Dear Fit Yogurt: Go to hell.

Isn't this girl hot? I was thinking that it was great to see women with curves in advertising when I discovered that this ad is supposed to turn your stomach. Yes. You are supposed to look at this woman and immediately start retching up your dinner, then grab a little cup of Fit Yogurt. It is part of a campaign that re-shoots iconic images of women using larger models. You can see a few more of them at Shakesville.

This might be the vilest ad campaign I've ever seen. The tag line is Forget about it. Men’s preference will never change. Fit Light Yogurt. Because it's a great idea to reinforce the notion that women should try to look exactly the way men want them to look. We don't have enough trouble with that already.

I was going to be a bit more expressive in the title of this post, but decided that it wasn't worth upsetting my parents and the Forces of Evil any more than they already are.

A flash of memory

I hesitate to share this flash, as the Good Reverend will likely pop up with a correction that throws me into doubt. (Forces of Evil: no, not you guys. Don't you have legal papers to file? If you're looking for something to do, maybe you can help Uriel with her campaign against dermatologists.)

My dad was the lead guitarist in a cover band when I was much, much younger, and they played this song. They used to practise at the back of the drummer's store ("Jim-Bob's Flooring"), and I liked to go to their rehearsals. I'd sit on big rolls of carpet and listen to them play country-rock music or the songs my dad wrote.

My godfather sang lead, and my dad's best friend Steve played bass. I have a memory flash of Steve with a Band-Aid on his ear (goodness only knows why) goofing around and singing this as "Summer of '89", and I distinctly remember thinking that it was 1986 at the time. I was sitting near the bathroom, which I had a mortal fear of because the fellow who occasionally played keyboards told me there was a mouse in the toilet. I'm sure this was very funny to a guy without kids.

I have a few other related flashes of memory, but can't remember what happened before or after. I remember pinching my hand in a microphone stand by messing around with the little twisty thing that lengthened it -- I loosened it and the top part slipped down and pinched my hand. I also remember tightening the strings on my dad's guitar when he wasn't looking. Naturally, I was caught in the act (I never got away with anything, no matter how small) and the drummer chastised me: "Uh uh uh, you're not supposed to turn those, Megan!"

Letter from Jail

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Correspondence.

I've read more letters from prisoners than the average person. This is not just because of my preferred attire when visiting the jail; it is also because as a true scholar and lover of the written word, I seek out original manuscripts whenever possible. There is a standard template for prisoners to follow:

1. Thanks for your letter.
2. You are keeping me strong.
3. Random craziness like "Technology sucks!" or "Paul made me do it".
   
4. Boo hoo, boo hoo.
5. God bless you.
   

(Please note that this template is only for use when responding to letters. If the prisoner sends the first letter, he can skip steps 1 and 2 and get right to the craziness and the boo-hooing.)

And so we come to today's prisoner correspondence, written by the lady seen in this glamour shot:


(Parenthetically, this might be my favourite photo ever. I want to nominate that judge as King of the Universe -- Cindy tells me he has to die before he can be considered for sainthood, and this is the type of judge you definitely want to keep alive for a while.)

Yes, Paris Hilton has been writing letters from jail in the desperate hope that one of them would be leaked to the media so she could be in the magazines again. Apparently it wasn't great press when she refused to drink water so she could never be photographed on the prison toilet.

This letter is a perfect example of the prisoner letter, although it's missing the part where the author would typically veer off into crazy-town. As usual, my analysis is in bold text. (Changing the font is way too much work, so I'm going back to the old-school method.)


I read your letter and just wanted to thank you for your kind words of love and support.

I didn't read your letter, because I don't know how to read. I'm paying my cellmate to read and respond to my mail. Actually, she just writes the same letter over and over again and signs my name. I've never given autographs before, so nobody will ever know the difference. I spend my day trying to figure out how to make protein shakes out of the eggs and toast they serve for breakfast here. Did you know there's no Louis Vuitton in jail? Thanks for your letter, even though you are not nearly as cute as me.

The fact that you took time out of your day to write me truly means the world.

It's great that people are still thinking about MEMEMEMEMEME!!!! You are keeping me strong!!!

Especially at such a difficult and scary time of my life.

It's such a joke that I have to go to jail. What is WRONG with the world? I should be allowed to drive drunk and violate my probation! It is SO HARD to face the consequences of my actions! I could totally DIE in here! Boo hoo! Boo hoo!

But I am being strong and trying to make the best of the situation. And the letters Im recieving really do put a smile on my face as I sit here in my cell, sad and alone.

Boo hoo! Boo hoo! Here I am, sad and alone! It is so hard to be MEMEMEMEMEME!!!! How do you spell "I'm", anyway? Good thing I remembered how to spell "receiving". That could have been embarasing.

Again, thank you so much and may God bless you and your family. Love always, Paris Hilton xoxo

Remember to buy my album! And watch my TV show! And pay me to go to your pathetic parties!

Get another volunteer

I found the Heritage Moment ad Sally mentioned a few days ago:



This was part of an ad series that ran during the 1990s. The videos in this series were, um, very Canadian:

• An out-of-touch American getting arrested by the Mounties.
  
• A bunch of politicians arguing about what the Canadian flag should look like.
  
• The Avro Arrow, featuring Dan Ackroyd and this lovely voice-over: "Although the government cancelled the project and destroyed the prototypes, the Avro Arrow remains for Canada a world benchmark in aerospace achievement."

Here's a spoof that's eerily good. If they'd removed the laugh track, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference:

I hab a code

Today sucks. I left work early to come home and lie down.

My friend Sally, on the other hand, is having a glorious day. Fellow Sally lovers, please wish her well.

Dear Fellow Cyclist,

I hate you. I really hate you. You are making life worse for all of us. Not only do you make the road more dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians, but you endanger my life and Michael's life with your ridiculous antics. Perhaps we should review some of the rules of the road together. Not that a jerk like you plans to follow rules, of course.

Rule #1: You are supposed to ride in the road, not on the sidewalk. Sidewalks are for people who are walking. The only way I will give you a free pass on this is if your bike is a tricycle or has training wheels. When you ride on the sidewalk, you can hurt pedestrians and encourage drivers to think that bikes don't belong in the road. Ride in a bike lane or bike trail if there is one; otherwise, get into the road. If you really need to be on the sidewalk or in the crosswalk, get off your bike and walk it.

Rule #2: Thanks for getting into the road. Now get over on the right side. That's where you belong. You stay on the right side of the right lane unless you need to make a left turn: in that case, you should be on the right side of the left lane. Basically, you should be on the right side of whichever lane you'd be in if you were driving a car. This means you'll have to look over your shoulder for traffic before you change lanes. You might have to wait in line to turn left, but this shouldn't be a big problem unless you're a jerk. Well, I guess that means you've got a problem, but I am not particularly sympathetic.

Rule #3: Since you're turning left, you ought to be signalling your turns. To signal a left turn, hold your left arm straight out. To signal a right turn, hold your left arm out with your fingers pointing at the sky, with your elbow bent 90 degrees. Signalling your turns shows respect for the other drivers who are sharing the road with you. If you can't turn left properly or signal your turns, get off your bike and walk it through the crosswalk.

Rule #4: Stop at stop signs and red lights. I don't think you understand how dangerous it is when you blaze right through the intersection without looking. You are not a pedestrian: you are a vehicle. When you come to a four-way stop, you should stop and wait your turn like everyone else. Then signal your turn and keep going. I can't tell you how jumpy I get at intersections, and all of the drivers around me are nervous, too. They're scared because you're such an idiot that you've trained drivers to think that cyclists can never be trusted to follow the law. I really don't understand why cyclists believe that all road rules are suspended just for them whenever they're on two wheels.

Rule #5: Wear a helmet, you moron. There is no reason not to wear a helmet. You are stupid. Actually, now that I think about it, please don't wear a helmet: our species would be better off if you didn't get a chance to reproduce. And when you crack your skull because a bus whacked you as you went through a red light, be sure to hit your head hard enough to die right away. I don't want my taxes to pay your medical bills while you're in a coma for ten years because you couldn't even die properly.

Thank you for your support in this difficult time.

I knew David would be vindicated eventually, but it is a relief to see that there is justice after all. Since Paris Hilton was sent to jail, I don't know what to expect.

Halfway Home

Sorry for the string of videos lately -- I try to mix things up here on the blog, but it's been a busy weekend.

I'm sitting in the Edmonton airport waiting out a three-hour layover. I originally thought I had a seven-hour layover, and was looking forward to renting a car and driving out to see the capitalist for a few hours before heading home again. But it turns out that seven hours is the total travel time, not the layover, and three hours is not enough time to go anywhere. So here I am in the airport watching the planes go by.

I've now been to every Canadian province and territory except Nunavut. I've dipped my hand in the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Canada is huge. Even this trip from Victoria back home is going to take the entire day.

I flew over the Rockies, and it was quite a sight. I'd love to be really blase about it -- oh yeah, the Rockies, we have them too, pass the salt -- but it was the first time I'd ever seen them in person. The western mountain range continues into the NWT and goes up near Inuvik, but the Mackenzie Mountains are not the same. The Rockies start abruptly. One minute, you're looking at prairie. The next minute, you're looking at giant mountains covered with snow. I couldn't help myself: I stared and stared. Every once in a while, we'd fly over a winding mountain road or a small group of buildings.

The Rockies have sharp, pointed peaks with green valleys between them. How the heck did they build the railroad through those mountains? Did I miss that part of my Canadian history classes, or do they just not teach it anymore?

Happy Father's Day, Dad

It took me forever to find the right one.

Happy Father's Day, Steve

For Mr. and Mrs. Jones

Stacey's Wedding

Apologies

Lately this blog has been long on seriousness and short on raw animal magnetism. This will be rectified. "Rectified" is a funny word.



Things David Hasselhoff rocks:
1. Eyeliner
2. Blue pleather jumpsuits
3. Harmony
4. Tiny guitars
5. Shirts with zip-off sleeves
6. YOUR FREAKING WORLD.

Am I wrong?

Happy birthday, Mom

Married

As you can see, Michael shaved all his hair off again as part of his ongoing efforts to look as much like Samuel L. Jackson as he possibly can. Considering that Michael is a skinny white boy, I think this is as close as he is going to get.

Things may be quieter than usual from now through the weekend (but maybe not). I'm going to Victoria early Friday morning for Stacey's wedding and won't be back home until Monday evening. I may not be able to post every day, but I'll do what I can.

A possible JPod candidate

I am such a sucker for a memory.

Does this sound like me?

I met someone today who described me as having "an evangelical fervour that's a little bit scary". I never thought of myself this way, but he was probably right. I do get passionate about many things. Grammar, for example.

Guess the Biblical Figure

1. "Oh no! It's the pervs and homos! Go away, queers! Here, take my daughters and rape them all night long instead."

2. "She's my sister! No, really, she's my sister! PSYCH! She's actually my wife! Isn't that hilarious?"

3. "I am fabulous and our dad loves me most. Also, my clothes are hot."

4. "What do you mean, this is the wrong incense?" *SIZZLE*

5. "I'm a prostitute with no personality of my own and no role in this story except to tempt men." (Multiple answers accepted.)

6. "You guys are all gonna die! You're all gonna die! Hear that? I SAID, YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! And there's nothing you can do about it! That's going to be awful. Sucks to be you, eh? Hey, how come nobody likes me?"

7. "Man, these plagues suck. What do you mean, it was God's idea for me to keep causing more plagues? What's the point? What? God's sending more plagues so people will tell their grandchildren about the plagues? That totally sucks!"

8. "Gee, everyone around me is horrible. They sacrifice their own children to their gods. They must die, and I am TOTALLY taking their land. What's that, God? You want me to sacrifice my daughter? No problem!" *Lights match*

9. "Man, you guys are SO AWFUL. I am definitely the most picked-on deity around. I've put up with a lot, but no more. Let me give you the lip-smacking details about how I will torture and kill you."

10. "Wow, look at all this quail! God sure is great, isn't he? GAAAAAACK!" *THUD*

Because Michael is too cool to vlog

Family

I ripped this off the Princess's site. It is just too cute.

These are the boys in my family: Nate (Capitalist), Matt (Philosopher King) and Ben (are we really calling him Mandal Man?). And Michael, of course.

The $300 lawn mower

EW EW EW EW EW

Because I like to hurt myself, I read a few pages of Rebecca Eckler's book on Amazon today. Sally suggested that I get it out of the library, but that would mean that someone might see me with it. I'd rather be seen pushing my car to get to the porn shop, to be honest. I figured that if it was good enough for Judd Apatow to copy it, it must be much, much better than the tripe she sells to Canada's Newspaper Of Record.

In fact, if the first four pages are anything like the rest of the book, it is much, much worse than the aforementioned tripe. I am pleased to report that, unlike Name of Paper Withheld, Ickler does know how to use parallel construction. Unfortunately, her idea of parallel construction is to repeat the following phrase over and over again (you probably will not want to be eating when you read this):

Did I...did we...did he...in me?

The first time I read that, my nose crinkled. Yes, I am Prudence McPrude, but there are some things a lady leaves to the imagination, and details about ejaculation are definitely on that list. The second time, my eye started to twitch. The third time, I started to feel ill. Then she wrote it AGAIN. I only read four pages, so I have no idea how long this might go on. I imagine that it is repeated throughout the book in a way that would be appropriate for each situation:

When taking the pregnancy test: Could I...did I...just pee...on me?
During doctors' visits: Does this...mean I...can't do...tai chi?
At the first sonogram: Who wants...to see...this picture...of me?
As her belly swells: I won't...give up...my cran...tinis.
After the baby is born: I I...I I...I I...me me.

Sally, you'll have to let me know how much worse it gets. I also need to know what Ickler's party guests thought of the seared ostrich and individual cups of green-tea ice cream.

The true seven wonders of Canada

• The word "sorry".
• The shovel, for use on both snow and bullshit.
• A bone, to toss to aboriginal leaders when they threaten to set up a blockade.
• Canadian flags, to hang all over Quebec in hopes that they won't leave.
• The phrase "At least we're not as bad as the States".
• Waiting rooms in the emergency department at the hospital.
• The SUV, for navigating the drive-through at Starbucks.

UPDATED: I love Blatch.

UPDATED AGAIN: One of the judges speaks out.

Oh, Canada!

(The title of this post should be read in a frustrated voice, like this: "Oh, Canada! Stop farting during dinner.")

You've probably been on the edge of your seat, waiting for CBC to unveil the Seven Wonders Of Canada. I know you can't wait, because CBC says it's the talk of the town. I'm not entirely sure which town they're talking about, but it's definitely not Name of Town Withheld.

Anyway, the contest is over. People have voted, and in the end none of it mattered -- the "wonder" that got the most votes did not make the list. In fact, only two of the voters' picks made the list.

And this list...well, let's just say that it is very Canadian. The judges first wanted us to know that it was a very difficult choice. This is the sort of nice thing you say whenever you're a judge, but these guys went on to say that cutting the list was agonizing and that each person who lives here is a wonder of Canada. Yeah, you'd think it was kindergarten or something. You can't celebrate one thing without crushing the self-esteem of another. (This is a joke for Cute with Chris, but a rallying cry for Canadians.)

The top audience selections were all wonders of nature, like Niagara Falls and the Sleeping Giant. The final list is:

• The Canoe: The judges explained that they liked this one because of its ties to aboriginal culture. Then they interviewed a white guy about it.
  
• Niagara Falls: I agree with them on this one.
  
• Pier 21: This is the Ellis Island of Canada. It was the entry point for untold numbers of immigrants during the last century.
• The Rocky Mountains: I know Americans have them too, but I think ours are nicer.
• Prairie Skies: I really don't get this one. They went on and on about the Saskatchewan license plate and how all parts of the province have the sky. I am not sure if I should break it to the CBC that we have a sky here in Name of Town Withheld, too. It is not just a Saskatchewan thing.
  
• Old Quebec City: Because you can't forget Quebec or they'll threaten to leave. Being a Canadian is like being in a dysfunctional marriage: "I hate you! I'm leaving!" "But --" *SLAM*
  
• And finally: The igloo.
  

The judges provided an insightful explanation for the last item. They picked out seven wonders and marked them on a map. Then they realised that they did not have any wonders in the north. So they suddenly changed their minds and decided that the igloo should be a wonder, too. Because here in the north, we love being an afterthought, and we love it when you tell us that you're only including us because you think you have to.

You might be wondering which wonder got the axe (or ulu, in this case) to make room for the igloo. It was Haida Gwaii, of course. If CBC is going to celebrate one aboriginal culture, another aboriginal culture is just going to have to move out of the way. Don't worry.

That was a tasteless joke. Sorry about that.

What I meant to say was that you can't get much more Canadian than this pathetic list. Around here, we pick our wonders by looking at the map to make sure we don't offend anyone. We don't want to include too many wonders that one group of people would disproportionately identify with, and the Haida and Inuit are exactly the same, so it's only fair to kick the BC hippies off the list to make room for houses made of snow. Pass me a latte. Does this miniskirt make my butt look big?

And another little piece of me dies

MICHAEL: Mom, I want to e-mail Santa Claus. Remember when we e-mailed Santa Claus?

ME: Yep, but Santa only has an e-mail address at Christmas time. You have to wait until there's snow on the ground.

MICHAEL: Oh. Mom, do you believe in Santa Claus?

ME: Do you?

MICHAEL: I don't think so. It can't be real.

ME: Why not?

MICHAEL: Because reindeer can't fly. It can't be real. Someone else must put the presents under the tree.

ME: Who would do that?

MICHAEL: I don't know.

ME: Did you talk to someone about Santa? Why are you asking this?

MICHAEL: Nope. I just thought about it.

Loathing x3

UPDATED: Hmmm. Welcome, Technorati users. I'm not sure why you're searching for Rebecca Eckler, but I hope it's not because you're a fan. If you're here to mock her, you might want to join me in a class-action lawsuit against her for plagiarism.

Rebecca Eckler, Jian Ghomeshi and a Toronto media lawyer. Can you stand it? You can?

Then click here.

The other white milk

You probably won't believe this after seeing close-up pictures of Britney Spears' vagina, but apparently actress Maggie Gyllenhaal has created quite a stir by breastfeeding in public. No, I'm not putting a little CENSORED mark on this photo. Get a grip, you guys. What do you think breasts are for?

I can't believe it is 2007 and we are still having ridiculous discussions about whether it's OK for women to feed their babies in public. Apparently, some people think this warps the minds of children and is on the same level as men peeing in public. Nice.

I went through this six years ago. No, I won't go into the bathroom; however, you are free to eat your own lunch in there since you seem to think it's OK to suggest it to others. No, it's not a sexual thing; trust me when I say that if it were, I probably wouldn't be doing it. No, I won't cover his head with a blanket; if you and I are having a conversation you'll probably be looking at my mouth and eyes anyway. No, it's not about girl power; it's about feeding a baby.

I don't have a lot of patience for people who act like breastfeeding in public is just like shooting a Girls Gone Wild video. After Michael was born, I barely went out. This was partly because it was -40 with 24-hour darkness, but it was also because I'd never seen anyone breastfeeding in public before. After a few months, I realised that I was contributing to the problem. I wasn't doing it in public, either, so I really had no right to complain that I didn't see anyone else doing it. That was when I decided that I should be taking Michael wherever I went and feeding him when he was hungry.

This particular photo of Ms. Gyllenhaal is much more revealing than most public breastfeeding is, and I suspect that this is why it has created such a hullaballoo. Most women who are breastfeeding in public are showing much less than you would see at the local swimming pool. And the thing these morons never get is that if you don't feed a hungry baby, the baby starts to scream. People who hate breastfeeding usually can't stand screaming. Heck, the sound of a crying baby sets my own teeth on edge. Just once, I'd like to see a mother offer one of these crankies a choice between ignoring the sight of her breast and ignoring the sound of her screaming baby.

Notice of Motion: Served and Filed June 5, 2007

NAME OF TOWN WITHHELD SUPREME COURT

MEGAN,
Plaintiff,

- against -

REBECCA ECKLER,
Defendant

Plaintiff moves for preliminary injunction in suit alleging that defendant would directly infringe and contribute to the infringement of her copyright in violation of the Copyright Act.

I, MEGAN, will apply to this court at NAME OF TOWN WITHHELD on June 5, 2007 for an order that would restrain you, REBECCA ECKLER, from further profiting from your book, Knocked Up, which is clearly plagiarized from my own life story. In addition, I seek general damages of SIX MILLION DOLLARS plus punitive damages to be determined by the court, plus legal fees. My affidavit is attached.

AFFIDAVIT

I, MEGAN, swear and affirm that, having read Defendant's latest column in Maclean's, my life bears unmistakable similarities to Defendant's book Knocked Up. These similarities are too numerous to have occurred by accident and thereby constitute a clear violation of the Copyright Act on Defendant's part.

Particulars:

1. Defendant's book was released after my baby was born. I was pregnant first.
2. Defendant claims she got "drunk and knocked up" at a party. I went drinking with a friend the night before I found out I was pregnant.
3. Defendant's book features "one night of passion and the nine months that follow." It took me one night to get pregnant, and my son was born nine months later.
4. Defendant claims she was an "up-and-coming newspaper reporter." I was an up-and-coming radio reporter. We both worked for major Canadian news organizations.
5. Defendant has a best friend with screaming children. I knew lots of screaming children.
6. Defendant took multiple pregnancy tests. I took multiple pregnancy tests.
7. Defendant's fiance is Canadian. My husband is Canadian.
8. Defendant has heard a joke about sex during pregnancy. My husband was concerned about sex during pregnancy in a way that was uncannily close to the joke Defendant heard.
9. Defendant worried about telling her boss that she was pregnant. So did I.
10. Defendant headed directly to the bookstore after finding out she was pregnant. There was no bookstore in the small Arctic town I lived in, but I headed directly to the library after finding out I was pregnant.
11. Defendant claims that men are bored in obstetricians' waiting rooms. I noticed the same thing.
12. Defendant joked about jumping on trampolines while pregnant. I joked about driving extra hard over the bumps in the permafrost while pregnant.
13. Defendant's book cover illustration shows a martini glass and a soother. I own martini glasses and I used a soother with my son.
14. Defendant's book is called Knocked Up. I once joked that my husband had "knocked me up".
    

Plaintiff reserves the right to modify this affidavit if anyone who has read Defendant's book reports additional similarities with her own life. Plaintiff has no intention of reading Defendant's book unless she finds it in the bargain bin at the Church of Satan, which would at least give her some comfort that her money would be contributing to a better cause than Defendant's lipstick collection.

Sworn and affirmed by

MEGAN

at

NAME OF TOWN WITHHELD

UPDATED: Welcome, Technorati users. The full list of my Eckler posts is here.

With their nine-inch nails and little fascist panties tucked inside the heart of every nice girl

This is a response to my dad's comment, in which he mocks me mercilessly for being myself. I was all like OH NO YOU DI-ENT and then I punched him in the mouth and ripped out his natty old weave.

OK, so I didn't do that, and you didn't think I did that. However, he has a good point.

Too prudish: Yes, this is true, and everything else flows from it. If I were to catalogue my darkest secrets, you guys would yawn. For example, I once went to a club when I was underage, using a friend's ID. I felt so guilty about this that I didn't go out again until I turned 19. For some reason, I did not feel guilty about drinking alcohol in the dorm or at a friend's house (or, heck, at my house -- my parents went away every summer). No, this doesn't make sense. I assume that at some point in my formative years, I read a religious pamphlet about people going straight from clubs to the jaws of hell. And no, that's not a joke. I didn't just make Uriel up, you know.

Burst appendix: I didn't intend for this to titillate, but it is indeed true. This happened when I was in third grade. I'm told that although many people have appendectomies, it is much less common for the infection to go on so long that the appendix actually bursts. My mom may still be slightly touchy on this point, so I will stress that none of this was her fault and that she wanted to take me to the doctor much earlier, but all of the medical professionals she consulted told her she was over-reacting.

Legs off an insect: I may have done this, but I doubt it. My brothers, however, once ripped the stomach out of a frog and let it go. This happened on Lake Wassookeag, in the mucky part over to the left of the property my grandfather owned. As best I can recall, I have never harmed any animal. (Squirting the pigs with the hose doesn't count. They have tougher skin than any of us.) If I could help it, I wouldn't kill mosquitoes.

Stealing from the poor box: Good heavens, no. I was once chastised for cutting up one of the collection boxes, though. I didn't know what it was, and I didn't realise that the slit at the top was for putting coins in the box. I figured it would be the perfect play house for a worm. A pretend worm, of course -- I would never have taken a worm out of the ground and played with it because I might have hurt it. My mom was not happy with me, and I got in lots of trouble that day.

Made fun of an immigrant: Definitely not. For starters, there are no immigrants in Dexter. When we moved away from my childhood home, I was an immigrant myself. Plus, making fun of people is mean.

If Ray Comfort ambushed me on the street, I would tell him that I don't steal, although I did once take a broken chair from work that was destined for the garbage. I don't know if that counts. I fixed it and used it at home. Does it count as stealing if it's not actually in the dump yet? I don't lie, either, although I am likely guilty of lying by omission because of my passive-aggressive nature. Is it a lie if you let people believe that they have successfully indoctrinated your child? Or if you stay quiet when a person's obviously angling for a fight? Yeah, I guess that makes me a thief and a liar.

Attention, fellow Rebecca Eckler haters

Please go over to my friend Sally's blog. I dare not unleash my loathing here on the blog next to pictures of my son.

Americans: you probably have no idea who Ickler is, but if you can stand it, her blog is here. Now I feel dirty. If you go over there, make sure you put a condom on your computer first.

Ickler presents herself as the voice of my generation, and when she got -- the saints preserve us! -- pregnant, everyone in Canada had to hear about it. I have no idea how she got her own column in Canada's Newspaper of Record. Now she writes about how all children need $800 baby buggies. If I could punch her in the face, I would. She makes all young mothers look bad. And I say "young", but Ickler is probably 35. She just acts like she's 22. Wait, make that 12. 22-year-olds have usually figured out that they are not the centre of the universe.

And now I'm going to stop, before I unleash my loathing.

UPDATED: Ugh, and she somehow convinced a publisher to let her write a second book. Please follow this link to read a typical review.

UPDATED AGAIN: Welcome, Technorati users. The full list of my Eckler posts is here.

White rapper

As a defense mechanism, I gave someone a secret nickname about two years ago.

This fellow is amazingly self-important, despite the fact that his job includes (I kid you not) moving paper directly from one pile to another and worrying about whether documents are photocopied on both sides. A true poser. The type of job that makes us all look bad.

The nickname caught on. I am not sure if this is a good thing or not, but as usual Glen is ultimately to blame. Anyway, someone asked how the heck I came up with it. I responded that it is my way of imagining this fellow as a white rapper. This was met with a blank stare.

I think this video sums it up. This is Jim Carrey, from a little show you might have heard of called In Living Colour.

Maybe she's just pieces of me you've never seen well

Twelve things you probably didn't know about me:

1. I am an old-fashioned prude. This both horrifies me and gives me some comfort. It horrifies me because it's clearly uncontrollable and I don't want to pass it on to my son. It gives me comfort because it's been with me forever and I'm a sucker for anything that's been around for a while.
2. I like to hurt myself. I push needles under my fingernails until they bleed. The more it hurts, the more I poke. I'll rip my own skin out.
   
3. On a related note, I pull my own hair out one strand at a time. You know how you use scissors to curl the ends of ribbons? I use my fingernails to curl the plucked hairs this way.
   
4. I almost died after my appendix burst when I was eight.
   
5. Of all the people I hung out with in high school, only two (maybe three) of them were straight. I have no idea how this happened and don't know what to make of it, but it's far beyond the realm of statistical probability. No, don't point out that I was in the drama club, the vocal ensemble and le club francais. That doesn't explain it.
   
6. I live in terror that Michael will eat a peanut.
7. Steve thinks I have freaky baby toes because they are very short. I think his are too long.
8. Although a relative has suggested it, I have no intention of checking into a nunnery any time soon.
9. I write silly metered rhyming poetry (think Dr. Seuss).
10. The Goo Goo Dolls are my guilty pleasure. I am embarrassed just typing these words. No, I don't own any of their music or know any of the titles of their songs: this would require work, and I cannot allow myself to put any energy into this when I somehow feel that the whole thing ought to be done from deep inside a closet.
11. I cannot reconcile the last item with my shameless Michael W. Smith and REO Speedwagon collections.
12. I am passive-aggressive. It is easier for me to pretend to like someone than to address the problems I have with him or her. Every once in a while, I snap and become vicious. I pretend this doesn't actually happen.

What's in my MP3 Player?

Trying again

Kidnapping. Brainwashing. Just a typical day at the church.

UPDATED: This is part of an alternate-reality game/online video series I've been following for about a year. From time to time I've been posting their videos on the blog -- the most recent was the video of three people kidnapping a little girl and tying her up because they suspected that she had been targeted by a shadowy organization called the Order. It turned out that the Order did indeed have plans for the girl, but only to convince the main character (seen in this video) to turn herself over to them. As you can see, she's been drugged and brainwashed and is now appearing in their infomercials.

The Hymn of One is the Order's fake religion, used as a recruiting tool. They pretend it's a religion so they can convince people to join up and do whatever the higher-ups want. It is sort of like Scientology in that way, except that they don't ask for money, they kill people.

UPDATED AGAIN: The teen angst adventure gang has kidnapped her back from the Order by using their sexually-liberated female companion to distract the guard. It appears that she is still brainwashed.

Audience-satisfaction survey

UPDATED: Gah! I tried to post an update and the survey disappeared. I'll try to get it back. In the meantime, what is it specifically that you don't like? The colours? The layout?

Is this what now passes for religious journalism?

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Trying to tell the truth in a news story.

Nope, for once this is not about Name of Paper Withheld. I was surfing the Internet today when I discovered this lovely "news" story from LifeSiteNews. If you've ever explored my links list, you can probably see the connection.

This is one of those "news" stories that is just awful. Actually, don't click on that link. I don't want to increase their hit count.

Canadian Territorial Court Rules Catholic Schools Must Accept Non-Catholic Trustees

By John-Henry Westen {NAME OF TOWN WITHHELD}, NWT, May 25, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (NWT) ruled Wednesday that the {name of town withheld} Catholic School Board may not refuse non-Catholics to sit as trustees governing the board.

Yup. That's right. But this story starts lying at the very first word. See that all-caps town name? That's called a dateline. It's supposed to tell you which town the reporter filed his story from. If it says Name of Town Withheld, it means that the reporter actually travelled to Name of Town Withheld for this breaking story. Somehow I don't think that's what happened here.

The issue brings to the fore the increasing trend to deny Catholics in Canada their rights to Catholic education supported by the education tax dollars of Catholic rate-payers. Already in Newfoundland and Quebec the right to Catholic schooling supported by education taxes from Catholics has been removed.

Nope. That's wrong. Nobody is denying Catholics their right to Catholic education. John-Henry is just trying to get you all upset.

In the current case, Justice J.E. Richard of the NWT Supreme Court ruled that when in 2006 the Board Superintendent tried to nix the candidacy of two non-Catholics who were seeking to run for election as Catholic school trustees, he was outside the law. The returning officer rejected the Superintendent's notice that non-Catholics Amy Hacala and Debora Simpson were ineligible to run for election, ignoring the crucial role of Catholic trustees to ensure the Catholicity of their schools, a role Hacala and Simpson would highly likely not be equipped or motivated to fulfill.

Lovely. From the way John-Henry describes it, you would think that the superintendent was in charge of the election and the bossy returning officer imposed her will on him. Could someone please remind me: who's in charge of an election?

One of the pair, Amy Hacala, was elected to sit on the Catholic School Board. The Board however took the returning officer's decision to court for a ruling. Of note, Brendan Bell, the Attorney General of the NWT sided with the returning officer in denying the Catholic Board the right to limit its controlling officers to those of the Catholic faith.

Hmmm. Why is it noteworthy when the government responds to a court action that names the government as a respondent? That's not noteworthy, that's a line in the job description.

Lawyer Phil Horgan, the President of the Catholic Civil Rights League wondered if during the election, Catholic electors were informed that two of the candidates were non-Catholics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Indeed, he might wonder! The way to confirm or deny his theory, of course, would be to ask someone who lives in Name of Town Withheld. And believe me, this was all we heard for several weeks before the election. Name of Paper Withheld covered it extensively, with a nice hatchet job on one of the non-Catholic candidates right on the front page.

Horgan analyzed the ruling finding that it failed to honour long-standing denominational rights in the Territory. "This technical ruling which distinguishes the NWT from provinces which enjoy these denominational rights," said Horgan, "ignores the settled history of these school boards."

"The judge says that the residential requirement did not extend to a Catholic ratepayer requirement for eligibility to stand for election," explained Horgan. "However, the judge does not rely upon any evidence to suggest that non-Catholics have served as trustees of Catholic school boards in the NWT in the more than 100 years of their existence."

That's nice. If Mr. Horgan had decided to talk to anyone in Name of Town Withheld before he started to "wonder" about the election, he might have discovered that both non-Catholic candidates were former trustees on the board.

Horgan concluded, "To then assert that it was the settled intention of the drafters of this legislation to allow non-Catholics to serve as Catholic school board trustees ignores that history."

Has this fellow even read the court decision? Because the judge went back through the history of the eligibility criteria in pages 9-13.

While the school board has not yet officially announced an intention to appeal the ruling, sources at the school board told LifeSiteNews.com an appeal is likely. Local Bishop Denis Croteau was unavailable for comment on the ruling.

I don't know why I would expect more from LifeSiteNews, but somehow I did.

The only song Michael hates

Would the mainstream media curl up and die already???

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: How to be really super "with it" and "groovy".

God, I love it when reporters discover the Internet. It's not just Name of Paper Withheld anymore. Now the CBC's in on the game, and they are SO COOL. As Nancy Wilson assures us in this clip, you're only a "yu-rell" away from being part of an important civics experiment.

You will never guess what the important experiment is, but go ahead and try.

Nope, they're not providing better access to local, provincial or national government.

Nope, they're not throwing open the door to exciting new rights for minorities or women.

The CBC has -- wait for it -- set up a Facebook page. Yes. Pick yourself up off the floor. It gets better. The CBC has discovered Web 2.0, and they're planning to use it to get story ideas. Interesting Facebook denizens will be interviewed on radio and TV. Shout it from the rooftops, CBC! This is a big step. Next thing you know, you'll be able to get rid of reporters entirely and just turn your entire news organization over to YouTube. Wait, am I getting cynical?

Until the CBC set on its latest campaign to debase itself as much as possible, I didn't think I could simultaneously respect an organization for its mandate and employees' efforts while despising its management and public face. Now I see that I can definitely do this. Man, they make me sick.

Not that this is a bad idea; it's an OK idea. But CBC doesn't seem to understand how to communicate to what people in my business call "target audiences". This sounds like an intimidating phrase, but it really just means that you want to say different things to different people.

Here's an example: Let's say that you are putting up a Facebook page. You'll have two audiences: CBC management and CBC viewers. You are going to want to say different things to these people. Specifically, you'll want to say something like this:

Management:

• This is an exciting opportunity to break down the stovepipes and contribute to Canadian discourse.
• There will be no overhead costs. We should hire a contract (this word is crucial) employee to coordinate the program.
• Regular Facebook guests could be featured on current-affairs programming in the regions. These features would take five to seven minutes and would be available weekly.
  
• This will bring new voices to the CBC.
• We need to take control of this exciting new medium in an effort to bring new viewers to our shows.
• This page could create buzz and get people talking about the CBC.
  

Viewers:

• Hey, check out our Facebook page.

Was that hard???

Reply to Air Canada

Dear Ms. Greenan,

Thank you for your reply.

I do not have receipts for meals; I paid cash and did not keep receipts. However, my banking records show that I withdrew $118.40 Canadian immediately before the series of unfortunate events that was my travel with your company that day. They also show that I paid $51.84 Canadian ($45 US) for the cab ride.

I will forward copies of these records, with all non-relevant information blacked out.

Megan

Another response from Air Canada

Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
Poor service from Air Canada: April 19, 2007


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (Marian Greenan) - 05/28/2007 03:30 PM
Dear Ms. {name withheld},

Thank you for your e-mail and your patience while awaiting our response.

Please accept our apologies for the inconveniences you and your son experienced when traveling with us on April 19, 2007. Your email is a clear indication of your disappointment and we regret the poor impression we may have created during your recent travel experience. Customer Relations' primary role is to review and respond to concerns regarding many aspects of our service. Although we have not addressed your concerns in detail, I am pleased to bring your valuable comments to the attention of our senior management team.

We are aware that our operation is judged primarily by the image and service of our public contact personnel. All employees are expected to perform their duties in a courteous, friendly and efficient manner with a full appreciation of our customers' needs. Air Canada recognizes the value of customer satisfaction and therefore, we continually monitor and address the performance levels you should expect to receive from us.

In order to review your request for reimbursement for the meals and cab, please forward the original receipts for the meals purchased for yourself and your son on April 19, along with the original receipt for the cab fare between airports to my attention at:

Canada Customer Relations
P.O. Box 64239
5512 4th Street NW
Calgary, AB
T2K 6J0

Of necessity, a transportation company’s liability for expenses incurred due to schedule interruptions is limited. While a ticket provides a guarantee of transportation, the schedule itself is not guaranteed. Consequently, airlines do not accept responsibility for consequential expenses incurred as a result of such a delay or intangibles such as loss of time or enjoyment. Respectfully, we must decline the request for reimbursement of pay for the lost day of work.

We look forward to receiving your receipts at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,


Marian Greenan
Customer Relations

Like a record, baby, right round, round round

Glen is mocking me for competing with a six-year-old, but I'd like to state one thing for the record:

I won.

Post #500: Back in Time

I can easily understand how you could easily take my man

I knew this day would come, but somehow I didn't expect it to be quite so painful.

I'm used to being the most important person in his life. He'd be happy to see me at the end of the day. Proud to show me off.

Now that's all over.

It started slowly. First, he didn't want me to kiss him in public. Then he met someone new. Someone named Daniel. Then he started spending all his time after school with Daniel. Now he wants to spend every waking moment with Daniel.

The last straw was when he decided that he didn't want me to teach him how to ride a bike. Daniel could do that. He didn't need me any longer.

Daniel lives across the road, on the other side of the playground. He's a lovely fellow, and he and Michael have a lot of fun together. And they're good together -- they don't get into trouble or cause problems for the neighbours. But I'm not used to playing second fiddle.

I tried to negotiate myself some more time yesterday. Michael reassured me that I could still see him before school, but he would prefer to spend his afternoons and evenings with Daniel. Clearly, I am not going to win this one.

It is finished

The battle over schools in Name of Town Withheld is over. The Catholic board will be buying portable classrooms instead of renting space or stealing a school from the public board.

What a relief. For the benefit of would-be character assassins, I'll go on to state that I am not relieved that we won't be sharing space. I continue to believe that we could have shared space quite nicely.

No, I'm relieved that there is finally an end to the problem. They've made a decision, so parents can make plans for next year knowing what their choices are.

Ublaakut, animal-rights activists

UPDATED: The Humane Society of the US's take.

They're back.

Man, I just love it when people complain that traditional Arctic culture is horrible. It's even better when these people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

The battle over polar-bear hunting has been going on for a while, but now the American government wants to get involved. They want to make it illegal to bring trophies from a polar-bear hunt back to the U.S. It's illegal to hunt polar bears in the States, so wealthy American hunters come to northern Canada to hunt the bears.

I can already hear the complaints from John Kerry. Isn't this horrible? Americans shooting polar bears? How offensive! Plus, polar bears are great models for ads! But no, he's NOT opposed to aboriginal subsistence hunting! That's totally different!

Ugh.

John, let me explain something simple that might change your mind. The American sport hunt does not result in the death of any additional polar bears. It's also part of the aboriginal subsistence hunt. Does that make you re-think your position?

I hear you. You don't understand how this is possible. You imagine that the polar-bear hunt is much like the illegal ivory trade in Africa. You suspect that headless bear carcasses are strewn across the permafrost, because American hunters are only interested in taking the head. You're sure that the hunt will contribute to the collapse of the species, because people are indiscriminately shooting bears so they can feel like real men.

Let me explain how it really works.

Sport hunting is basically nothing more than taking a rich American along on a hunt that would have happened anyway. Every year, a certain number of "tags" are distributed to communities in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Let's imagine that Sachs Harbour gets five tags, meaning that the people who live there can kill up to five bears. They can choose to do the hunt with or without a rich American along for the ride. The difference is that the rich American will pay $10,000 US for the privilege of coming along.

It's true that the sport hunters are only interested in the bears' heads. So they take the heads. The local hunters take the rest of the bodies back to the community.

So if you've been following this, the choices are:

1. Aboriginal people kill a set number of polar bears and use the meat, skin and fat.
2. Aboriginal people kill the same number of polar bears, use the meat, skin and fat, and make $10,000 US.

Which offers a better chance for "subsistence"?

Actual Google keywords people are using to find the Uriel blog

• JPod Jesus
• chariots of flame hell
• JPod hell

I love my site tracker. Not only has it tipped me off that this blog is under surveillance by the forces of evil (you know who you are), but it tells me how people get to the site. The Uriel blog gets some interesting visits through Google. I wonder what these people are really looking for and what they think when they get there.

Presented without further comment from the public record

If you've been following Amy's case through the courts, you will definitely be interested in this link.

Michael the reluctant movie star: Take 2

Does this work better?

Public-service announcement

UPDATED: Welcome, Weingarten fans. You can find the archive of Little Miss Know-it-All posts about grammar and journalism at this link.

Little Miss Know-it-All calls your attention to this important news story.

Michael the reluctant movie star

(Introducing Jim, the homeless woolly mammoth.)

Does this make me a loser or a non-loser? I really can't tell.

Would someone PLEASE tell me what I'm supposed to be doing on Facebook that is so potentially addictive? For the life of me, I can't figure it out.

I have an account. I have "friends", although most of them aren't my real friends and, frankly, I would prefer that they didn't get a message every time I add a picture of Michael to my photo album. I log in every day. And then I -- well, I don't do much of anything. Am I supposed to just sit here refreshing the page in case someone I know logs in? And then what do I do if someone does log in?

Facebook has an e-mail program, but I already have one of those. In fact, I already have four separate e-mail programs: one at work, one at home and two that came along with Yahoo Messenger and MSN.

Facebook also has a "groups" program that links me with other people with similar interests. This is a problem: you see, I hate other people with similar interests. I'm a boring person, and I don't need to be reminded of that by being hooked up with people who also want their husbands to replace the toilets. You can imagine the drama:

• Did he replace the toilet yet?
• Nah, but he ordered it from Sears.
• Right on!! That's super fab!
• Yeah, but how long will it sit there before he installs it? *poke*
• Oh, MAN! I totally hadn't thought of that! *poke*

The only group I want to see is the I have property for sale on Lake Wassookeag group, but apparently it has yet to be created.

I feel like I must be a loser, because everyone who's anyone has a Facebook page. This is part of the problem: everyone I ever knew has now started to bug me about becoming "friends". This does not mean that they actually want to be my friends. This means that they will get a running update of every single change I make to my profile. Steve recently switched his Religion indicator from "Atheist" to "Scientology" in an effort to keep the denizens of Facebook from trying to convert us, but this was unsuccessful, because we then got messages about Scientology.

I've been rejecting potential "friends", which seems very harsh but is apparently necessary. In real life, you never have to tell anyone that you don't want to be friends. You both just figure it out. Until I joined Facebook, I'd never been asked point-blank if I was someone's friend. Well, except the times when someone at work will disparagingly refer to one reporter or another as my friend -- my response is always Well, Richard's not exactly my friend. Now I'm faced with the possibility that I'll one day have to say Well, Richard's not exactly my friend. I mean, we've both posted it on the Internet that we're friends with each other, and I've given him full access to my family photos and he gets a little message whenever I go to the bathroom, but we're not really friends. Perish the thought. I have to get out of this somehow.

Michael

A question for you

OK, guys. Do you want to see labels on the blog? I've been getting an increase in searches through the handy "search blog" button up at the top. I think I know where some of this is coming from, and I don't consider these folks to be my core audience, but I'll put in the effort if it's something my regular readers want to see.

If you're going to keep coming back after a certain court case is over, I want to hear from you.

I could tag posts with labels like "Michael" or "Little Miss Know-it-All" so you wouldn't have to search for the most common topics: you could see every post just by clicking on the label. This, however, would not help you if you were looking for a really specific post. I wouldn't label everything, just the posts that are clearly part of a larger category. I'm not creating a separate label for Michael's pirate entries.

Let me know.

Throwing down the gauntlet

Today’s episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Things you should just know.

Someone – I’m not saying who – has put enmity between Glen and me. Actually, I’m probably the one at fault. I just can’t stop picking on Russell Smith. Glen, for his part, has suggested that Russell would cut me down with one disparaging glance at my wardrobe. This is probably true, but I cannot let him pretend to be a grammar expert any longer.

The best part is that Russell’s copy editor is still refusing to correct his shoddy grammar and is now placing grammatically-incorrect headlines on his columns. As you can imagine, this has put Russell into a difficult position. He must defend the errors while maintaining that he is the resident grammar expert at Canada’s Newspaper Of Record.

I think this is hilarious. Glen is unimpressed and thinks I am being unnecessarily harsh. I pointed out that Russell had to look up the meaning of the word “that”; Glen responded by asking me to define the word.

I thought for a moment and realized that I couldn’t come up with a snappy definition. I responded that “that” is a word that people should just know how to use. I then turned to my trusty dictionary, which did not provide a definition but provided a few dozen usage examples. Unsurprisingly, I am forced to conclude that I was right: there are some things a writer should just know.

Russell didn’t come up with a definition when he checked his dictionary, either:


The patterns for that and which are made up of strange rules that took me a while to master even as an adult. I get it wrong all the time. The standard explanation involves saying that you use which for a "non-restrictive clause" and that for a "restrictive clause." Well, that's helpful, isn't it?

{Preening self-congratulatory pap about how Russell is smarter than everyone else withheld.}

Here's the simplest demystifier I can come up with. First, note that if you are looking this one up, you are looking up "that" as a relative pronoun, not as an adjective, an adverb or a conjunction. Then, when you come across all this bafflegab about restrictive and non-restrictive (sometimes called defining and non-defining), think of it rather as essential versus non-essential.


Ah, Russell, what would we do without you? Today’s column is fabulous. I love the way you’ve taken up all of the available space with your ridiculous argument that grammar mistakes are OK when they’re in or near your column. It’s almost as if you have no idea how to admit that you were wrong.

My dear readers, you deserve better than this.

Newspaper space is precious, so copy editors need to cut columns like Russell’s down to size. Even on the best of days, his column is nothing more than a celebration of self: Look at me. Man, I’m good. Go ahead, ask me how I tie my shoelaces. Ah, you want to know how I carry my umbrella? Of course you do. Don’t complain about the way I use commas: I’m on the cutting edge of grammar. Hold on a second while I look up the proper way to use capital letters.

Sorry, Russell. There are some things you should just know. If you don’t know them, you’re not an expert, you’re just a poser.

What's in my CrapPod?

Sorry, I'm a bit sensitive today, I guess.

Although I have yet to confirm this with Uriel, I suspect that this might fit on a JPod. Or maybe not. Uriel's friends turned their backs on Amy Grant when she released an album in the '90s that wasn't overtly religious. They are fickle folk.

Throwing open the floodgates

READER-SUBMITTED COMPLAINT: Your taste in music sux. I don’t know why anyone would ever look up to you. You probably like Tears for Fears ha ha ha ha.

PS: CREED RULES!

Wellllll…

Man, transparency is hard. You guys are mean. I’m doing my best over here, folks. Go ahead, beat me down. I can take it.

The last time I checked, the blog was not being broadcast on a telescreen. You don’t have to come here, you don’t have to click on a link, and you don’t have to watch any of the videos. If you don’t like Kurt Cobain, you don’t have to watch him. I won’t know if you stop the video.

The great thing about blogs is that they encourage two-way communication. I’m thinking specifically of polite communication, but given Little Miss Know-it-All’s penchant for vicious attacks on the grammatically-challenged masses, I suppose I can take some criticism about my Michael W. Smith collection.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me

today me and my frend daniel went to the parck. we fownd treshur i bring it home.

from michael

BREAKING NEWS

Jerry Falwell has died.

Thanks for all the letters of support you've sent to Uriel. She is too distraught to speak right now.

Response from Air Canada

Response (Leslie Anne Macalister) - 05/14/2007 11:26 AM
Dear Valued Customer:

We have received your email and extend our apologies for the delay in responding.

Regrettably, much of Canada and the United States experienced a great deal of weather related and subsequent operational issues during the early months of 2007 and into Spring. This resulted in an unprecedented volume of feedback from our valued customers and our ability to communicate in a more timely manner.

Thank you for your continued patience. You will be hearing from us soon regarding your concerns.

Midnight, not a sound from the pavement

The video in the last post sent us on a trip down memory lane. I am honestly not sure if people in the States know who Rowan Atkinson is -- you may know him as Mr. Bean. I just checked, and he does not have a Conservapedia page, so I'm guessing that he is irrelevant to American society, being a Brit and all.

Throughout high school and university, my best friend was a first-generation Canadian whose family had moved to Bay Roberts from England. She ate Polos (they're like Life Savers, only better), drank tea and Ribena, and loved Rowan Atkinson. I watched a lot of his videos at her house.

Since I joined Facebook, people I haven't seen in ten years have been asking me about her. This is a reasonable thing to ask: we were best friends for six years and went to university together. The truth is that I have no idea how she's doing. Soon after we graduated, I moved to the Arctic and she moved to England. I haven't heard from her in years, and I haven't seen her since the year 2000.

But I can't resist this video:

A new feature

Reader-Submitted Complaint: I'm mightily offended by Uriel. I'm not just offended by the things she says; I'm offended that you of all people would create such a character. This is hate speech and I am clearly a part of the oppressed minority that you are so mercilessly mocking. If I created a character to mock gay people or women, you wouldn't like it either.

Yeah, that's probably true.

But I'm more concerned by the suggestion that any of my readers would identify with Uriel to the point of feeling offended by the things she says. To be more precise, they agree with the things she says and are offended by the idea that I would think they are funny. (This is never explicitly stated on Flame of God, by the way. In theory, you could just bookmark her site and forget that I'm the creator.)

This is a new development. Until now, readers have been quick to point out that they don't actually believe the things she says -- and I know that, right? Right?

So this is new.

It is sort of like watching Saturday Night Live with someone who identifies with the Church Lady. I'm not totally sure how to react. Am I perhaps afflicted by humour impairment? Did I miss a joke?

Uriel's not as easy to write as you might think. For starters, she's not your typical Christian. I'm not totally convinced that she is Christian, anyway. She wouldn't post a picture of Jesus: all of the pictures on the site are of Uriel herself. She doesn't spend time pondering the intricacies of life like some philosopher kings I know. She does her "research" on the Internet, like Dr. Dino's followers.

Uriel's an offshoot of the people you'll see starting flame wars in the comments section of YouTube. She's great fun, but she's hard to write. I have to be in the right frame of mind. Usually, someone's hypocrisy will rile me up to the point that I get a story idea. It might be someone who wants to keep kids from being vaccinated against HPV, or it might be someone who thinks it would be GREAT to start a nuclear war because it would be a way to get Armageddon started. Uriel's on record as agreeing with these people, by the way.

She's not particularly interested in anything but making other people do what she wants: when she can't frighten them into compliance, she turns to the courts or the government and expects them to force people into it. She hates everyone who disagrees with her, and she takes great pleasure in imagining their punishment.

I'm really not sure what to say to anyone who agrees with Uriel. It seems that you'd have bigger problems than my puny little blog.

Instructional Video

This confuses me even more than the crocoduck

So the geniuses at The Way of the Master have been hard at work putting their videos back up on YouTube. I'm pleased to see that they're reloading the footage of their "debate" with the atheists, but I'm not so pleased to see what they've done with it.

They originally loaded about 10 separate videos, each about 9 minutes long and labelled "1", "2", "3" and so on. You could start at "1" and watch all the way through if you wanted to. I personally watched it over on ABC.com, but I was really pleased to see this approach to transparency. This is part of the reason I was so impressed with Kirk.

It might go without saying, but the atheists did not take the same approach to transparency over on their YouTube account. They posted a 13-minute video that included selected clips from the "debate". Not that this is bad -- it's definitely not -- but it wasn't in the same spirit of openness that I was applauding from WOTM.

I discovered that WOTM wasn't quite so open this afternoon when I clicked on the embedded link I'd posted on my blog. The video had been removed. In fact, they'd removed all of their videos of the "debate".

I did a search on their account a moment ago and discovered that they have reloaded some of their videos -- but they are shorter now. WOTM has edited them down, and I'm not entirely sure why. Surely it's not to remove the deer-in-the-headlights stares from Ray and Kirk or to make them look like they did better in the "debate"?

Hmmm, that would make them no better than Brian and "Kelly".

Clarification

UPDATED: Maybe I don't respect Kirk so much after all. His staff have pulled their clips off YouTube. I'll try to find another clip of the crocoduck, bullfrog and sheepdog.

UPDATED AGAIN: Link re-directed and edits made to the next post so you can find your way to the right spot on the video.

It's a bit late for an update to the last post, so a new one is in order. I am not saying that I have a new respect for Kirk Cameron because his argument about evolution is so great. It's clearly laughable. SnarkBitch's partner in atheism was pretty polite throughout the 90-minute discussion but lost his patience when Kirk hauled out the sketch of the crocoduck.

I'm also not saying that I think Kirk won this faux debate. He was the one who said he could prove his claims, and he was the one who set the ground rules (no references to the Bible). It wasn't up to SnarkBitch to prove anything: that was Kirk's job, and he didn't do it.

My new respect for Kirk comes from the way he handled himself on stage -- and yes, I know that he is a professional actor. That was a tough crowd. You could tell from the applause that the group was not exactly the church-going type. I don't know if the atheists managed to get a bigger crowd in or if this was just the group that happened to be available for the taping. Some of those guys were pretty angry. And I don't know if I could have put up with "Kelly"'s tone and eye-rolling for an hour and a half.

Kirk Cameron

UPDATED: The Way Of The Master pulled all of their clips down from YouTube, so I've re-directed the link to a video that still exists. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), this means you won't be contributing to WOTM's hit count, you'll be contributing to BS Alert's hit count.

A while ago, I promised that I wouldn't re-write history: I wouldn't pull any posts down from the blog, and if I changed my mind I'd say so.

Time to fess up: I have a new respect for Kirk Cameron, and not just because I used to know him as Mike Seaver.

I was going to do this over on the Uriel blog, but I just can't work up to that level of anger after watching Kirk deal with SnarkBitch's eye-rolling for an hour and a half. (Sorry, feminists: That woman was not very nice. I don't think she did herself any favours by acting like a brat. She should have let her partner do most of the talking. He was much better.)

I still think the banana guy is ridiculous, but I feel sorry for Kirk.



Kirk's staff at Way of the Master have uploaded the entire discussion to the show's YouTube account. This is just a small part of it. UPDATED: Not anymore. They pulled it down. You can watch the whole clip if you want to (for example, if you haven't met your eye-roll quota for the day -- SnarkBitch is prominently featured), but I'd like to draw your attention to the very end, starting at around the eight-and-a-half-minute mark. UPDATED: On this new video from BS Alert, you'll be looking for the 1:20 mark (40 seconds remaining).

Kirk is explaining why evolution is impossible. He believes that evolution is the reason people don't believe in God. From what I know of evolution, it's neutral on the question of whether God exists, but Kirk and I respectfully disagree. His main argument is that there are no transitional fossils. I've heard this argument before, mostly like this:

omg dont you even read teh bible!!11!! there r NO transishonal fossils!!1!! read what kenthovind has to say he isa frickin genus!

Now, these people are highly credible right from the start -- you may already have been swayed -- but I had trouble following their logic. It seemed that all life forms were obviously transitional whether they were living or fossilized, so I couldn't understand why anyone would say there are NO transitions.

Kirk has cleared this up for me. The reason he believes there are no transitional forms is that he has re-defined "transitional form" to mean that a cat would give birth to a chicken with fur. This is actually very helpful for me. I hadn't thought that the transition-seekers might be looking for bullfrogs and sheepdogs.

Busy day

It's been a long day and breaking news requires that I turn my attention to the Uriel blog today.

Two notes for those who are boycotting Uriel and other fundamentalist whackos (and really, who could blame you?):

1. It's funny that everyone thinks my last entry is about them. What, is there something you want to tell me?
2. In case you're not following Lonelygirl as closely as I do, Bree and Daniel have totally gone off the deep end:

UPDATED: Uriel's opposed to YouTube, so if you go over there and want to see the videos, you'll have to click the link and watch them from inside ABC's player. This was a 90-minute debate hosted by journalist Martin Bashir and aired on Nightline and ABC.com. I haven't seen it all -- ABC is holding part of it until tomorrow -- but I think the woman on the stage was rather rude and should have shown Ray and Kirk the respect they showed her. Maybe she was nervous, but I didn't like her attitude and thought she could have made the same points in a different tone. It sent a bad message.