaurs. In the US, they still don't get it. Lucky for me since I do a little business in that field. But my market is being buried and cremated at an alarming rate. It's pretty hard to ignore but they're managing it. The aversion to driving is being brought about by government support for Smart Growth. That is the official Ontario government plan to turn the GTA into a giant Jane/Finch corridor - a world class monument to crime. Most people don't understand that's what's coming. But it is.

By ignoring the youth market for the last fifteen years, GM, Ford and Chrysler have given away much of their present and future market share. Today's youth is not much interested in what they see as inferior technology. The lack of foresight was nearly unprecedented and constitutes possibly the longest run of a business sector continuously ignoring market demands through sheer economic arrogance. But it doesn't matter whether the technology is inferior or superior. It's the perception. American Motors Corporation was "killed off" the same way - by misleading perception. AMC pioneered and designed a lot of the technology and methodology that most auto manufacturing is based on today. If Chrysler hadn't bought AMC; Chrysler and AMC would have disappeared at almost the same time. Both companies were perceived as producing junk cars. Chrysler actually was. AMC's sin was in producing butt ugly cars. It doesn't matter how well a car is made, if it's ugly it won't sell. If it's total junk but looks good it will last right up until a better alternative arrives. The Asian car manufacturers made butt ugly, junk cars when they first started building here as well. They went after AMC's traditional market - people who wanted economical, safe transportation. Not being burdened by a macho muscle car image and a history of landing barge sized cruisers, the market had no expectations of Asian and European manufacturers and so their offerings were on a take it or leave it basis. No one expected them to build a Caddy or a Lincoln sized boat so they didn't. Their tech research was done back in Asia where the market demanded fuel efficiency, fit and finish - foreign words here until a very few years ago. North American manufacturers have a huge trend to buck to avoid annihilation. Youth today is not impressed with GM, Ford or Chrysler. The re-emergence of the pony cars is likely too little too late. The old duffers driving them don't help the image and the price tags are actually a continuation of the problem. The performance versions will be too expensive for the youth market to afford and the street racing legislation certainly is no encouragement. The original muscle cars were simple, cheap to buy and looked awesome. Anyone with a half decent job could afford to buy one and race it at least occasionally on the street without much difficulty or police harassment. The type of street racing was nowhere near as dangerous as the variety practiced today so it drew only intermittent attention from the media and the police. The oil crisis and the economic downturn don't help. The demand for mind boggling muscle cars is still there but in the absence of cheap gas, low car prices, and escalating incomes, the market interest has to focus on imports. The expensive imports such as BMWs are the natural trade ups from the El Cheapos. Domestics don't get a look. The Asian imports - known formerly as rice rockets but now better known as tuners are amazing collections of brilliant technology and have earned that reputation. The domestics had to have a gun held to their heads to offer hybrids that could have been offered back in 1970 and earlier. Detroit sat on the technology all that time. There is no forgiveness for that. Competitive technology was bought off or otherwise obliterated and blocked from marketability. The domestics will continue to pay and pay for the sins of the distant and recent past. If they don't survive, they will only be mourned by the old duffers.

I thought WIP's post was pretty good too. The point I think was most important was the one where she said: "Tradition -- if someone comes from let's say a Catholic background where their family has been Catholic for generations, they may see the church as part of the family tradition. Where else are they going to go for weddings, christenings and funerals?" That is a big deal for most people and the main reason why religions persist in the face of common sense. There is nothing yet ready to take the place of traditional venues for life events. Being an atheist at certain times can leave atheists pretty isolated at times when community support is called for. The points about community and religion, while long winded were just as important in my view. Without strong community ties, civilizations lack unity of intent. Basing your unity of intent on common sense makes sense but in real life, it's a hard sell. Anyone who has ever worked as a sales person knows that emotion and glitz outsells common sense. So we atheists have a lot of work to do to figure out a way around this.

Actually Thermopyle your view point is out of date and old. It is well known scientific fact now that animals reason in much the same way we do given the context of their lives. Instinct plays a role but much more minor than previously thought. You might want to read Susan McCarthy's book "Becoming a Tiger" or "When Elephants Weep". In those books you'll see how intensively young animals are trained by their parent(s) to be the animals they are supposed to be. Those that don't learn get eaten by something else. So the motivation is high. Even single celled animals have been filmed in scientific experiments making decisions in order to avoid meeting other cells they can sense but not "see" due to physical obstructions. Insects have a pretty high IQ threshold as well. It has been demonstrated that insects have distinct languages and that some insects are multilingual between species. It all depends what you need to know to survive. If you don't learn and figure things out, you die. It takes quite a bit of reasoning power to survive in the animal world. Just because animals don't think like we do is no reason to think they don't think. They think in thought patterns that are relevant to their survival. It's a brutal world with no time to contemplate religion as far as I know, but lots of species have a good sense of humour. If you think about it, you will no doubt agree. Your Blackfeet friends will tell you the same thing. Grizzly Bears use exactly the same willow bark lining for tooth aches we do. Only we call it asprin. Instinct does not teach a bear to pack an abscess with willow bark lining. I believe when you start reading modern work on the subject you are going to be pleasantly surprised to learn that the gap between human intellect and animal intellect has narrowed substantially in the last ten years. The difference in our ability to apply and develop our medicine and that of animals is complex. The written word has a lot to do with it. Technology has too. Our ability to experiment on other animals instead of eating them counts for something too. But if we go extinct, you can't say another species won't come along and evolve to our point or beyond it. We don't own intellectual advancement. Other species may just need more time. Recent mental experiments with Chimps have shown that in certain memory exercises, we can't compete with their photographic memories. That is brain power. But brain power that is channelled to complement other survival skills. But since they can learn to use computers, you can't say they acquire those skills by instinct. So animals are capable of learning things that are completely foreign to their natural way of life. Having a tiger jump through a flaming hoop is unnatural. It doesn't take a huge intellect but the tiger still has to understand that in the absence of a direct and immediate food reward, there can be a reason to risk fire. Instinct doesn't cut it. Have fun reading the books. They will lead to others. It's a fun subject.

I searched my posts and couldn't find that I'd used the word stupid anywhere. I guess I did go off on a bit of a rant though. As for not understanding science, religion or philosophy, that may be your view based on limited exposure. But don't worry, I can carry my weight with the best of them. You have to bear in mind that I'm poking you to provoke a response. If I didn't you'd still be lurking and not saying a word. It's more interesting to get people agitated because then you get to see what really makes people tick instead of the usual ho hum socially correct or the brain deadening name calling that goes nowhere. If things don't get stirred up a little, sites like this die a slow death due to lack of interest and excitement. Now you're bent out of shape about what was said and that's good. I enjoyed your post. Another thing that kills sites like this is when everyone starts agreeing with each other. As for the man in the sky with the beard, there are still plenty of people around who believe that. George Bush is probably one of them. Whenever the bible gets knocked as I knocked it, people step forward and rationalize it, admitting that yes there are things that are wrong but you have to dig for that nugget of gold or whatever. That sort of rationalization may deliver a comfortable warm feeling for the person holding forth, but for the rest of us who have spent serious mental time examining the flaws in not just the bible but religions in general, the rationalizations come across as kind of kindergartenish. Especially since within our lifetimes, the bible was THE WORD NOT TO BE DOUBTED. Modern communications are what finally did in religion more than anything because doubters and atheists discovered that not only were they not alone, their numbers are increasing as what is in the bible makes less and less sense in today's world. The real miracle of the bible, the Koran and any other religious beliefs is that they lasted so long in the face of visual evidence to the contrary. Think about the wars and genocides that have been fought in the name of Christianity. How do they reconcile with any kind of spiritual kindliness? What about the Spanish Inquisition? Religions have provided a smoke screen for all sorts of heinous crimes that neither prayer nor religious books can wash away. How do religious philosophies begin to account for the duplicity of intent and the destruction of entire races of people and animals? And then you tell me my views are what? Self Indulgent? What I would dearly love to know is just what a religious philosopher can be thinking when say, the walrus ivory from eastern Canada is contemplated. Do they think warm fuzzy thoughts about how nice the crucifixes and rosaries are that were made from the walrus tusks? Do they spare any thought for the hundreds of thousands of walruses that were slaughtered for religious trinkets because the North African elephants had been wiped out to provide earlier religious trinkets? Do they brood over the desertification caused in part in North Africa due to the loss of the elephants? How about the real reason for the fishery destruction as represented by the Grand Banks? In each of those cases, vital animals were removed from ecosystems. Both animals had tusks. Tusks are used to "turn" the earth. It's a similar process to that of ploughing a field. In the ocean, the walruses stirred up the ocean bottom looking for mollusks. In the process, zooplankton were released from the mud and made available to those species at the first rung of the food chain upon whom all other species - especially the fish we like to eat - depended on for their food. Removing that link slowly erased the fisheries. Over fishing merely accelerated the process. The elephants did exactly the same thing - they ripped up trees looking for water. In the process, they also kick started the cycle of life. In addition certain tree seeds don't germinate unless they pass through the digestive tract of an elephant. Without the elephant to create new watering holes, the amount of wildlife or any kind of life the land can support is greatly reduced. Africa's ecosystem is tied to the elephant. Without it, desert soon follows. The last time I checked the Sahara was expanding southwards at a rate of 23 miles a year. You probably already know that the Grand Banks are not recovering. They won't unless the walruses are restored to the east coast. That won't happen any time soon because the Ministry of Natural Resources scientists don't understand the relationship between the walruses, the ocean bottom and what newly hatched fish need in the way of food. On top of that, the west coast walruses are threatened as well with new oil rigs thanks to Sarah Palin, the Great White Hope. If that happens, the west coast fishery will disappear too. That's quite a heavy load for those philosophers to contemplate. I haven't actually heard they'd started yet though. When do you suppose they will start? Do you suppose the religious leaders and philosophers will ever accept responsibility for the church's role in major environmental destruction?

I see it as an adventure in the mind. That may mean I'm totally nuts.

Looks like under the layers of BS we were mostly on the same page after all. Oleg Bach, we can start another thread if you like. If you read it with an open mind, your religion will likely not survive - assuming your common sense cells are alive and kicking. I'm not sure scientists are going to lead anyone to any god. The sciences will describe the describable within the context of our comprehension - and that varies widely from person to person. The value in the bible was the Golden Rule as DogOnPorch noted. If the bible had been shortened to just the Golden Rule in the first place, a lot of blood and guts would never have been spilt. As for being prejudicial, there is nothing prejudicial about common sense finally holding sway over what passed for almost two thousand years as gospel. Common sense has a lot of ground to make up and the going is only made harder when you have a lot of mental disconnects blabbering about laying their lives in God's hands or letting him take responsibility for whatever sins and crimes they commit. And before you can have a Christ who is divinely inspired you first have to have a Christ. His existence is far from certain and even with the bible, Christians have proven far more dishonest about nearly everything than you would expect from the devout claiming to be spreading God's word. Then you have to figure out what's meant by divinely inspired. I painted three paintings that depicted 9/11. The first was completed in June of 1970. The second was completed in 1974, the third in 1978. Was I divinely inspired? Or did I have a vision? No. I just analyzed what I felt was going on in the world and came to a logical conclusion that when things got ugly, they'd get ugly in New York City in the vicinity of the UN building. The World Trade Centre hadn't been built yet so they weren't in the paintings. But the explosions were. You don't have to be divinely inspired to say or do things that later inspire subsequent generations. If you are really stuck on having a God, then the God Thing is for you. It makes a form of common sense and allows for a plausible scientific explanation - until someone thinks up something better. God, the Devil, and all the other angels and spooks are imaginary constructs - an early historical version of superheroes like Superman, Aquaman, The Thing, The Flash and countless others. Reality is the values the various religions are supposed to preach but don't practice themselves. The next round of archeologists are going to find lots of comic books. They're going to think we worshipped super heroes. Assuming of course the future archeologists are even human enough or bright enough to get beyond digging stuff up to eat.

If you carved all the useless, erroneous and illogical stuff out of the bible, there wouldn't be enough left to be relevant to anything.

In terms of specious facts, assuming horses were driven to extinction by people is a giant stretch with no way of proving it one way or the other. Rusted out hulks are a pretty good investment. Each of those rusted hulks has the potential to generate thousands of dollars in economic revenue. Depending on the model, you could be talking upwards of a hundred thousand per vehicle. A valuable part enables another vehicle to be restored. So each car in inventory can contribute to hundreds of other cars in terms of parts. Those parts have to be refurbished or maybe copied. That generates thousands of dollars for each part. It's quite a sophisticated process and extremely lucrative. As traditional wrecking yards close down close to urban centres, the distant locations get scavenged. Those rusted hulks are considered treasures by many well heeled, sophisticated businessmen. That's why the wrecks haven't all been cleared up. It will happen at some point but not for a while yet. All populations have ritual sacrifice in their background including us. There is no point criticizing them without considering the violent actions of your own ancestry that resulted in your being here. Every human that dies before procreating terminates unknown future people on a planet where people have become so populous that our species is really a global disease. What other points did you think were specious?

Looks like Thermopyle and DogonPorch are my first converts. Despite their rejection of New Age Spirituality, both walk the talk. Reminds me of the song: "I'm not in Love". The God Thing is not about there being a God. It's about the possibility of the electromagnetic fields that hold everything together being able to fulfill the position if you really need the emotional crutch of some sort of God. Some people are comforted by the thought of some sort of God entity even though they understand that the God concept makes no rational sense. There is no law that says people have to be rational about what they believe in. Since there is no such law, we are inflicted with religion. My personal view of religion is that it's merely an efficient way of maintaining control over large numbers of people who would rather not think issues through to their logical conclusion. It's also a great way of absolving yourself of responsibility in countless convenient ways for countless ideological issues that might at some point prove embarrassing or worse. Religion is also the best way of getting people to do stupid things, even commit crimes without suffering a conscience attack. On the ground, it provides comfort to those who can't comfort themselves. Grief management is a common application. But since religion is a double edged sword, most don't think about the other aspect of religion and that is the damage religion has caused and will continue to cause nearly every aspect of life on planet earth in some form or another. Unless humanity somehow gets a grip on itself and wakes up that is. So the circular argument that Thermopyle referred to earlier isn't really circular at all if you can accept the fact that the notion of a God - at least as we can comprehend such a thing - is impossible. Of course if there is actually a God, then he's a heartless dingbat.

And then Angus Thermopyle delivers a truly sophisticated gem of his own titled:

Aboriginals have no monopoly on that feature. There are more derelict cars off reserves than on them. In time, those cars become income streams as parts are sold to collectors or the entire body. Necessity tells you to make money out of whatever resources you have. Derelict cars on reserves will soon be the only place to get such parts and then prices will skyrocket. Think of it as money in the bank. A fairly ugly bank but still a bank. The real problem isn't the cars and trucks, it's the oil still in the crankcases and transmissions. It's also the brake fluid. Without those, the cars are essentially 90 percent or better biodegradable. The only way they can last over a century is in extremely dry climates or when sitting on a sheet of rock. Other than that, nature will reclaim them almost effortlessly.

One thing you should never do is show a lack of respect for other people's shortcomings. Fate has a way of revisiting the issue on those showing the lack of respect. Considering how prevalent Dementia and Alzheimer's have become, you might want to take what steps you can to make sure it never happens in your family. The big deal isn't that it happens to you. The big deal is when it happens to a close relative and now you are personally responsible for looking after what were formerly automatic bodily functions. That gets old real fast. Of course you do what you can to make the declining years as comfortable as possible. But I can tell you from personal experience that the effort is considerable and time consuming. It not only changes the victim's life forever, it includes the care givers as victims as well. Eight years dying of Dementia or Alzheimers is not to be taken lightly. And yes your personal charm is indeed wrapped up in those two or three cells Crick was talking about. Without them intact, your physical good looks are history in short order. Without them, you are nowhere.

Taking the mysticism out of the soul concept is exactly what he did. And yes I agree, in Crick's assessment, the use of the word soul could be considered to be playing fast and loose with the word and concept of 'soul'. Crick's work is not merely an opinion. You don't become a Nobel Laureate by offering unsubstantiated opinions. That isn't to say you're wrong though Angus because future research could indeed find that Crick was wrong or that there is some other overlooked explanation. At the moment though, Crick's work is considered definitive.

I know the facts. The buffalo jump was not used day to day. It was used when circumstances allowed. There was no waste as I said. Just because the natives didn't use it all doesn't mean the local wildlife didn't. Their concept of wildlife personalized the wildlife. According to their beliefs, they are all related. What the natives didn't use the wolves, bears, coyotes, and other carnivores took care of. It was family. I don't think you will find a Blackfoot that would argue the point. When Europeans opened up the west, they used the buffalo for target practice and ate little if any of the carcasses. For the most part they were left to rot since the amount of destruction exceeded the local carnivore population to deal with the carnage. Then with the loss of the buffalo, the native population and the wildlife population crashed. It put an end to any resistance on the part of the Plains Indians. They had a choice - live on a reservation or starve to death. Some starved, some went to the reservations where they were abused in other ways including starvation. It was a lose/lose situation. I don't think you'll find any Blackfoot to argue that point either.

As a matter of fact, the existence of souls is documented, accepted scientific fact as shown by Franicis Crick. "It was reported in the Toronto Star on May 15 2004 that Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA followed that discovery up with an even more exciting discovery – to me at least – he discovered the cells in the human brain responsible for creating an individual’s unique sense of self. The location of the soul in other words – command center for the community of cells of which each of us is composed." “For the first time we have a coherent scheme for the neural correlates of consciousness in philosophical, psychological and neural terms. Actual consciousness may be expressed by only a small set of neurons, in particular those that project from the back of the cortex to parts of the frontal cortex." And... Francis Crick, said, " The idea that man has a disembodied soul is as unnecessary as the old idea that there was a Life Force." ”

The belief was that by eating parts or all of the sacrificed person, or animal, traits were thought to migrate from one being to another. In many respects that turned out to be true but not in the simplistic way the natives thought. Organ donors have passed on their traits and that is well documented. That was the effect the natives were looking for but with only very limited success - they got nutrition and little else. A bit of science might have changed their beliefs somewhat. Another aspect of their brutal life style was the fact that sacrifices of virgins and captives acquired in war severely limited population growth and helped keep their numbers in line with what the environment could sustain for longer periods. However, archeology has shown that trying to maintain an urban centre in one place for too long generates new and ugly problems that affect the ability of the community and individuals to survive as healthy, genetically undamaged entities. The virgins weren't slaughtered, the were ritually sacrificed. A sort of fashionable way to die in public. Fun to watch for the spectators, not fun for the star performer. Ultimately they weren't brutal enough in some cases and entire civilizations ate themselves out of house and home. That concept is being demonstrated around the world to this day. Anyone care for a Haitian mud pie for a main course?

This looks like copyright infringement to me. As such the moderators would be well advised to remove it or risk being sued jointly with the poster at some point. Not worth the trouble in my view and very expensive. The point could have been made with a short fair use quote.