This page is optimised for viewing with Mozilla Firefox. If it doesn't look right, get a better browser. If you are using 600x800 screen resolution, you may need to go full-screen in order to view the page correctly. Any other problems with this page are probably my fault.

May 8th, 2008 - You know what I hate? When I remind myself consciously not to forget something, and then immediately forget it. Like, I think "Before I go to the store, I need to grab my wallet from my other pants." When I arrive at the register, however, I realise that while I did wipe down a counter, take out some garbage, and eat a handful of peanuts, I completely forgot to grab my wallet.

I think it would be interesting to do an experiment where you have, say, a thousand people take ten tests on specific subjects. Before each test, however, you ask each person to rate how many of the other contestants they think they will outscore. I wonder how many people would be able to accurately predict their own performance, assuming they were randomly selected and indicative of the general population.

March 11th, 2008 - So, I was just reading this long argument about sexualy transmitted diseases, and means of controlling them. It occurred to me that no one in that thread was mentioned one thing that would certainly help control STDs. Licenced prostitution. If prostitutes were licenced by the government, requiring regular checks for STDs in order to remain in business, and WERE AVAILABLE TO TEENAGERS, then I am willing to bet that you'd see a lot less STD infections. Teenagers want to have sex - this is something that will not change. In days gone by, a 13 year old was married, and if a 15 year old didn't already have a kid, people would be questioning their fertility. Allowing teenagers access to a sexual outlet that is both easier than pursuing casual sex with their cohorts, and guaranteed to include all the correct precautions, would certainly do more to lower STD infection rates than any kind of education program.

Now, I'm not actually advocating this approach, primarily because I'm not convinced that prostitution is an occupation that lends itself to mental or emotional health, but if your sole decisionmaking criteria is the effect on STD infection rates, this would certainly be a better method than either traditional or abstinence only sex education. In fact, why not go one step further, and have licenced prostitutes provide sex education along with the sex. People learn best by doing, and if high schoolers come to associate responsible sexuality with good, no-strings sexual fun, that seems like to would be far more effective than the current system. Plus, as an added advantage, their sex-ed classes could include technique. That would probably do a lot to improve their relationships when they were older. Since prostitution already occurs, it would not add a new ill to society - it is more like taking the horse which keeps eating your vegetables, and harnessing it to your plough - it takes something which has negative effects, and simultaneously reduces the negative impact while increasing the positive impact.

So, okay, maybe I'm advocating it a little. And really, my problems with prostitution are mostly ego-related. I just like to think that sex with me is mutually enjoyable enough that I shouldn't owe money at the end of it. When I was 15, if I could have gone to a licenced prostitute for lessons in pleasing a woman, I'd certainly have been pretty enthusiastic about the idea back then. Would have taken off a lot of the pressure when I actually came to a real relationship, too. In fact, I think it's a brilliant idea, and I advocate it wholeheartedly. As long as you don't start from the position that there's something morally wrong with sex, I can't see anything wrong with the idea. And just think of the number of women being abused by pimps who could get into a government prostitution program, get support in cleaning up their drug problems, and become tax paying, contributing members of society.

My only caveat is that I'm not sure teenaged girls would be as enthusiastic about such a program. I don't know for sure. Maybe a skilled, patient, attractive guy who's licenced to give them a good time with no risk of STDs or pregnancy would be appealing to them, but maybe the need for a deep emotional connection with their partner would be more compelling. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that the vast majority of arguments against this proposal will be predicated on the idea that there is something wrong about sex, rather than dealing with real, actual problems the idea would cause.

December 24th, 2007 - Okay. I normally try to keep my distance from anything that might be interpretted as socially responsible, but today I'm making an exception. Anyone who reads this page and also likes to donate money to charity, take note. The University of Alberta, earlier this year, discovered a cure for cancer. The cure is a cheap, unpatented substance, already used in the treatment of congenital mitochondrial disorders. It appears to work on all forms of cancer, and is known to have few or no negative side effects. It requires only clinical trials before becoming available, at a very low cost, to pretty much anyone who needs it.

So, why the need for donations? Simple. Because the drug is not patented, no one can buy the patent. That means that anyone can produce the drug, and do so cheaply. As a result, there is little money to be made from it, whereas existing, far less effective cancer treatments are highly profitable. The government of Canada has provided some funds, but more money is needed to push through the red tape and make this drug available. And since it has the potential to cut into corporate profits, expect every possible piece of red tape to be applied. In other words, unless people donate money, this drug may never become available, or its availability may be delayed while people suffer and die unnecessarily.

Anyway, more information can be obtained at the web page for The University of Alberta's department of medicine.

Oh, and merry thinly-disguised-winter-solstice-celebration-of-your-denominational-preference.

December 3rd, 2007 - Holy shit. I know this is three posts in three days, but check this out: The Times Online. Now is it just me, or in a situation where you're down to about three allies in the entire world, is a foreign relations gaffe like this borderline retarded or what? I mean seriously! What the hell, United States? With the US military and economy so seriously overextended, this isn't even realpolitik - it's just arrant stupidity.

December 14th, 2007 - What happens to all the women whose parents name them Coco or Bambi, and don't grow up hot enough to make it as strippers. Do parents think ahead to this kind of situation? I think not.

December 7th, 2007 - I've noticed this tendency lately for online comentators whose views I am generally in agreement with to refer to folks I disagree with by terms like (for example) "fucking ignorant morons". Now, I have no problem with obsenities in speech, and I understand the rhetorical value of labeling an opponent. Emotional plays have far more grip on the average person than intellectual ones. When you are talking, obsenities carry a certain punch, produce a reaction, and this can be useful when your goal is not to convince people but to amplify the distain of the converted for the heathen masses (whatever your cause may be.)

The problem is, reading is not the same as listening. It engages a person in a different way, has a different kind of emotional impact. When you have nothing to say, then and only then is it time to try obsenity. Otherwise, the obsenity both distracts from the real point, and destroys any possibility for real debate while allowing your opponent to walk away with his nose in the air, dignity unruffled. In short, it is counterproductive. Sure, I could call these people shit mouthed fuckers, but why? Would it add to my point? No, it would only generate an irrelevant debate about the propriety of calling them shit mouthed that would totally shout out any discussion of my point. Assuming I have any readers, which I'm not entirely sure I do anymore.

December 2nd, 2007 - Don't people realise that when they name thier kid Bubba, or Conan, or some equally ridiculous moniker, they effectively end that child's chance of being elected to high office before he or she even gets started? Anyone reading this think the first woman president of the US will be named Bambi or Peaches? Not going to happen. You can totally reinvent your history, lie about your beliefs and ideology, and use clothes and makeup to cover your appearance, but a silly name is an albatros you will carry around your neck for life. Even if you have it legally changed, people will still know.

December 1st, 2007 - I love this. The federal court of Canada has ruled that Canada does not have the right to turn back refugees fleeing America, because "the U.S. has not been compliant with the Refugee Convention or CAT (Convention Against Torture)." That's right, Canadian Law requires that we only block refugees from entering Canada if the place they're entering from is considered safe. Otherwise, they have to be admitted and thier claim processed. Until just the other day, refugees coming to Canada by sea had to be allowed to land (since the high sea is not a safe place to leave them.) Refugees trying to cross the US border, however, were turned back, because the US was considered safe. No more!

November 10th, 2007 - People say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Is that true though? If the majority of things which looked, walked, and quacked like ducks had ceased to be ducks, would anyone have noticed? Not if they went by that maxim - they'd say things like "I guess ducks must have firey breath and laser eyes. After all, it looks, walks, and quacks in a supremely ducklike manner, so clearly it's a duck. Aaaaaaarrgh, it's eating my leg. Don't worry. Ducks are herbivors, I'm sure it Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhh isn't goighhhhaaagggghhhhh....." To be fair, though, they probably wouldn't say it in exactly those words.

Actually, distinuishing actual ducks from DLIs (Duck Like Entities, defined as the class of beings which look, walk, and quack like ducks, but are not actualy ducks) is a field which I think requires more thought. Is there any test sufficient to establish with absolute certainty that the being in question is actually a duck, rather than a DLI. The definition of a duck according to Dictionary.com is "any of numerous wild or domesticated web-footed swimming birds of the family Anatidae, esp. of the genus Anas and allied genera, characterized by abroad, flat bill, short legs, and depressed body." This tells me that genetic testing will give one sufficient reason to believe that something is actualy a duck, since members of a particular genetic family likely share common genetic markers not seen outside that family. Appearance is given as an inductive test, so if it looks like a duck one may be sufficiently justified in calling it a probable duck. Quacking and waddling do not appear to be relevant criteria, however.

November 7th, 2007 - My entirely non-scientific research using Facebook has revealed to me that while there are very few women who share the majority of interests and beliefs I have, my interest in shiny things is shared with tons of women from around Vancouver. This is inspiring me to think about setting up some sort of fan-group that can gather together to share our favourite shiny things, and to rhapsodise about just how shiny they are to people who will appreciate them. It's not inspiring me to actualy do so, of course, but I'm thinkin' real hard about it.

In other news, I have finished watching Burn Notice, a TV show co-starring Bruce Campbel. I heart bit torrent. It's a good show, combining fun characters, explosions, and women in swimsuits. I heartily recommend it.

November 5th, 2007 - There's a new fighter in the cola wars, and watch out for terrorist tactics, because it's Mecca Cola! Yes, 10% of the profit from every Mecca Cola you buy goes to fight Zionist Fascism. Seriously. It's on the web page. Another 10% is donated to charities in the country where the cola is sold - they say they emphasise NGOs that promote peace, particularly between Palestine and the Zionist Fascist Oppressors. Coke claim they're not worried about the new competition. Pepsi, as you are no doubt aware, is the drink of the Arab nations, while Coke is historically the drink of the jews. In fact, Pepsi was considered non-kosher at one point. In any case, every can of Mecca Cola carries both thier company slogan - "No more drinking stupid, drink with commitment!" They also bear an admonishment not to mix them with alcohol. Mecca Cola was launched in France in 2003, to take advantage of growing anti-US sentiment in Europe. It is now common throughout Europe and the Arab nations, found on the shelves in grocery stores along side the more familiar (to me) colas. No word on whether they will be attempting to move into the North American market, however.

Another exciting contender in the cola wars is China Cola, or as it is known in English, Future Cola. Marketed as "The Chinese people's own cola", and "a healthy way to cool off the Chinese youngsters and clean out their fiery livers", Future Cola is destined to be a huge hit with fans of badly dubbed anime. I know I already want to clean out my firey liver with a healthy blast of the Chinese people's own cola! Of course, you also must know of Inca Kola, the drink which shut Pepsi completely out of the Peruvian market, and held a commanding lead on Coke until they eventually bought it out. Even now, Inca Kola is Peru's favourite soft drink, with Coke in second place, though several new national brands have sprung up and absorbed a good 30% of the market share. Other national brands include Cuba Cola and Corsica Cola.

I hope you have learned something about cola beverages today. I like to think I make the world a more interesting place.

November 3rd, 2007 - Today is my wedding day. I have married myself, in a discordian ceremony, to Denise Milani. Thanks to the Universal Life Church in Florida, I have the legal authority to perform weddings (in the US, where she resides.) While I doubt this marriage would actualy hold up in court, being performed without her consent, presence, or even knowledge, it will never actualy be challenged in court unless she finds out about it. As a result, I anticipate a long, happy marriage for the two of us. Luckily, Discordians are all about polyamory, so there is no problem marrying other people, as long as I make up a new ceremony so it's still special. I considered marrying Jessica Alba, but I worry I would feel jealous watching her make out with other guys on screen. Denise doesn't even appear to do topless, so the odds of me seeing her give anyone more than a peck on the cheek seem pretty poor.

I just remembered about my cool little link icon (yes, I think it's cool. Sue me.) I have added it on one or two past updates too, just to be consistant. But since I don't want to piss Eris off right after I ask her to bless my union, I haven't been anal about it.

October 1st, 2007 - High praise for Stephen Harper (This is a direct quote from ctv.com) - Meanwhile, when asked about his time with Harper at the National Citizens Coalition, Nicholls said: "I worked with Stephen Harper for five years and never once did he, in that time, eat a baby."

Now, I for one think that going five whole years without eating any babies is just the sort of behaviour I want to see from my prime minister. Sure, he's a horrible leader, affecting huge negative change in every area of government he touches, but you can't beat his non-baby-eating record. Well, you can, in that there are people in the world who may potentially not have eaten any babies for six or more years, but since none of the opposition leaders have anyone vouching for thier failure to ingest infants, I have to assume that thier records are inferior, and therefore better played down.

True, since terms of office are traditionally around four years in length, there is no guarantee that Stephen could make it through a second term without indulging in infanticidal canibalism, but there is also no guarantee that any of the leaders could manage even one term. I see big things on the horizon for the conservatives.

September 19th, 2007 - Scientists have discovered a new creature, the glass squid. More information on it at National Geographic. Also note the viperfish, a spectacularly nasty looking fish that I am very glad will never menace me with its saber like fangs, since it dwells more or less exclusively at depths that would crush me like an oversized bug.

In the article on the flying fox (which is not a cool super-fox, but just a fox coloured fruit bat) a scientist announces that "This discovery emphasizes the need for a great deal more basic biodiversity inventory research." I agree. What if those fish hadn't been discovered, and the acidification of the oceans had killed them all. I would never have enjoyed the glass squid! What if there are even cuter, or funner, or just plain cooler creatures out there, that we've already wiped out without even knowing they existed? We need to undertake a massive search of the globe, photographing every species we can find, so that when we wipe them out, we can still have them in our holo-zoos (which we will have when we wipe out too many species to populate a regular zoo.)

August 31st, 2007 - Awesome word - Zugzwang, German, from chess, meaning a position in which every move available to you will make things worse. The Germans have great words. I still enjoy schadenfreude (enjoyment derived from another's suffering.)

August 27th, 2007 - Best TV show idea ever!!! The show is called 'W'. It's set in an alternate reality where president Gore ignored the CIA's warnings about Sadam's WMDs. As a result, Iraq has conquered the United States. Only a small cell of resistance fighters remains active. Led by George W Bush, these heroic freedom fighters fight the Iraqi occupation. Hunted as terrorists, they live thier lives on the run, fighting the Iraqi with home made explosive devices and lightning strikes on key targets such as power lines. The Iraqis are cruel, oppressive masters, of course - bombing, kidnapping, and torture are commited against innocent civilians on a fairly regular basis. They will occaisionally be assisted by Mexican under cover operatives, since Iraq and Mexico have a cold war going on.

Addendum: "We'll never make it. No man alive has the can-do attitude to clear that much brush!" Also, "Welcome to America. We've got purple mountain majesty and amber waves of PAIN!" Followed, of course, by a fist to the jaw. I figure Brad Pitt to play George Bush.

July 28th, 2007 - It occurs to me that existentialists and nihilists believe the same thing - that there is no meaning, no deeper purpose, nothing under the skin, just sensation. The difference is that existentialists think this is a good thing, and nihilists think it a bad one. Nihilists say there are no rules, so we must live as though there are no rules, while existentialists say there are no rules, so we can make up whatever rules we like. The nihilist, in short, believes that there should be rules, and rails against the universe for failing to provide them. The existentialist, sees in the absense of rules a blank slate, which can be written upon or left pristine, all in accordance with his experience. Nihilism is, as Neitzche said, fundamentaly a reaction to disillusionment with religion - if God is dead, it follows that he once lived. If it embraces the absense of God at all, it is only because it justifies the abandonment of morality - something which religion does on a day-to-day basis in any case. In the main, the nihilist is determined to punish God for being dead. The existentialist, by contrast, accepts that God never existed, and steps into his shoes. He sees that there is no world but his experiences, and that those are wholely and uniquely his, a part of him. He is his universe - his experience stops at his skin. Thus he attains a kind of pantheistic egoism - because the universe is him, he knows that any negativity he creates is created within himself. When I end, the universe ends with me - at least qua me it does.

July 14th, 2007 - I have a problem with genetically modified fruits and vegetables, and it is this - they are a distraction from what should be the real business of genetic engineering - creating new fruits and vegetables. Tomatoes and bananas were perfectly fine the way they were. They worked. Messing with what already works is a bad plan. I don't want to eat genetically modified tomatoes and bananas, I want to enjoy the unique, never-before-experienced-by-man taste sensation of the squmberclut. It's kind of sweet and spicy, but with a piquant edge. Truly unique, thanks to the unique protien sequences designed by our scientists to nutrify your body even as it thrills and amazes your taste buds. Anyways, I think companies that plagiarise nature shouldn't be allowed to trade mark thier gene sequences. If they want a copywrite, they should be required to engineer from scratch.

July 12th, 2007 - Discordia Rules! Hail Eris! Of course, if you've been paying attention, you've already noticed this yourself. There's two things going on in the world today, and it's fascinating to follow the various threads back and forth. On one hand, there are things like the EU and the more shadowy, and certainly exceedingly malevolent, SPP. That's right, a united Canada, Mexico, and USA. Just look at who backs it - of the three major political movers, only one was actualy elected, and he has a minority government propped up by huge payoffs to Quebec. I'm sure the state created by the hands of Bush, Fox, and Harper will be a wonderful society.

But on the other hand, society is fragmenting. States are failing all around us - Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, and Nigeria all jump to mind. Things are falling apart. And that's okay, because the state is little more than a bludgeon for the wealthy in any case, hence thier desire to create larger, more powerful ones. For the rest of us, fragmentation is almost certainly good, since the closer government is to the people, the more power they have to influence, and if necessary overthrow, that government.

Here's the rub. Until recently, warfare favoured states massively. The ability to put men and tanks on the ground, planes in the air, and ammunition in thier guns, was the primary factor in warfare. You beat your opponent by killing his men until he didn't have enough left to resist you. If you were a small group, you had few men and few resources, and thus a state would crush you like a bug.

More recently, the primary tactics in warfare have changed. A state is first and foremost a system of organisation, and the new warfare is not war on the people (except as a means to an end) but rather war on the organisational capacity of the state. This substantialy changes the dynamics of warfare. The larger a group is, the greater its need for organisation, and the greater its capacity for feedback in case that organisation is disrupted. A huge, complex, heirarchical organisation like the state is incredibly vulnerable, and extreemly difficult to protect, even if you are competent and doing so is your top priority.

The weapon of the new millenium is not nuclear - it is informational. Chaos is the strongest weapon in today's world. If you choose your time and your place correctly, and generate the right kind of chaos at the perfect moment, you can deal massive damage to your enemy at almost no cost or exposure, as long as he is big enough. The thing is, order takes a constant input of energy to produce, whereas chaos can be produced simply by doing nothing. Entropy is the natural state of everything in the universe. Anyone can make chaos, any time, any place, for any reason or none. It happens all the time on a small scale.

In the end, I don't see how the bad guys can win. They may have thier microwave weapons that can cause agonising pain to everyone in the area, but those are only weapons for use against angry mobs. You can't shoot disorder. Ultimately, heirarchical systems seem to be an evolutionary dead-end. I finish by directing you to this article on swarm dynamics. I think this field offers real possibilities for the creation of a new model of post-state civilisation. The only real question is just how much devastation the current, outmoded model will cause during its death throws. Unfortunately, the answer is almost certainly a lot.

I feel I have explained these ideas poorly, but I hope I have given you some idea of what I'm thinking. I am deeply ambivalent about the future, either we're headed into a long new dark ages, or we're on the edge of rebuilding civilisation into something totally new, and potentially better than anything that came before it. There's just so much going on, so much happening everywere, that it's impossible to track all the factors.

We now have the technology to convert any blood type into universal donor. Two men or two women can now theoretically have a child which is biologically thiers (it's only actualy been DONE with mice, but hey, no more adoption for gay mice!) In the same world, there are literaly billions of people who deny the basic biological theory of evolution (and worse, who don't even understand what the word theory means.) Hell, there are people who still believe that the Earth is flat.

My advice - just lie down on the floor and stay calm. Hail Eris! All hail discordia! Fnord.

June 15th, 2007 - I find it strange that in movies, songs, and so forth, 'the sun on your face' is almost always used in a positive context, while 'the sun on your back' is almost always negative. Personally, I find the sensation of the sun on my back more pleasurable than the sun on my face, as well as not blinding me. Maybe I'm wierd. I mean, wierd in my sun-exposure preferences. I already know I'm wierd in a general sort of sense.

May 26th, 2007 - At the park near my house, there are ducklings. They started out small and yellow and tiny, and very cute. Then, they grew. As they did so, the tips of thier down turned dark, making them look fuzzy and addorable. Now they are nearly totally dark, but they have these tiny little wings that only reach half way across thier body, and which they flap when they run. So, they're still cute. It's pretty awesome.

The lake itself is awesome, too. The way the sun and clouds reflect while the wind blows the water never fails to produce wierd and wonderful visual effects. My favourite was the setting sun reflecting off a steady breeze. The sun itself cast a reflection like liquid light pouring into the water, with tiny droplets scattering constantly around the stream. Around it, the waves reflected the light on the far side, creating an effect like waves of smoke rolling across the surface. Today it was still pretty cool, a wierd jigsaw effect produced by a stiffer breeze and a patchwork of black and grey cloud overhead.

The best thing of all, though, is the swing set. It's sized for adults, around twice my standing height, with swings I have to jump to sit on. I love swings - I always have. The feeling when you reach the peak of your backswing and just relax your whole body and hang for an instant in space, momentarily untouched by the pull of gravity, is fantastic. I like to close my eyes and syncronise my breathing to the back and forth motion of the swing, letting my body move automatically, just enough to maintain a steady rate of swinging. The wind rushes past you, and the air becomes more solid, more real to your senses, than the earth beneath you. It's like becoming one with the wind. Not only that, but it's a pleasant workout that raises my heart rate somewhat for a good ten to fifteen minutes, and seems to help loosen up my back as well. I heartily recomend playing on the swings to everyone lucky enough to have a swing set of sufficient size in thier area. When I was walking out of the park, I passed a kid, who said "Wow, you can realy swing high!"

On my way home from the park, I passed a leaf on the sidewalk. It was soft and green, almost looking still alive, and it made me wonder how it came to be on the ground in the spring. Was it knocked off by a bird or squirrel? Was it diseased, and the tree cast it off for the good of the whole? Did some kid knock it off while climbing the tree? Was it just the wind? Who knows? Only the tree, I guess, and it isn't telling. At first when this line of thought occured to me, I laughed at myself, for it seemed like a stupid thing to wonder about. I quickly realised, though, that it is no sillier a thing to wonder about than anything else, realy. The only problem is that my curiosity is unlikely to ever be satisfied.

I have just realised that I lack two critical ingredients I will need tomorow. This is annoying, as it means I must go out and get them. And not to the corner store, to Safeway. I would like to leave it till tomorow, but alas the bus will only run every hour tomorow.

I am thinking about: Ducklings. Ducks being bad lovers (I saw some mating yesterday, which is wierd, because I assumed they mated in the autumn.) Garlic.

May 23rd, 2007 - First post in a year that's actualy going to be uploaded when I type it! Yay!

It just occured to me in the shower that supply side economics was in fact the right approach to adopt in the face of the 'stagflation' resulting from the practice of Keynsian economics. The flaw was not in the idea, but rather in the implementation. You see, supply side economics was implemented by giving money to corporations, in the hope that this money would lead to them producing more, and thus lower prices. The problem with this idea is obvious on reflection, however - corporations do not exist to make products, but to make money. Giving them free money, therefore, does not necessarily translate into any concrete effect on the economy - indeed, it provides a strong dissincentive to improve the economy, since an economic recession is far harder on workers and unions than on owners and corporations, and giving them money during recessions removes the one incentive they have to avoid them - maintaining cashflow.

Anyway, the implementation was poor, but with a bit of retooling the idea of supply side economics works perfectly. What the government SHOULD have done is not give money to existing companies, but rather increase the supply by simply producing additional goods. This would increase supply to meet demand, naturally quelling the inflation. At the same time, the extra employment would release more money into the economy, stimulating it. As the government has no need to make a profit - it need only break even - it could afford to sell at pre-inflation prices, forcing everyone to maintain thier own price, AND generating a minimum standard for quality. If a product begins to stockpile, the workers are simply moved to some other project that benefits the public. 0% involuntary unemployment can easily be achieved, since there is always SOMETHING useful people could be doing.

Of course, you would have to nationalise the banks - but hell, you should do that anyway. Private currency production is an abomination.

I am thinking about: Economics, aardvarks, my sausages burning if I don't finish this update and go get them.

It's good to be back :)

March 27th, 2007 - All else being equal, if I have to be disemboweled by a demon, I'd like it to look like Jessica Alba.

February 27th, 2007 - I am currently working on a piece of erotic fiction about a stoner who is blessed by a leprechaun. It's looking like it'll be a lot of fun, so if it reaches more than three chapters (or just ends,) I'll post it up here so everyone can enjoy that little window into my subconscious. Shudder at the thought, and beware!

Why do healing scabs itch? It's totally counterproductive - it promotes scratching, which is not only ineffective but potentialy reopens the wound. Whether we have evolution or God to blame, it or He sure dropped the ball on that one.

I have yet to encounter a fish with non-edible bones who was worth the trouble of eating. Unless it reaches me pre-deboned, of course.

Q: What do you call a man with a tea-pot on his head? A: Mr. Tea. I pitty the fool who don't laugh at my joke!

In case I haven't mentioned it before, in addition to my erotic fiction (the idea for which I came up with at work,) I'm also working on a screenplay named "I dream of Jesus". The plot is simple after 2000 years of lazing around on the couch playing PS2 and eating Doritos, Jesus has finally outstayed his welcome in the house of God, and must move out. He gets a roommate, a stoner who's income comes from a single mighty pot plant possessed by the spirit of a pagan prosperity god. Hyjinx ensue as Jesus tries to hold down crappy jobs, he and his roommate date identical triplets, and other wacky misadventures. God talks in a booming voice and sets fire to things. Tell me that isn't comedy gold! If only I could write believable dialogue... At least I get to make Jesus tell someone that "When they were handing out brains, you were obviously in the line to be fucked in the ass by rabid mongrel dogs." And they say art is pain!

And with that, I leave you. As usual, my words are laced with hidden secrets, which will take you may years of pondering to uncover (unless you are smarter than me, in which case you will never uncover them. Don't ask. You wouldn't understand.)

February 21st, 2007 - Today, I have resolved that at least once a week this summer, I'm going to go outside, stare up at the stars, and spin around and around until I get dizzy and fall over. I don't do that nearly enough, and it's both fun and free. I bet it's realy awesome when you're stoned, too.

I seem to be updating a lot more often lately. I must be starting to actualy believe that I'll have internet access again soon. Or I'm just getting into the habit of thinking of things while at my computer.

I'm stuck at chapter 2 of my novel. The setting has changed substantialy from the original one, with humanity becoming a much less cohesive lot. Unfortunately, with no iron fisted empire to rebel against, at least one major character's background has to be completely rethought. I've dedicated many hours of work time to thinking about reworking it, but everything I've come up with seems incredibly contrived.

This is starting to look way too much like banal ramblings about my life that is only barely interesting to me, rather than my usual inane and borderline incoherent chatter, so I'm going to stop here. Damnit, I need content for this page, so that I can credibly claim it's not a blog.

February 19th, 2007 - It's 2007, and everyone knows what that means. The chick who played bass guitar on School of Rock is now legal in BC. I need to get back on the internet, so that I can find out if she's as hot as she looked like she was going to be. No chance of seeing her naked in print or on film till 2011, of course, but if she were to come on to me, I wouldn't be legally obligated to turn her down.

Actually, it kind of pisses me off that the age of consent is so low in BC. There's something realy hot about the idea of a chick being illegal because she's so young, but when she has to be fucking 13 or less, it's just not a sexy image anymore. If the age of consent were 19, that would be much better - you could have an illegal but guilt free lay from an 18 year old, no problem. I'm not sure where exactly the line is, but I'm sure that legal or no, I would feel pretty bad if I found out a girl I'd slept with was 14. Unless she was a celebrity, I guess - they're all fucked up on drugs by 14 anyways, so fuck, who cares? Anyways, the only solution I can see is to go to other countries to have sex with girls who are underage there, but not at home. Somehow, I don't think that kind of reverse sex-tourism would be treated particularly sympathetically.

Another law I think we need is one banning all personal privacy, for everyone, always. Every moment of every person's life should be not only on display, but archived permanently for future instant replay. I mean, it would be pretty wierd for the first six months. Eventualy, though, people would get tired of watching thier head of state on the can, and would begin to realise that every fucked up freaky thing they do and feel ashamed of, virtualy everyone else does or wants to do something just as freaky and disgusting. Political corruption would be wiped out, since with no privacy, it's hard to conspire against the public. Long distance stalking would be easier, it's true, but it would cease to be very scary. Up close and personal stalking would be pretty difficult, though, since your location and the location of your stalker would be known at all times. Hypocrisy would become impossible to conceal, and within a generation I think we'd have wiped out a huge percentage of our social ills.

February 18th, 2007 - Maybe there is only one person, who is constantly reincarnated through the life of every single being on Earth, throughout all of history. This theory has an elegence to it - it lacks the conspicuous waste of new souls being constantly generated and then either ceasing to be, getting packed away or being sent around and around again in a necessarily ever-increasing blizard of life. It is a theory that is both conservative (it requires a minimum of metaphysical baggage) and simple, and yet provides all of the behaviour guiding properties of the more complex, ontologically top-heavy, beliefs on the subject. At the same time, the theory is just wacky and counterintuitive enough that quantum physicists will probably be proving it any moment now.

If a change is realy as good as a rest, then if you stop resting, that's just another type of resting, so you may as well just not change in the first place, and keep right on with the old fashioned kind of resting. That way, at least people can tell what's going on.

If I started a band today, I would call it: E-Muse (My first album would be called "The Amusing E-Muse" and would feature pictures of flightless birds on the cover. The second album would be called "Llama Alarmer."

I live to share.

February 12th, 2007 - I don't get people who say things like "I want to start work at 7:30 tomorow morning." To me, it is as incomprehensible as someone announcing that "I want to develop a supperating abcess in my colon." There is no task which is better accomplished at 7:30 in the morning, particularly in the winter or spring, when the morning is inevitably cold, dark, and damp. Why can these people not just run face first into walls, and spare the rest of us the consequences of thier masochistic impulses and obvious self-hatred.

February 10th, 2007 - I constantly think of things I have to mention on my web page, but they never come to me when I'm at my keyboard. Now that I have absorbed the basics of the painters trade, the act of painting has become a kind of moving meditation. My body does the work, and my mind alternates between a perfect stillness where events appear to proceed while I simply float in thier wake, and a racing river of conciousness that is somehow observed from the outside, like a movie rolling on the inside of my skull. It is a kind of out-of-consciousness experience, where some part of my mind floats free of the rest and observes it from the outside.

I was reading a book today, one I read a long time ago. There were things I read in there that made me wonder how much of my opinions I hold because they are well reasoned, and how many I hold because I read them when I was younger. In retrospect, I realise that I have never possessed a sound epistemic framework on which to make any of the judgements I have made, and therefore they are completely worthless. Of course, the corrolory of this is that they are worth no less than anyone else's judgements. Optimism and pessimism war back and forth in me constantly, and somehow it is ceasing to matter which one wins. The whole of existance is so tragic and so ridiculous and so utterly imperfect, perfectly imperfect... In a perfect world, no one would feel like this, but that might be a tragedy, of sorts.

I wonder if this is the beginings of wisdom, or just a passing phase. So many things I've read are begining to make sense to me, or else I'm deluding myself into thinking they do in order to make my life more bearable. I'm in constant doubt - is this enlightenment or denial? I know you're not supposed to be able to reach enlightenment by intellectualising, but fuck, who is anyone else to judge? No worse or better than me, as I've already said.

So, I reach a simple question - I can embrace the things that are happening in my mind, and be happy and fullfilled, or I can reject them, and hope that the ensuing suffering causes me to change my life in a way which produces the same happiness I can achieve through what is either a monumental self deception or a deep spiritual awakening.

The problem is, doubt is supposed to be a substantial part of the process of illumination, or enlightenment, or whatever. Real enlightened types do tend to embrace poverty... but I haven't yet escaped the ingrained shame reflexes associated with it. I am working on it, because working on my perception of reality trains a more rewarding skill set than working on my financial wellbeing. If you can control your own thoughts, your own desires, your own perceptions, then you have everything. Who needs money when they have that?

My primary doubt is that real enlightened types mostly tend to be outgoing, wisdom sharing types. I seem to be getting more inhibited and less sociable as time goes by. It is honestly worrying me. I used to be wierd and just not care. Now, for some reason, I seem to be censoring myself - but I don't realy know how to not be wierd, so instead I'm just quiet and antisocial. I need to figure out how to just go back to being strange, which in my opinion no one else has any right to comment on anyways. Though to be fair, that's primarily because rights are a ridiculous concept. Actualy, most concepts are pretty ridiculous, once you look at them closely. They're like castles built from spider webs and anchored to asteroids, the tiny spiders scuttling constantly back and forth, applying patches and extending cables to keep the whole thing from disintigrating. There is no reality.

I'm getting the urge to type things in capital letters here, and I'm going to take that as a warning sign. People who think they are illuminated and use capital letters are usually total fruitcakes. Though to be fair, I'd rather be crazy and happy than sane and depressed, so I guess if I'm going mad, it could be worse.

One thing I've noticed a lot, observing my own thoughts, is how responsible I am for my own emotional state. The other day, as an experiment, I decided to stop being angry and upset about something, and just relax and enjoy the fact that I was doing a good job. To my surprise, it worked. I slipped, of course - several times. Each time though, I just reigned myself in, reminded myself that getting angry hurts no one but me, that I was traumatising my own nervous system to no good end, and that I'm much happier not being angry. Every time I find myself getting upset about something, I stop and analyse why I'm feeling that way, what is realy upsetting me. I look for new angles from which to view the situation, new ways to define it, and pretty soon the whole thing becomes ridiculous. I also find that if I paste a smile on my face, and then just relax, it kind of radiates out through my face, and then back into my brain, and pretty soon I'm feeling much better.

Maybe I'm just supressing rage, and building on an ulcer. But I think a lot of it is a quote I read recently - "That man is happiest, who forgives the most." It occured to me that it is true - that being upset about things is a choice I make. I don't like to hurt people, so my anger is generally impotent - if I do lash out, I inevitably regret it the instant I actualy cause pain, so what use is anger? I don't like to hurt, so what use is sorrow? The only emotion I don't have a handle on is fear. That tells me something - that fear is certainly a dominant component of my life script. And I have to think of a good way to address that. Prefarably something cheap. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling I know exactly what I need to do, and it'll take some working up to. The churning sensation in my stomach tells me I'm probably right.

I think perhaps this is what the Taoists meant when they spoke of wu wei. By changing your thoughts, you can bring to fruition all of your desires without ever lifting a finger. Thus, you do nothing, and yet everything that must be done is done. The art of doing nothing effectively? You be the judge.

Right now I'm thinking about: Pudding, the absurdity of existence, my plans for the collapse of civilisation, whether Paul E Shore has any money left (I'm betting no,) and kittens (again, wow!)