Archive for the ‘Top blog posts’ Category

Top blog posting: DID CANADA WIN THE WAR OF 1812?

November 5, 2012

Revisiting the top 50 blog postings, this one is from January 2010. And suitably it deals with relations with our neighbour – our poll on the american election continues to show Obama in the lead, though now at 60%. Click here if you want to vote or see the results for yourself.

Top blog posting: DID CANADA WIN THE WAR of 1812?

Now that I am here in the good old USA for a month, my mind has turned to the history of American-Canadian relations.  Turned to the war of 1812 whose bicenntenial anniversary occurs in two years time.

A new survey just out among Canadians shows the following:  Thirty=seven per cent of respondents believe Canada won the war.

Nine per cent said the United States won the waR.  Fifteen petr cent called it a draw.  But 39 per cent said they knew too little about the war to venture an opinion.

In every province except Quebec respondents said Canada was the winner.

And that’s where I stand.

I was brought up to believe that Canada with the dauntless General Brock and Laura Secord and her cow, cleaned the Americans’ clock.   That’s what I still believe.  Point final, hands-down, without any doubt.

What to do you think?


Catharine and I are in Palm Springs, Ca., for a month.  Hate to tell you that the sun is bright and the temp. 75.  On  my way to play golf.  Hope to blog from here.


Posted by Neil McKenty on January 7, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Filed under Uncategorized  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI


  1. 1
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Canada won on land, the US navy won on the lakes. Overall the US did not achieve it’s objective: bring Québec and Ontario into the fold and claim the Prairies. Thus Canada won the war if not all the battles and remained British.

    Posted on January 7, 2010 at 7:42 pm e
  2. 2
    Barbara Says:

    As I recall from US history courses, the war was fought to stop the Brits from impressing US seamen not to annex Canadian territory. The final treaty was signed between England and the US. Canada was not an independent entity at that time. It remained a colony of Britain afterwards and, if that is considered a victory, then I guess the Canadian colonists won that much.

    Posted on January 7, 2010 at 11:20 pm e
  3. 3
    Barbara Says:

    Have a good time in Palm Springs, Neil. It was the confidence the US gained from the stand-off called the War of 1812 that enabled it to turn its gaze toward expanding into the West. You are enjoying the fruits of America’s perceived although debatable victory in 1814.

    Posted on January 7, 2010 at 11:51 pm e
  4. 4
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    As is often the case history is percieved differently depending where you live. “Impressing” was the excuse not the real motivation. Just as supposed weapons of massive destruction were the excuse to grab Iraq’s petrol industry.

    Posted on January 8, 2010 at 1:16 am e
  5. 5
    jim Says:

    In those days tactics and strategies dictated that in battle the flag bearer and the bugler should be killed at all costs. Then the next step was to burn down the seat of government. Whoever did it first won the war. The real hero of the war of 1812 was Tecumseh on the Canadian side. Also, we should remember that the troops on both sides spoke with English English accents.

    Posted on January 8, 2010 at 9:23 pm e
  6. 6
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    And we did burn the White House which was painted white after the fire to mask the burn marks.

    Posted on January 9, 2010 at 3:11 am e
  7. 7
    Harry Says:

    Hope you have a great time in Palm Springs. I wish I could be there. The Treaty of Ghent was a status quo ante bellum treaty meaning that everything was returned to how it was before the war. Many historians see the war as a stalemate. The US failed to force the British to officially agree to US view on maritime issues and the British failed in their 1814 objectives to take US territory (part of Maine, part of upstate NY, much of the US midwest for their Indian allies). I am reading a book on the war by British historian Peter Black and he seems to see the result as a highly fortuitous draw. The White House was painted white before the war and was already called by that name before it was burned and repainted.

    Posted on January 11, 2010 at 3:16 am e
  8. 8
    Harry Says:

    Actually the book is by Jeremy Black and is entitled The War of 1812 in The Age of Napoleon. Sorry about the mistake.

    Posted on January 11, 2010 at 3:18 am e
  9. 9
    Darren Says:

    it is in my opinion that the British along with Canadian Settlers and Canadian Indians took over Detroit New York Washington DC and New Orleans…. and with that the Americans fought to regain control of these cities which they eventually did win back BUT that said part of the intention of the US Military was to gain control of Ontario which they never accomplished as anyone who can read a Map can see…..because if the Americans had of won that war then Ontario would today be one of the 50 States which would actually be 51 States with the addition of Ontario…. This too is the main reason the Americans asked for a Treaty because we as New British brought them to their Knee’s…. We took over Detroit without even so much as 1 bullet fired. We burned their Capitol city to the ground with barely even losing any of our Army. Had they not offered to Sign a Treaty who is to say that those 3 States would not still today be part of Canada ?

    Posted on October 29, 2011

Top blog postings: IS THE EARTH WARMING?

October 29, 2012

Revisiting the top 50 blog postings, this one is from February 2009.


New studies released over the weekend warn of triggers in the natural environment  – including a green-house time bomb in Canada a nd Siberia – that could   dramatically worsen global warming.

Thawing subactic tundra could unleash billions of tonnes of gases  that have been safely stored in frosty soil, while oceans and forests are becoming less able to suck caron dioxide out of the atmsophere.  Together these phenomena mean more heat-trapping gases will enter the atmosphere which in turn will stoke global warming, thrusting the machinery of climate  change into high gear.

The new estimate of  the total amount of carbon that is frozen in permfrost is in the order of one trillion tonnes.  By comparison the amount of caron dioxide that has been released through the burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is about 350 billion tonnes.  Thes tundra gases come from the decayed remains of vegetation that dies long ago.

Do these figures of increased global warming concern you?

There is a small coterie who think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by charlatans like Al Gore.

What do you think?


Posted by Neil McKenty on February 16, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Filed under current events, Politics  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI




pj Says:

The overall climatic warming trend observed over the last five hundred years is a fact. However, the anthropogenic theory of global warming is speculative and based upon insufficient data. The math used to create the models predicting the impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide discharge produce a wide range of potential outcomes including both disaster and benefit. It is significant that we have seen a moderate cooling trend over the last decade. As significant is the discovery that plants increase their use of carbon dioxide, taking advantage of the increased atmospheric levels to speed growth by producing larger leaves. Axial precision, variability of Earth’s orbit and the level of solar activity are incompletely understood contributors to global climate. The argument is not over the facts of the current trend but over the precise causes and our ability to impact the process.

Posted on February 16, 2009 at 7:41 pm e


The Commentator Says:

But what if there’s a positive consequence of global warming?

Posted on February 16, 2009 at 8:23 pm e


Paul Costopoulos Says:

What is so positive about sinking buildings in Northern Canada and Siberia, disappearing Pacific Island countries and coastal flooding all around our oceans due to rising sea level caused by melting ice caps at both poles?
Of course to few, and fewer, individuals all this is nonsense based on non science. However scientific evidence and observed facts and events pile up and the end result becomes ever more evident, Tony not withstanding.

Posted on February 16, 2009 at 9:00 pm e


Tony Kondaks Says:

Neil writes:

There is a small coterie who think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by charlatans like Al Gore.

Actually, it is a quite large “coterie” and getting larger all the time.

There is zero evidence that there is any catastrophic man-made global warming and charlatans like Al Gore are causing horrible burdens for the poor of the world.

Even the pro-global warming crowd at the United Nations released a report claiming that the methane from the livestock industry is much more of a danger than the carbon-release from the burning of fossil fuels.

If people like Al Gore were truly serious about global warming (and not out to make a buck, like Al Gore’s $100 million he has made in green equity), they would stop riding in private jets and stop eating meat.

Posted on February 16, 2009 at 10:15 pm e



We’ll live.

How come we survived the last global warming? We didn’t even have technology to help us.

This is just the secular form of apocalyptism.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 3:49 am e


Paul Costopoulos Says:

Suzanne, the last global warming, some 60 000 to 100 000 years ago brought us out of the last Ice age that ended some 35 000 years ago. It took some 30 000years to bring temperatures up enough to pull back the ice caps where they were about 1 000 years ago. The global temperature has gone up more in the last 150 years than over the last 1 000. There has to be something going on. Apocalypse or Armaghedon, probably not, worrying trend? Certainly. Man made? Partially. We can not control everything but we must look at our role and what can be done about it, even if it hurts.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 12:10 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

Tony, “Methane from the livestock industry is much more of a danger than the carbon release from the burning of fossil fuels” This additional information makes the situation more alarming, not less.

You seem to be against people making a buck, re Al Gore. I am a democratic socialist and thats even left of me. If one person can make a l00 million in green equity, think of how many jobs that creates and the wide support there is for this shift in global consiousness.
Private jets are also on the way out, re., the recent change in the automotive execs.

The poor of the world will suffer even more, if flooding arises from global warming. Suzanne, thats the problem the Rich, us ,We’ll Live”. The rest of the earths population species and poor humans will die.

Pro Life groups need to examine their narrow view of life and see life as a seamlest garment.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm e


Tony Kondaks Says:

Peter writes:

The poor of the world will suffer even more, if flooding arises from global warming.

Sure…if flooding would ever arise…of which there is zero proof that it will occur.

In the meantime, global warming policies are already killing the poor…much of it thanks to that monster, Al Gore.

As for Al Gore making money: I have absolutely no qualms about it. But there is an obvious conflict of interest, one that should be known and factored in to every consideration the public at large takes whenever listening to the words he utters.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 4:24 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

“there is zero proof that it will occur.”

The only POSSIBLE “proof” will be when (or if) it actually occurs. That is what “proof” is.

What we need to look at is not “proof” but EVIDENCE. The evidence indicates that there is a good chance of more flooding.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm e


The Commentator Says:

I’m with Suzanne. We’ll survive. I’m more worried about the aliens who are getting ready to attack.

Paul, my question is this: what if we gain access to important precious resources? What if there’s new plants and vegetation under all that ice? What if what global warming brings is good for mankind?

Tony, my sister just came back from South Africa. The irony is that environmental policies are killing Africa. That and Western agric. subsidies or course.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm e


Paul Costopoulos Says:

Your question, Commentator has some value. Problem is: does the cost/benefit justify the risk.
I do believe that western agricultural subsidies are more noxious than environmental policies intelligently applied.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 9:10 pm e


Chimera Says:

This is much too complicated a subject for simple Q & A. It’s not simple at all.

And to find the causes (yes, plural) of global warming, I think you need to go back before the Industrial Revolution with its belching smoke stacks…back to whenever it was that Somebody decided that humans were too different from all other animals on earth, and that we didn’t have to abide by the rules of nature under which all the other animals live. To begin with — and this is the most important point — we are the only animal that insists on out-breeding its capacity to feed itself. Then we insist on invading the domains of other animals and eradicating them in order to make room for ourselves. Then we eliminate the natural flora to make room for our own, temporary flora, because we need it in order to eat at all. And because we temporarily have something to eat, we breed even more of ourselves. We spread across the earth like a rash.

We’re not the cause of global warming? Maybe, maybe not, but we’re sure helping it along.

And blaming Al Gore for bringing it to your attention is just shooting the messenger. If he hadn’t said anything, it would still be happening. Except that now, nobody can claim ignorance of the fact, even if you don’t believe in it. Naysayers of the world: You have now been informed. What you do with that information is up to you. But since Al Gore’s book and video were released, you can no longer claim ignorance of the issues.

Oh…I was just wondering…if there is no global warming, what’s melting the ice caps?

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 10:16 pm e


Tony Kondaks Says:

Commentator writes:

Tony, my sister just came back from South Africa. The irony is that environmental policies are killing Africa. That and Western agric. subsidies or course.

That fanatics like Al Gore — awash in their big bucks and shielded from the realities of life — have the luxury of waxing fearfully about something of which there is zero evidence (thank you for your correction, Joe) and do so without burning one calorie of energy worrying about the poor in Africa and other countries is criminal.

And the Western agricultural subsidies are made from the same cloth. How dare we call ourselves globalists when, from one side of our mouths, we declare ourselves free-marketers and then, out of the other, provide agricultural subsidies to our domestic farmers which unfairly skewer agricultural markets in our favor…at the expense of the poorest of the poor. Shame on us.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 10:26 pm e


Tony Kondaks Says:


What is melting the polar ice caps?

Activity of the sun.

The same sun whose lesser activities of late have caused the ice to return in those areas.

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 10:27 pm e


Paul Costopoulos Says:

Dear Tony, up north it’s winter, down south it’s summer and a huge chunk of the Antarctic is on the verge of sailing away from the continent. Swiss Alps are getting bare of snow and ice as our Rocky’s are. In the mean time, Arizona, Nevada and New-Mexico are fast drying up their meager water reserves. How about stopping irrigating the golf course you live on?

Posted on February 17, 2009 at 10:47 pm e


Chimera Says:

“Activity of the sun.”

Nope. The solar energy emitted by the sun has always been there and will always be there as long as the sun burns. Nothing has changed on the sun.

What has changed, though, is the ability of those rays to reach the surface of the earth.

We now receive much more radiation from our star than ever in the history of the earth, because the layers of gases that shield us and reflect that radiation back into space are diminishing and being depleted by our own activities. Emissions from our machines and other activities produce compounds of gases that act as solvents on other gases, making them disappear. We are dissolving the only protection we have against solar radiation. And that is what’s behind global warming.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 12:40 am e


The Commentator Says:

Tony, zero evidence? But what about all those charts and graphs Gore had?

Chimera, I fear we’ll never have any sort of consensus. Heck, we still argue about whether Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player ever! Which of course he was.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 1:37 am e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

I agree, Commentator, that evidence, someone will dispute. I think that is why God, Yaweh, the no name God, doesn’t supply evidence. He,She, doesn’t want to be contained by humans in any particular place. That is why the everywhereness of God is so important.

If a person came back from the dead, most people would refuse to believe it. If God came back from the Dead, most people would refuse to believe it.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 4:09 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

“If a person came back from the dead…”

People come back from (the?) dead all the time. A person might die on an operating table only to be brought ‘back’ to life. If person’s heart stops beating they are clinically dead but are often brought back to life.

What is your point?

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 4:50 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

“If a person came back from the dead”..

Joe, you proved my point. These people were arguably dead by most people.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

I still don’t get your point… can you make it clearer?

“These people were arguably dead by most people.”

So? What are you saying? Is it that not everybody would agree that these people ~were~ dead?

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 5:13 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

Joe, Yes.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 5:38 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

But there isn’t a belief involved then. It’s ignorance. It isn’t a “belief” that those people died – they died. Medicine and the language of medicine make this a fact – no belief necessary!

That’s the problem with religion – there is no evidence any of it is true. None – it’s ALL belief!

That people die and are brought back is a medical fact.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm e


jim Says:

People who are brought back from the dead are not the same people. If you ask them if this is true, they will agree with you.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 7:49 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

“People who are brought back from the dead are not the same people.”

What does that even mean? Their DNA changes? Personality? Has this been tested and shown to be true or is it purely anecdotal?

And if it’s true – what does that have to do with what Peter is saying?

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 7:51 pm e


Cate McB Says:


As an ICU nurse, I’ve been involved in bringing back literally hundreds of people from the “dead”. Certainly, most are not the same people, although different changes will affect different people differently. Although DNA has obviously not changed, some have suffered such irreversible brain injury during the “dead” part &/or the resuscitation part that they are no longer the same people from a cognitive or even a reflex point of view.

Some, as Jim points out, will wake up & agree with you that they are not the same people, but in my experience, these are the lucky (& usually the enlightened) ones. I had one patient who was resuscitated on the squash court, who was so changed in the thankfulness dept. that family & friends hardly recognized him.

And does the anecdotal nature of this “truth” bother me? Not a bit Joe! because I’ve seen it so many times that I don’t need a study to validate my own experience.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 8:59 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

Thanks for your input Cate!

But how does this tie into what Peter was saying – which (I think) is that it doesn’t matter WHAT the evidence is, somebody will be there to NOT believe it.

I think Peter is mistaking “evidence” with “proof”. Evidence needs to be interpreted, proof does not. You cannot deny 1+1=2 – this I can prove, but you can deny that smoking pot makes you sleepy, this I have evidence for but cannot prove.

When Peter wrote: “I think that is why God (snip snip) doesn’t supply evidence.” he meant PROOF. Unless he agrees with THIS atheist (me) that there is ZERO evidence for god(s).

There is ample evidence that our planet is experiencing a global warming – but is it man-made? I don’t know, but I think there is ample evidence that it’s certianly PARTLY man-made.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 9:20 pm e


Cate McB Says:


From what you’ve said, I come away only with the idea that maybe “proof” is merely more convincing “evidence”. Within our western frame of reference, yes, 1+1=2, but from another frame of reference, eg., a Martian’s, or that of someone who doesn’t find mathematics inherently convincing, 1+1 may not equal 2. The key thing is a shared frame of reference. When that is not there, there will be disbelievers of anything, regardless of whether we’re talking about “evidence” or “proof”.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 9:38 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

Cate, 1+1 = 2, is conecptual knowledge. Actual knowledge reveals that 1+1 = 2 and more. If you put a male and female rabbit in a cage and come back a little later. There could be 2 and more.

Jesus, in his wisdom died for three days, before He came back to life. I think he was well aware that evidence and belief are important. I believe there is a God and have ample evidence to support my belief, not my disbelief.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 11:10 pm e


Cate McB Says:


You only proved my point yet again. Its all about frames of reference!!!!!!!!!!! as I already said above.

If your frame of reference is conceptual western mathematics, 1+1=2.

If you have another frame, regardless of whether its a Martian one or that of “Actual knowledge” as you call it, 1+1 may even = more than 2.

And if someone shares your point of reference, they may believe what you believe. And if they don’t share your point of reference, they may view your belief with complete disbelief!!!!!!! (whatever your belief may be).

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 11:27 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

I believe that people are dead when they are” dead as a doornail”. Whether belief or not I think that goes over in anybodys language. Martian, Christian, or Atheist.

Posted on February 18, 2009 at 11:35 pm e


Cate McB Says:


Believe it or not, one of the most (if not the most) controversial definitions in our North-American frame of reference is the definition of death.

Posted on February 19, 2009 at 2:27 am e


Man of Roma Says:

I liked this whole conversation a lot. You shifted a bit, which is even more fun.



Posted on February 19, 2009 at 12:14 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

“Believe it or not, one of the most {if not the most} controversial definitions in our North American frame of reference is the definition of death”. I don’t agree with you, Cate, I know when a person is dead, as most people do. And yet Jesus, might agree with you, that is why He remained dead for 3 days, to ensure His Ressurection was well evidenced.

Posted on February 20, 2009 at 11:56 pm e


Cate McB Says:


A person can be brain dead, but otherwise alive, meaning the organs are being perfused adequately. Some would consider this state death. But is a person dead when they’re brain dead but their heart is still going? Or is “dead” only when the heart stops? For how long & in what situations should we try to get the heart going again? And what criteria of “dead” should we accept for the purposes of organ donation? These are open & quite controversial questions. That’s what I meant.

Posted on February 21, 2009 at 1:12 am e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

Cate, the people your are describing are still alive. Medicine has evolved to the point that is confusing people whether they are alive or dead. The classical ethical position in these sisituations is whether or not to
remove life support.

The relatives have to decide, rightly so. Ethicaly speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective is that artificial life support needs only be sustained if precedent has proven results, in a reasonable amount of time. I am 70 years old, give me a week, if I don’t revive, pull the plug.

Peace, Blessings, God is Great.

Posted on February 22, 2009 at 1:21 am e


Joe Agnost Says:

Peter: “Jesus, might agree with you, that is why He remained dead for 3 days, to ensure His Ressurection was well evidenced.”

Heeheehee…. sorry Peter – but I had to laugh out loud at your “well evidenced” statement there!

Surely you’re joking no? Or do you truly believe there is strong evidence that JC rose 3 days after dying…. because there isn’t.

Posted on February 23, 2009 at 9:32 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

I’m glad you had a good laugh Joe. Your agnosticism is valid in that, in the absence of proof you don’t know, if there is a God.

The Holy Bible and two thousand years of believers is pretty good evidence in my mind.

When a person enters into a Christian belief system, it is based on the gift of Faith.

However, my study of the Christian teachings keeps me in awe of the Wisdom of God in the transmission of knowledge.

God says My ways are not your ways. An example humans are forever trying to destroy evil with more evil. Jesus says the only way to destroy evil is by forgiveness.

Posted on February 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

“The Holy Bible and two thousand years of believers is pretty good evidence in my mind.”

In that case – since this is “evidence” in your mind – what about those thousands of years humans thought lightening was god’s wrath… is that evidence that it’s true?

Right now there are thousands of humans that believe if you kill an innocent jew you will get a bunch of virgins in heaven… that’s been their belief for going on hundreds of years now – does that make it true?

The point I’m making is that just because someone believes something – no matter how much they believe it, or how many thousands of years the beliefs survive – that isn’t evidence that the beliefs are correct.

And the holy bible is evidence to you? Really? It’s filled with contradictions, untruths and cruel mysogynist stories. What, exactly, does THAT prove??

(PS – sorry for ragging on you peter, I do respect your right to believe what you do, I’m just trying to understand why. Peace.)

Posted on February 24, 2009


October 22, 2012

Revisiting the top 50 blog postings, here is no. 49. Still being visited with a new comment only last week.


A new survey shows different levels of patriotism among Canadian age groups.  About  60 per cent of younger Canadians (18 to 24) said they were patriotic while 91 per cent of older Canadians (65 to 74) described themselves as patriotic.   Quebec results were unusual.  Only 42 per cent of Quebeckers said they felt patriotic about Canada and only 14 per cent expressed a strong sense of pride in the nation.

Does this poll suggest we lack the pride in country that is usually expressed by Americans?  Our neigbours to the south wrap themselves in the  Stars and Stripes and bray that they live in the greatest country in the world.  Does this boasting (seometimes offensive) make them any more patriotic than Canadians?

What do you think?

Posted by Neil McKenty on January 19, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Filed under current events  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI


  1. 1
    Janus Says:

    I think Canadians are just as patriotic as Americans. I just don’t think they’re as blatantly jingoistic and chauvinistic.

    Posted on January 19, 2010 at 10:17 pm e
  2. 2
    littlepatti Says:

    I think that most Canadians are enormously grateful to be living in this wonderful country, and like most things in life, our appreciation grows as we get older and our eyes are opened to other realities in the world. We complain about everything (that’s a right), but we have Medicare, Pensions, Medical coverage, Daycare and a reasonable school and welfare system. We don’t like paying for it (taxes), but we know, down deep that WE are Canadians. We think it, say it, and know it, but we don’t shout it. It’s a practical approach…we don’t want everybody to come here! :-)

    Posted on January 20, 2010 at 12:16 pm e
  3. 3
    Barbara Says:

    I have heard Canadians “bray” about how great their country is. They often do it in a cockeyed way by denigrating their neighbours to the South.

    The folks in the USA do have an unrealistically grandiose self-image. All their lives they are fed that myth that they are that shining city on a hill, that it is a place where opportunity abounds. It is reinforced by the waves of immigrants who come to their shores and succeed in bettering their lives. It has its root in its Puritan history that interprets material success as a sign of Divine favour.

    If Canada had more next door neighbours, it might ease up on defining itself in terms of the one it has.

    Posted on January 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm e
  4. 4
    Cornelius T.Zen Says:

    Good morrow, all!
    One thing to remember: in WWII, when American troops marched triumphantly through liberated French villages, a good number of the onlookers were Canadian troops, exhausted from going nose-to-nose with Der Panzers and making them run away. We got the hard slogging scutwork; the Yanks got the glory. They got the hat; we got the cattle.
    Canada rocks, and don’t you forget it! – CTZen

    Posted on January 20, 2010 at 5:14 pm e
  5. 5
    HeidiGulatee Says:

    Often when Americans travel they put a maple lef on their knapsac. That is how they view Canada.
    I do think Canadians also are proud of their country in their own more quiet way.

    Posted on January 21, 2010 at 4:53 pm e
  6. 6
    littlepatti Says:

    While visiting Amsterdam, we were shocked that people there were still taught that the Canadians fought and died for their liberation. We met teenagers on a train who wanted to talk to us about the war, and we went to “the bridge” by taxi, where the driver shut off the meter and told us to take as long as we wanted at the cemetery there. He knew the only people who asked to go there are families of those that fought their way into Holland. All these years later we were sincerely thanked for our parents service. We are very proud to be Canadians, well respected around the world.

    Posted on January 23, 2010 at 6:21 pm e
  7. 7
    Willhelm Says:

    I’m a Swiss person and one of the things I noticed about Canada was how proud and patriot everyone was. The flag is seen almost everywhere and even on some cars. It’s not so common in Europe to see this. I was in Toronto for studying English and when a Canadian troops were returned from Afghan all the Canadians stood at the side of the streets, put the hands over the heart to salute the soldiers. Everyone had a flag and was singing the national song, and cheering for the troops. I’ve been in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan and the people seems to be not so “showy” about these things. I would say that definitely Canadians are one of the most patriot countries I have been in. USA is also very patriot for me.

    Posted on March 28, 2010 at 9:02 am e
  8. 8
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    Thanks you for your welcome comments on the patriotism of Canadians. Often we are viewed as somewhat reserved. I do hope you have a good time in Canada.

    Posted on March 28, 2010 at 8:26 pm e
  9. 9


    Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:15 pm e
  10. 10
    AJ Says:

    Of course! I’m a very patriotic American. We have so much pride because of our history, culture, and achievements. Personally and honestly, I don’t really see any patriotism whatsoever up north. :(

    Posted on October 18, 2012


October 1, 2012

We are looking back at previous posts, and republishing significant ones. From this January, this is the 50th most visited page on Exchange.


A new study shows that visible minorities are not getting their fair share of Canada’s economic pie.  The report shows non-whites in Canada earned 81 cents for every dollar made by Caucasians.

Visible minorites were also found to have a higher unemployment rate, of 8.6 per cent in 2006 compated with 6.2 per cent for white Canadians.

The figures show that equal access to opportunity eludes many racialized Canadians.

From 2000 to 2006 the income of white Canadians grew 2.7 per cent while racial minorities experienced a 0.2 per cent slide in average pay.

Sheila Block, an economist, says the prosperity gap betweeen white and non-whites in Canada is largely the result of racial disrimination.

Block says, “It’s an issue that’s in someways is inconsistent with how we perceive our society.  But it’s there, and it’s something that we have to address and have a public discussion.”

Is this Canada’s dirty little secret?  That we have a racism problem just like Americans have one?

Should we have a public debate about racism in Canada?

Is there  racial discrimination in Canada?

What do you think?



This morning Catharine and I are leaving for an 11-day cruise in the Carribean. I  am not sure how regularly I will be able to blog but I  will do my best.

Best wishes to all  our bloggers.  Neil

Posted by Neil McKenty on January 27, 2012 at 5:39 am
Filed under Uncategorized  |  Tags: Canada, Racism  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI


  1. 1
    littlepatti Says:

    I think there is racism. Why do orientals seem to do better than blacks? Why do we perceive them differently…or do we?
    Of course our personal experiences play into our prejudices…I think we all have them and it runs deeper than race: Gender, age, size, language, geographics.
    Maybe we need to re-label prejudice and accept that we all have preferences.
    This comment in no way is meant to diminish the problem of wage disparity and racial profiling.
    Yes, we do need a discussion.

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:10 am e
  2. 2
    Heidi Gulatee Says:

    Neil, this sounds good, have a wonderful trip.

    I watched a show last night (8th Fire on CBC)and I am appalled at the conditions in native villages. There two villages have no school and the housing looks terrible. And I am also concerned about their escaping to drugs, gas sniffing, alcoholism and other addictions.
    I think that is where we have to start. I think it is an absolute shame that the natives are treated so badly. I know that in BC there are some exceptions. I think if Canada wants to be a world leader it has to clean up its act .
    Natives need a reason to live and a hope for the future which means also that their children get an education and do not drop our of school before finishing high school. It is important because jobs depend on education. We have money for all kind of things that are not urgent or sometimes useless. We have to invest in the future of native children. That would require decent housing and schools and jobs for the parents.

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 11:38 am e
  3. 3
    littlepatti Says:

    Well said Heidi- With our native people in crisis, I wonder why we are constantly raising money for other countries in crisis. Charity begins at home and we have fallen far short!

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm e
  4. 4
    Joe Agnost Says:


    Our Natives don’t need more money – they need a new direction. The problems in the Native community go much further than just money…

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm e
  5. 5
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    We have segregation in Quebec:the language of education provisions of Bill 101
    (click on my name and see chapters 2 and 5 for documentation)。

    Determining rights based upon who your parents are and what their classification is lies at basis of the now-defunct apartheid system of South Africa and Canada‘s Indian Act。Bill 101 uses the same procedure。

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm e
  6. 6
    Lady Janus Says:

    Of course there is discrimination in Canada! And it’s not only racial, it’s ethnic, lingual, religious, cultural, and just about any other kind you can think of.

    The trick will be to stop carping about it and actually DO something about it!

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm e
  7. 7
    littlepatti Says:

    Joe, I do agree with you. The government has been throwing money at the native problems for years. Maybe Canadians could do better by providing money for that direction you refer to, and being very precise.
    We are responsible for the mess but only the natives themselves can get their way out of it.
    What a terrible meeting in Ottawa this week. Harper had to be embarassed into spending more time. I seem to remember a similar event in the mid-eighties. (I was in Ottawa at the time and the conference was full of lawyers). We don’t seem to have progressed and it’s one “Davis outlet” after another!

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm e
  8. 8
    littlepatti Says:

    PS: Correction “Davis Inlet” above. I think I need to get out…to a factory outlet! :-)

    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm e
  9. 9
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Interesting take on the Indian situation in the U.S. according to Libertarian John Stossel.

    Does it apply to Canada as well?


    Posted on January 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm e
  10. 10
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    I agree with Lady Janus.
    For the First Nations, a good start would scrapping the Indian Act and apply the U.N. Charter for Aboriginals that Canada has signed but never respected since the Harperites took over.
    We could get rid ofg 101 also, but there would be bloodshed; do we really want that?

    Posted on January 28, 2012 at 7:49 am e
  11. 11
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    I find the following comment of Paul’s fascinating:

    “We could get rid of 101 also, but there would be bloodshed; do we really want that?”

    I must ask him: why would there be bloodshed? And if there would be bloodshed, why would that be less preferable than living with a law such as Bill 101?

    What does Paul’s prediction of bloodshed say about what he feels about the character of the glorious Quebec nation (used in the Harper House of Commons resolution sense)?

    Posted on January 28, 2012 at 8:56 am e
  12. 12
    Heidi Gulatee Says:

    I watched your video and found it very interesting. I agree that throwing money at the problems that the natives have is not the answer. I also hope that there must be ways that can help the natives.
    When the white man came he brought the Indians progress as in alcohol and native schools. This messed up their lives. Before, when natives lived here alone they had a very good lifestyle, good for them. They hunted and fished and gathered and were pretty much part of the earth. They respected Mother Nature.
    I agree also that the natives need to take charge themselves to progress and find a new way of living.
    I heard that many natives do not own the land on the reserves. Can the not be trusted to take care of
    They now have been so used to being poor that many have not been able to get out of it.
    I have no idea why the natives do not own the land. If they did they might be proud of the property and take good care of it.
    I really admire the live style that the natives lived and still live. We all could learn from them how to take care of the environment. I hope they find ways to adapt to a new live style that will make them feel respected and part of the country.
    I wish I had a solution to the problems but I can only see where they are coming from. To think about it and talk about it is a good start because we very often forget about natives because they live segregated and far from us.

    Posted on January 28, 2012 at 9:51 am e
  13. 13
    Tony Kondaks Says:


    Perhaps you watched that Public Service Ad from the 1960s and believed it…you know, the one where that Indian sees garbage floating down a river and the camera pans to a tear falling down his cheek (by the way, an Italian-American played the Indian).

    The image of the native American as a responsible steward of the environment is largely a myth:

    Posted on January 28, 2012 at 3:02 pm e
  14. 14
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    I still vivdly recall the F.L.Q. of the 60s and 70s. They were a fringe group without public support, but still, they killed 4 people and caused panicked governments to suspend civil rights and make massive arrests.
    We have, today, Les Chevaliers de l’Indépendance and les Jeunes Patriotes, both groups have been involved in minor violence under the sympathetic eye of our old hardliners and the benevolent neglect of our present authorities.
    The situation now, with the Separatist down on the ropes, is a time bomb that could explode anytime given the right provocation. Scrapping 101 would do just that.

    Posted on January 29, 2012 at 7:57 am e
  15. 15
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Paul writes:

    “The situation now, with the Separatist down on the ropes, is a time bomb that could explode anytime given the right provocation. Scrapping 101 would do just that.”

    。。。then bring it on!

    If what Paul writes is true (and I happen to agree with him),then why continue to live like this?Why do something — keep a horrible law on the books — out of fear?

    Sweeping the problem under the carpet will not only postone having to deal with the problem at some point,it will cause the problem to fester and become BIGGER。。。a veritable recipe for disaster。

    And,besides,who wants to continue to live under the cloud of blackmail?

    Posted on January 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm e
  16. 16
    littlepatti Says:

    There are always fanatics in our midst. Certainly tampering with Bill 101 would draw them out. I prefer to see “nature take it’s course”. The BLOC is dead & Gilles Duceppe’s recovery not likely once he has been investigated and likely found guilty. Pauline is “laughing on the outside, crying on the inside” and the PQ will implode. CAC is treading on thin ice-a recent new member, spouting the usual rhetoric about separation and Quebecers aren’t as gullible as they used to be. They are starting to see that it’s not Anglos who are smothering them, but the fanatics. But hey! That old “class” will be 6ft. under soon…They are all 60-70+ and their hard living is catching up. (PS: I say hard-living, because we’ve been footing the bill for their excesses for years!)
    “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
    We have recently seen the demise of several dictators. People are seeing what Quebec would become if it’s left in the hands of the fanatics.
    Quebec City swung away from the PQ when they witnessed 1st hand the Parizeau’s (the pair) drunken debacle while they were in power there & living in the mansion.

    Posted on January 29, 2012 at 2:00 pm e
  17. 17
    Peter Westenhangar Says:

    The argument that to repeal bill 101 would cause bloodshed, and therefore should not be tampered with, reminds me of the argument that the implementation of equality in the south of the USA would be met with violence. As it was. But you would struggle to find anyone who thinks it wasn’t the right thing to do.

    Posted on January 29, 2012 at 3:22 pm e
  18. 18
    littlepatti Says:

    I find it offensive to compare Bill 101 with the struggle for equality in the USA.
    It’s one horse, one rabbit.

    Posted on January 29, 2012 at 5:02 pm e
  19. 19
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Littlepatti writes:

    “I find it offensive to compare Bill 101 with the struggle for equality in the USA. It’s one horse, one rabbit.”

    But it you yourself, littlepatti, who invoked the spector of “fanatics” and “dictators” into the discussion. And, earlier, Paul suggested violence if Bill 101 is tampered with.

    It seems to me entirely appropriate, therefore, to invoke historical precedents in our discussion.

    Although it is politically incorrect to do so, recall that it was acts of terrorism in Quebec IN THE MID ’80s (not the earlier ’60s and ’70s) that DIRECTLY caused the constitutional crisis of the early ’90s and the 1995 referendum in which the “YES” side only barely won.

    Posted on January 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm e
  20. 20
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Tony, in 1995 the “yes” side lost by a slight margin but not “barely won”. As for comparing Québec to Mississippi and the segregationist states, I would agree with Littlepatti’ outrage.
    Terrorism in Québec in the 80′s? Do you consider hanging a banner on the Mountroyal cross an act of terrorism? The 90′s crisis, was long in the making…and is not over.
    However the old nationalists are slowly dying out and are replaced by more pragmatic and down to earth younger ones. But there will, as anywhere, forever be fringe maniacs.

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 7:47 am e
  21. 21
    littlepatti Says:

    Thanks Paul. You are always the voice of reason.
    The Yes side may have won by a small margin, but we know that in some sectors there was a 30% spoiled rate, so we know there was vote tampering.
    Never mind…the question was asked and answered twice now. Even if they lost because of “money & the Ethnic vote”. at least they were not “trapped like Lobsters”.
    The PQ adopted a resolution this weekend to lower the voting age to 16! I don’t know about you but…that’s nuts. (and desperate).
    Good news…News this morning: only 25% would give their vote to the PQ. I suggest of that 25% a much smaller % would agree to separation. YEAH!
    The “Dominion of Canada” is safe once more… :-)

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 8:11 am e
  22. 22
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Littlepatti, don’t rejoice too fast. The P.Q. is at 25% but the “Option” still polls around 40%. The “Option” is more popular than the party promoting it, but then do not forget Québec Solidaire and two or three splinter parties promoting the same “option”. Should they coalesce, and I hope they will not, the picture could be different.
    And thanks for “the voice of reason”, all may not agree.

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 11:06 am e
  23. 23
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Sorry, of course I meant the “no” side. Typo.

    No, I’m not referring to banners on Mount Royal. I’m referring to the firebombing at Zeller’s and other similar acts at the time which prompted Bourassa to renege on a campaign promise to bring back bilingual signs to maintain “social peace” which led to Bill 178 which led to the death of Meech which led to the referendum. Never talked about but very real.

    And if you don’t want comparisons with historical incidents of violence don’t bring violence into the conversation.

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 12:21 pm e
  24. 24
    Neil McKenty Says:

    I am sitting herein the Emerald Princess which is docked at St. Thomas. Costing me 75 cents a minute to send my greetings to all you guys aand girls. Will try to check back with you when I can.

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 2:19 pm e
  25. 25
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 4:36 pm e
  26. 26
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    The link I posted, above, provides greater detail as to what I claim is the enabling by the Quebec Government (and, by extension, the Canadian government) of terrorism and violence to set the political and constitutional agenda of this country.

    This type of thing must stop and must stop now.

    It is a sad commentary to make but violence works. It has worked in Quebec and will continue to work unless we put a stop to it.

    We don’t like to discuss it in polite company but the threat of violence has hung over us and will continue to do so. It is there and is used not only by the hard separatists (ie, the PQ) but the soft separatists (ie, the Liberal Party of Quebec) as well.

    Unless and until we, as a society say “Stop! Enough!” the sceptre of violence will continue — silently and unsaid — to hang over us. Indeed, we are reluctant to even discuss it.

    But discuss it we must.

    Posted on January 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm e
  27. 27
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Sorry, to belabour the point, but I’m on a roll (and you know me).

    Another case in point: Gerald Godin, the late member of the PQ and a minister in successive PQ governments, once said on film:

    “Only bombs, in fact, were the ideal communication process to convince the English we were after soming important”.

    Not only was Godin never taken to task for this comment or asked to retract it but the Quebec Government saw fit to name an institution of higher learning (a CEGEP in the West Island) after him in the very neighbourhood traditionally inhabited by the very people — anglophones — to whom he justified the use of terrorism against.

    An institutionof higher learning in which impressionable young minds are molded named after a person who apologised for and justified the use of terrorism. And not only won’t we take his shameful name off of that institution, we refuse to even discuss the issue.

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    Posted on January 30


September 24, 2012

Every so often we are republishing posts that are or were particularly important. From 2008, this page is the 4th most-visited on


As this is being written Canada has not won a single medal at the Bejing Olympics. Australia, with a much smaller population, has won several. Even Togo, Algeria and poor old Georgia have made it to the medal podium. Canada – not a one.

What’s the matter with us? The critics’ answers are coming in fast. Canada doesn’t take the Olympics seriously enough. The Canadian government does not spend enough money on Olympic sports. Canadian taxpayers must shell out more, much more, on elite sports programs to identify, develop and fine-tune athletes who can make us proud at the Olympics. If Australia can do, so should we, the critics say.

Let’s look at the money argument. Ottawa now spends some $166 million a year on sports in general. In addition to that Ottawa doles out more than $40 million a year to support high-performance-international-grade athletes. Canadian taxpayers routinely give annual subsidies of as much as $18,000 to registered Olympic and Paralympic hopefuls.

So should we spend more money on Olympic athletes? Not according to the Montreal Gazette we shouldn’t . Instead of spending another dime on Olympic athletes, the government should spend any extra money on general participation sports and build a few basketball courts in places like Montreal North where police killed the young black man. The Gazette asks whether perfecting a few specialists to win medals is really a worthy national goal.

Instead the Gazette argues that taxpayers’ money should be spent on sports in ways which will more directly affect the well-being of large numbers of Canadians.

Should more money go to elite or participation sports?

Are you embarrassed that on the seventh day of the Olympics Canada has not won a single medal?

Be the first to like this.

Posted by Neil McKenty on August 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Filed under current events  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI


  1. 1
    Chimera Says:

    I’m not embarrassed at all by the lack of Canadian medals. Why would I be? I’ve never been a vicarious hanger-on, to suck “national pride” from individual effort. I’m not against anyone else’s doing it, but I don’t understand it.

    I am absolutely, categorically, resolvedly against the shelling out of more taxpayer dollars for the support of professional athletes who do no more than practise their jobs four years at a time for the express purpose of showing off their skill levels for two weeks. I don’t see why they can’t fall back on the old system of patronage, in which each athlete has private and well-moneyed supporters.

    I will agree with the Gazette that general participation in sports of some kind (and not necessarily team sports, either) can be beneficial and healthy, and that if taxpayer dollars are going to go anywhere in sports, in should be to the general populace, who are paying for it, after all!

    Why would anyone want to shell out money from which he cannot benefit?

    Posted on August 15, 2008 at 6:11 pm e
  2. 2
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Has it occured to anyone that maybe, just maybe, Canada has no medals because maybe, just maybe, our drug testing programs are more efficient or more real than other countries’s and therefore our cleaner athletes just aren’t up to the competition despite Speedos LZR Racers and other equipment? I’d much rather have honest athletes than medals.

    Posted on August 15, 2008 at 11:36 pm e
  3. 3
    exposrip Says:

    Chimera, they’re amateurs not professionals. Big difference in my opinion. The amateur athlete has a purpose in society.

    I’ve heard a lot of “we’re doing enough and it doesn’t matter” garbage coming from people. We really have no respect or understanding of what constitutes an Olympian. Neil, you’re a sports fan and you know what sacrifices they do.

    It annoys me to hear how this doesn’t bother people. It proves, in its own way, how we simply don’t value excellence.

    Our athletes are caught between segments of the media making incomprehensible social commentaries, no corporate support and an apathetic society that accepts mediocrity.

    What’s the Gazette’s point? So, build more basketball courts and then what? Watch society heal itself? Where’s the role of the parents in all this?

    More importantly, what does this tell the athlete that wants to represent their country? It tells them it’s not worth it.

    So, if the Gazette thinks this way (and I’m not surprised at how they ditched the Expos) then why have an Olympic team at all? If we’re not going to take it seriously because we don’t feel it’s important then don’t make a mockery of it and participate. Because you know what? EVERY MAJOR NATION takes it seriously.

    This is typical parochial Canada. When the tough gets going pull back and claim we need to put our resources elsewhere. We did this with the military and we promptly became a peacekeeping nation that just as quickly didn’t have the capabilities or muscle to pull its weight. We have a mismanaged health system and poor education. Now sports is heading that way.

    I would prefer my money going to a dedicated and upstanding Canadian athlete than to the projects to be honest. The Gazette is right up to a point but it shouldn’t come at the EXPENSE of our Olympians. Get real.

    I guess the concept of fully integrated athletes as the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Italian Humanists and Victorian England taught goes -whoosh – right over the heads of us Canadians.

    Support our damn athletes and do it with properly and with pride for once.

    The irony of course is that our athletes are performing well breaking all sorts of personal records. The swim team is not winning but much improved from Athens.

    The question is do we want to go beyond this and become world class.

    Posted on August 16, 2008 at 1:20 am e
  4. 4
    exposrip Says:

    And by the way, I hope God willing, to earn enough money to actually do my bit one day and help sponsor an athlete.

    Posted on August 16, 2008 at 1:23 am e
  5. 5
    Chimera Says:

    Exposrip, if the athletes get compensated for what they do, they’re professionals, not amateurs. But, definition of “amateur” aside, precisely what societal purpose do you think they serve?

    Take it seriously? Okay…you take it seriously, but allow me my ambivalence, willya? Too much is taken seriously altogether. I gotta get my indifference where I can… ;)

    Posted on August 16, 2008 at 4:40 am e
  6. 6
    exposrip Says:

    I do take it seriously!

    Amateur athletes represent the nation. Once they’re done they don’t have contracts to sustain them. They train, get funding, maybe win endorsements if they’re the best and that’s it. Then they go back into society. They’re not professionals. Maybe the lines have gotten blurred now a little ( I don’t agree one iota in letting pros in the Olympics. As fun as it is to watch Lionel Messi and Duane Wade they have no business being there) but the idea of the amateur athlete remains in tact.

    The amateur program is meant to represent nations in the field of sports. What societal purpose do they serve? Like I mentioned above, this subject has been tackled by far better minds than I but just read what thinkers in Anc. Greece/Rome, Renaissance Italy, Victorian England and modern America have to say about it. Sports is a component of our total social being.

    But you’re right about one thing.

    It’s ok to be indifferent on this. But my point is that if we’re going to participate the least we can do is take care of our athletes. I point you all to Cam Cole’s article in today’s Gazette. Read it carefully.

    And that’s one small part. You could literally write a book on the second-rate nature of how we treat athletes. Remember that Canadian cyclist who won gold in Athens while her coach watched from a bar in Edmonton because they had no money? Was that right?

    I know people who have been part of the Olympics and it’s embarrassing to see how sometimes Canada looks like a ragged country; from begging for bike spokes to training with OTHER NATIONS TO GET FUNDING.

    Posted on August 16, 2008 at 9:12 pm e
  7. 7
    exposrip Says:

    ‘But you’re right about one thing” was mistyped. I was going to use it as a connection to pros in the Olympics. Sorry.

    Posted on August 16, 2008 at 9:14 pm e
  8. 8
    April Says:

    Canada doesn’t spend enough on the olympics period. It’s a joke really, Canada has no pride whatsoever and it’s really sad. Rowing is Canada’s best sport; yet they said on TV that Canada spends 800 000 a year on Canadian Rowing whereas Britain spends 12 000 000 a year on British Rowing, and there not even that great at it. So imagine what they spend on the sports they put more depth in to… The Canadian government is a joke. Instead of giving the Native Indians free everything, most of that should be going towards Canadian olympic sports.

    Posted on August 18, 2008 at 3:35 am e
  9. 9
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    Since your comment came in Canada has won seven medals, including two gold. So we must be doing something right. Thanks for your comment.

    Posted on August 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm e
  10. 10
    cody hollman Says:

    i think that we should be paying more caues we are making are athliets look bad we should be paying more on training our athliets

    Posted on October 16, 2008 at 7:10


September 18, 2012

Every so often we are republishing posts that are or were particularly important. From March 2009, this page is the third most-visited on


When President Obama was in Washington he said he loved Canada.  And so he should.  We provide most of the energy consumed by his country and much else beside.  Canada is America’s largest trading partner.

I expect Canada is the United States best friend.  But a new poll asks the question who is the United States “most valuable ally.”   I take it that ally connotes some military capability.  The poll showed that 36 per cent of Americans believe Great Britain is their most valuable ally.  Canada came in second at 29 per cent.  (If the Russians ever invade through the north poll I really don’t see how Great Britain can be any help to anybody.)

Also it is somewhat ironic that this poll came out the day British prime minister Gordon Brown visited President Obama in the Oval Office.  Many commentators felt Obama snubbed Brown.  No joint news conference, no invitation to Camp David, only a 90-minute working lunch.  What gives?

Canada was more popular than Great Britain among Democrats and among Americans living near the Canadian border.  It would seem that those who know us best like us most.

Pierre Trudeau once said Canada is like a mouse up against the American elephant.  And whenever the elephant sneezes Canada catches cold.

Nevertheless I have seldom met an American who does not like Canada (most of them have visited us). Except for those right wing nuts who believe we are all raving socialists.

Have we got a better friend than the U.S?  If so who is it.

Has the United States got a better friend than Canada?  If so who is it?


Be the first to like this.

Posted by Neil McKenty on March 5, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Filed under current events  |  Tags: best friends, Canada and United States  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI





Paul Costopoulos Says:

Neil, countries do not have friends,only temporary interests sharing allies and/or trade partners. When interests or trading needs change or internal pressure becomes too strong (the lumber war) those links can easily snap or be redirected where it suits best.
As for Russia, in any case, if it comes to war we will be the privileged fighting ground with an overhead canopy of missiles heading both ways.

Posted on March 5, 2009 at 2:59 pm e


Barbara Says:

I am sorry, Neil, but this is silly, deep-down Canadian silly. Paul is right. Canada is the USA’s friendly, peaceful northern neighbour. Britain is the USA’s long-ago “mother country” and stalwart ally even when things are going badly for the USA. There is, at bottom, no emotional tie. It is a mutual respect between partners. You have, a number of times, taken pride when Canada stood up to the USA. The USA may interpret that standing up differently, as an unsupportive gesture. It does not matter who, in the end, is right or wrong. Over time, it matters little because every country does what is in its own best interests and the basic relationship between the two countries is peaceable.

Respect is worth more than all the fawning in the world. If a Canadian asks if the Americans love his/her country, OF COURSE they will be polite and say they do. What’s not to love? Canada, for the most part, speaks English, has gorgeous scenery, relatively safe streets, polite people. Ask Americans what they think of Canadian politics or foreign policy and you will get a puzzled look.

Posted on March 5, 2009 at 5:23 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

This blog post reinforces my hypothesis that Canadians have an over inflated sense of self-worth.

Get over ourselves already and stop asking stupid questions (like ‘does america like us?’ or ‘look, there goes Michelle Obama in a dress made by a guy who lived in canada for 3 months in 1974′…)

It’s embarrassing.

Posted on March 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm e


Chimera Says:

“This blog post reinforces my hypothesis that Canadians have an over inflated sense of self-worth.”

Actually, Joe, I was thinking exactly the opposite — most Canadians have very little sense of self-worth, judging by the fact that “we” keep trying to claim everybody else in the world as “best friend.”

The only reason I have not completely thrown over the traces and joined the other side is that occasionally, we put our little foot down on a principle, and we refuse to budge no matter how much pressure another nation state brings to bear. Once in awhile. Just to prove the testicles — small as they seem to be — have actually descended.

Paul has it right, I think.

Posted on March 5, 2009 at 10:54 pm e


The Commentator Says:

American right wingers think Canadians are socialists and Canadian left-wingers think Americans are fascists.

North American centermen know better.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 2:32 am e


Chimera Says:

“North American centermen know better.”


“Centermen!” *pumps fist* I like it!

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 2:44 am e


The Commentator Says:

Why thank you, sir.

Nothing like a hockey reference.

“Sips” latte.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 5:11 am e


jim Says:

Well to become friends we have to meet preferably in Canada where I can show you around. Unfortunately a National Geographic Survey reported that in the 18/24 age group 50% could not point out New York State on a map.
They also came in second to last on the Global questionaire.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 8:17 am e


Chimera Says:

“‘Sips’ latte.”

*urk* Latte???

Um…us power forwards much prefer beer.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 8:35 am e


Paul Costopoulos Says:

Us spectators prefer gooseberry wine, but we don’t have it anymore in Québec. Of course café-cognac is something else.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 12:02 pm e


The Commentator Says:

I’m more of a small forward.

Jim, who couldn’t put it out, Americans?

Well, the funny thing is, we never point out how (in our rush to laugh at Americans) we don’t fare that much on these exams. The public school system in Canada is average at best. It’s a race to the bottom with all this “hey, you’re a-ok we’re all equal” nonsense. Heck, here in Quebec we can’t even get updated, English school texts anymore!

In any event, their college system blows us out of the water; it attracts nothing but the best. So all is not lost I guess.

We bash them but want to be loved by them. Oi.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 2:27 pm e


The Commentator Says:

‘don’t fare that much BETTER.’ sorry.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

“Actually, Joe, I was thinking exactly the opposite”

You’re right Chimera… I wasn’t thinking clearly. It’s not an “inflated” sense of self-worth, it’s a FRAGILE EGO! It’s still embarrassing…

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 2:53 pm e


Peter LeBlanc Says:

Commentator,” American right wingers think Canadians are Socialists and Canadian left wingers think Americans are fascists”. Not me as a left wing socialist. I think Americans are socialists as well, but in the wrong direction. I would bail out small business, not big business who are nothing but as Ed Broadbent used to say, “Corporate welfare bums”.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm e


jim Says:

It”s amazing how many of you have been indoctrinated into giving the Western Hemisphere to the USAers. When you say “America” or “American” which country are you addressing, “Canada”, “Mexico” “Bolivia” etc. Saying that one is an “American” does not specifically identify one as being from the USA. You say schooling is better. How can it be? Only the elite can afford to attend. The cost to attend university in the USA is 10 times greater than McGill who by the way have 34,000 students with a faculty of 6,000, how’s that for a ratio.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 6:14 pm e


Joe Agnost Says:

My my Jim, a nerve seems to have been hit!

“America” has been the shorthand for “the united states of america” for as long as I can remember… I don’t have a problem referring to it that way – but then I don’t have a FRAGILE EGO or any self esteem problems!

“The cost to attend university in the USA is 10 times greater than…”

It amazes me how many people think that university cost will stop the bright – but poor – from attending university.

The truly bright ones attend on scholarship.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 6:21 pm e


The Commentator Says:

Seriously, nice try Jim. So pretty much the entire world, great thinkers, academics, novelists and so on have all been “indoctrinated.”

Please, please, puh-lease.

Americans is what they are. Bolivians are,well, Bolivians. Move on.

I say don’t sweat the small stuff. Remember the great singer/composer Randy Newman’s sarcastic words, “South America stole our name…”

And it’s not just the elite who attend. America has a system that is quite impressive. Let’s not get into this: our system doesn’t rival theirs.
They have all the best and brightest.

We have university on the cheap. Maybe that’s why we call Americans, “Americans?” We’re all duped?

Peter, I agree with you. Small business are the engine of our economy and deserve more respect. As for socialism going in the wrong direction, personally, it’s not a direction for me. But, Canada originally imported its socialist ideas from America and we too have taken the bad stuff.

Canada, once long ago, truly was a great, individualist society – some think freer than America. In fact, our economy and political system is pretty free all things considered. But we’ve veered off in my opinion.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 8:39 pm e


The Commentator Says:

By “don’t rival” I don’t mean we’re not competent by the way. However, there is something to easy access meaning lower quality.

Posted on March 6, 2009 at 8:42 pm e


jim Says:

Joe:- I’ve been hearing whay you and others have said about Canadians having Fragile Egos for years. Not true. However we do make sure that we don’t get pushed around by the US bully (Bush etc). To make a point, we are aware of the US’s landgrabbing around the world including Canada with
the Arctic being next.
Do you remember the time that bully LBJ grabbed our Prime Minister by the lapels, when Pearson rubbed LBJ’s fragile ego and LBJ shouted “you are pissing on my carpet”. I sure wish he had of done that to Pierre Trudeau who because of martial arts training would have flattened him.
Most applicants to US Universities are turned away so what good is a scholarship.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot. You had to go very far afield to drum up a list of Universities graded by excellence, but did you have to go to China? However the list did point out that McGill rates higher than most US Universities by a large margin.
You know, when the chips are down and a government calls on academia to come to the fore with the very best talent produced by their educational system, in order to build an Atomic Bomb, why is it that nearly all the scientists were foreign born and the elite universities weren’t so excellent after all. Canadians being “less than ” is all hogwash.

Posted on March 7, 2



September 12, 2012

Every so often we are republishing posts that are or were particularly important. From  September 2009, this page is the second most-visited on


Some years ago when the Liberals were in power,  Stephen Harper charged that the Canadian senate was a dumping ground for political friends and party hacks.  Yet Mr. Harper has just appointed nine of his political friends and party hacks to the Senate including Jacques Demers, the former Canadiens hockey coach who once admitted publicly that he was functionally illiterate.

There are 105 senators all appointed at the whim of the sitting prime minister.   They make $132,000 a year (for sitting four days a week), fly around Canada free and receive generous pensions after they retire at the age of 75.

The senate is supposed to be the chamber of “sober second thought”  examining bills already passed by the Commons.  But can you imagine the unelected senate holding up a bill that has been passed by the elected house of Commons?  There would be a constitutional crisis.

So what is the po int of the Senate?  Should it be abolished?

What do you think?

Posted by Neil McKenty on September 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Filed under Uncategorized  |  Leave a comment


Paul Costopoulos Says:

The Senate should go the way of Québec’s former Legislative council, that is be abolished. We need only the Commons. The Senate harks back to the House of Lords and to the Colonial Office. They are all past their uses and should be put out of their misery.
Problem is amending the constitution to do so. Given the amending formula it is next to impossible to do so…unless all Canadians and all their governments agree. Perhaps it could be possible on the Senate question.
When will we have a government strong and courageous enough to tackle the issue?

Posted on September 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm e

joe agnost Says:

Scrap it… Demers is (kinda) the last straw.

Posted on September 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm e

Janus Says:

We need the Senate in some form. I am not willing to trust any legislative body in power with the loaded weapons of immediacy. They might have the guns, but it’s the senators who hold the ammunition right now.

Maybe having all senators stand for election in their respective provinces would be the answer (note that senators in Canada are appointed from their provinces, not necessarily from political parties).

We could add them to the ballots during provincial elections, building a bullpen of sorts for the next vacancies. Then, as a seat comes vacant in the Red Chamber, the first elected senator in that seat’s province steps into action.

This will accomplish two things (probably more, but I can think of two immediately): it will take the appointments out of the hands of the current federal dictator of whichever party with whatever agenda of his own; and it will give the provinces more of their own say about what happens in Ottawa (because, unlike MPs, senators are not beholden to the party leaders for their very seats).

Did I mention that it will very likely screw up the party political system, and the “stacking” of the odds? That’s a BONUS!

Posted on September 1, 2009 at 8:58 pm e

Neil McKenty Says:

It is quite true that senators are appointed in the provinces but most of them belong to the same political party as the prime minister who appoints them and many of them are political hacks.

Posted on September 1, 2009 at 11:12 pm e

Tony Kondaks Says:

The Senate is supposed to be the chamber of sober second thoughts so that the alleged “mob” mentality of the House of Commons doesn’t rule the day all on its own.

But the Senate is the creature of the political parties and prime ministers that appoint them and that’s far from ensuring sober second thoughts. It’s a home for political patronage.

In the U.S., senators are elected. However, prior to 80 years ago they were appointed by state legislatures (or governors of states? Not sure which…) and then a constitutional amendment changed things. The idea of the U.S. Senate was to hold the power of the federal government in check. Well, with a $10 trillion national debt and the federal government’s sticky fingers in every aspect of American society and I’m thinkin’ that perhaps the old way was better…

Posted on September 2, 2009 at 5:19 am e

Janus Says:

Ah, but Neil, if the way senators were chosen changed in the way I suggested, the choice of who gets into the Senate would be removed from the Prime Minister’s office.

Not only that, but the timing of any senator’s taking his seat would not be under the control of the PMO, either. It could very well happen that during any PM’s reign, one or more senate seats get filled by members of opposition parties. Or even independents.

It would be power back in the hands of the people, where it truly belongs, and not in the PMO, where all the pork is doled out.

Posted on September 2, 2009 at 10:43 am e

black hattitude Says:


Thank you for the great quality of your website, every time i come here, i’m amazed.

I would like to suggest you to come and try the brand new black hattitude.
will find a lot of stuff related to the black hattitude,

You can buy some black hattitude, rent black hattitude, steal black hattitude, or find
the ultimate black hattitude on our site.


John McCormick

black hattitude

Posted on September 7, 2009 at 9:38 pm e

Lina Says:


Posted on October 12, 2010 at 3:1


Top blog posting: IS RELIGION A HOAX?

September 5, 2012

Every so often we are republishing posts that are or were particularly important. From way back in the early days of Neil’s blog, September 2008, this page is the most-visited on


Bill Maher is one of my favourite comedians. He is funny and he is caustic.

Both these traits are on grand display in Maher’s documentary film, Religulous, in which he visits religious communites around the world from a trucker’s chapel in North Carolina to the Vatican and concludes that religion has done more harm than good.

Maher’s own religious background is ambiguous. He was born to a Jewish mother and a Catholic father: “I used to go to confession, but I would bring a lawyer.”

Maher sees organized religion as one of the world’s great evils, responsible for wars, crusades, the oppression of minorities, “the keeping of women in beekeeper suits,” burning witches, exorcisms, honour killings, and sex with children: “Did I leave anything out?”

He expects protest and he’s used to it. For instance, when Pope Benedict visited the United States in April, Maher said that if he had been the head of a nationwide chain of day care centers that had covered up so much child abuse, the Holy Father would not have been given a parade, he would have been arrested.

Maher acknowledges that religious groups have been an effective organizing tool for charity work, soup kitchens, feeding the poor and missionaries – but claims all of this could have been accomplished without “the bells and whistles of religion.”

Maher says the point of Religulous is to make people laugh and then realize with a start that there may be some truth in what he is saying.

Maher also hopes his documentary will start a real debate about the efficacy of religion: “This is the last taboo. For the longest time people have not even broached this subject. You can’t even talk about a person’s faith. Why don’t we examine a person’s faith or ask the more basic question that I ask in the film, “Why is faith good? Why is it good to stop thinking?”

Maher rejects the notion that his film is an attack on extremist religious groups only: ” Have you seen the nonsense and the destructive nature ( of the the Bible)? – becaue it’s as integral to religion as the Constitution is to the United States.

“If you believe in a talking snake and you believe that the world is 5,000 years old [cue Sarah Palin] and you believe you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space God on Sunday, ipso facto, you’re a rube.”

Maher’s polemic reminded me of a conversation I had this summer in Maine about religion with a couple who had just turned forty. The woman had been brought up a devout Catholic in Ireland, the man an Anglican in Montreal. I would think they are now atheists.

Neither of them could understand how so many people could go on believing that the man Jesus now resided, living and breathing, in a paper-thin slice of bread. Where other people saw a sacrament, they saw the Eucharist as a male power grab to control millions of credulous people over the ages.

Do you think they’re onto something?

Is Bill Maher onto something?

Is religion a hoax?

Posted by Neil McKenty on September 18, 2008 at 11:41 am
Filed under Religion  |  Tags: control of millions, religion a fraud  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI


  1. 1
    sulochanosho Says:

    A good post indeed to ponder over the lures and failures of our religions. True religion is to live life. Religions, relics, archives are mere dead memories. Life is here and now.

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm e
  2. 2
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

    sulochansho –

    As you suggest this life is not to be spent preparing for the next. This life is for living.

    Thank you for your comment.

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 1:35 pm e
  3. 3
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “the Holy Father would not have been given a parade, he would have been arrested.”

    Very true…

    “If you believe in a talking snake and you believe that the world is 5,000 years old [cue Sarah Palin] and you believe you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space God on Sunday, ipso facto, you’re a rube.”

    That’s not the nicest way of putting it… but it’s TOTALLY true!

    I’ve never understood how seemingly normal, logical people can buy into this utter (and obvious) BS!! It’s defies logic!

    Organized religion is the biggest scam in history…

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 3:06 pm e
  4. 4
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Since the beginning of humanity people have felt the need to come together for security purposes. Coming together they also felt the need to share common values. The primitives not knowing much and awed by the sheer force of nature felt the need to explain the ununderstandable. Religious thought was born. As long as they remained in small groups that sentiment remained manageable. With larger groups, expanding territory and culture clashes a system started getting in place. Organized religion was born. The stronger group then imposed it’s beliefs on weaker ones. Churches were born.
    All this had nothing to do with God, only with a naked power grab by the dominant group of the time.
    I have come to distinguish between religiosity and spirituality. Spirituality is a personal thing, it’s a way of thinking, of analysing and of coming to grips with material and immaterial things. It also calls for tolerance and openness. Not having a system or structure to protect and finance it does not need organisation other than mental. It does not even need a group. One is alone with his soul and his responsibility towards himself and others. Wether you believe in God, which I do, or not spirituality is an option, since we all participate of the spirit, etymologically, spirit means to breath and live. Don’t we all?

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm e
  5. 5
    Chimera Says:

    Wow. Good answers, all.

    Absolutely, religion is a hoax. It is also a choice. And when anyone chooses to accept a religion and keep it personal and private, it’s a benevolent hoax that harms none. A victimless hoax, if you will.

    However, when it’s put on a pedestal and other people are told they must bow down to it and give it a credence it does not merit, it becomes a weapon aimed at the freedom of choice we all deserve. And if anyone aims that weapon at me, I will return fire.

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 5:41 pm e
  6. 6
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

    I am puzzled that we don’t seem to have a single defender of religion.

    Should I be?

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 10:51 pm e
  7. 7
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Neil, if you feel like it, I pray thee do, but do not feel compelled to do so. I guess Chimera had the right formulation: “when anyone chooses to accept religion, etc…”
    To be sure, it helps a lot of people who would otherwise be rudderless and possibly dangerous. On the other hand some religious leaders are dangerous themselves. It’s all a jugment call.

    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 11:07 pm e
  8. 8
    revromansky Says:

    Here I am to defend. If by religion you mean a meaningless dead political system built only on overbearing dogma, I have to agree with you.

    But if by religion you mean a corporate fellowship built on eternal spiritual principles, Maher does religion a disservice. Paul put it right distinguishing between religion and spirituality; however, just because millions of people believe in the same basic theology does not automatically disqualify them; they would be considered among a body of believers rather than a member of a religion.

    It sounds simplistic, but really applies in this case. “I’m not religious, I just love the Lord.”

    Maher is a cynical Worm Tongue of a man who amply reflects the hatred and vitriol typical to the atheist. He confuses political systems, that rose out of true Christianity, with God, lumping God in with, for instance, the Inquisition. By the way, the Inquisitors murdered more true Christians than any other group; hence a clear bifurcation between the Church political system and the true Church even in one of the events most referenced by atheists as “proof”.

    I’ve found that atheists generally hate the IDEA of God, pointing to Christians and the Church as proof that God, if he did exist, is evil. Hating an idea is not equivalent to not believing an idea. Every honest atheist will admit to cursing God. As a former atheist, I took my cursing of God as a self-admission that he is. The rest is history.

    Jesus loves you


    Posted on September 18, 2008 at 11:21 pm e
  9. 9
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

    revromansky –

    “Hating an idea is not equivalent to not believing an idea.”

    Well said, and many thanks for your thoughtful comment.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 12:03 am e
  10. 10
    Chimera Says:

    Revromansky, atheists can’t hate what doesn’t exist for them. They also don’t curse that which doesn’t exist for them. What would be the point in doing such a superfluous, waste-of-time thing?

    “Hating an idea is not equivalent to not believing an idea.”

    Of course not. In order to hate something, it has to exist in your reality. If it exists, you can’t not believe in it.

    Diety does not exist for atheists, therefore they cannot hate it or the idea of it.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 1:41 am e
  11. 11
    jim Says:

    If one doesn’t believe in God they are going to have a hell of a hard time on their deathbed.
    If one doesn’t believe in God, look for him in nature.
    If one needs help in believing in a God and you would like to see the hand of God, let me point out that his creation of infinity is beyond science and our imagination. If there is an end to infinity, then what is beyond it? See what I mean?. Out there is the hand of God. Question,
    when I look out there do I actually see the Infinity.
    As far as the mortals go, we should have known what was in store for us regarding some of the clergy – Isaiah Chapter 4 Verse 3 (This statement made by an army captain, honourable in countenance, and skillful in eloquent speech) “and I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them”. Because B16 is not taking corrective measures to dump the limpwrists, he has lost his moral authority, the worst thing that can happen to a leader. By the way I’ve reserved a priest to give me extreme unction on my deathbed.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 2:07 am e
  12. 12
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

    Interesting comment, Jim

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 3:19 am e
  13. 13
    exposrip Says:

    I defend religion on my blog all the time.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 4:20 am e
  14. 14
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “amply reflects the hatred and vitriol typical to the atheist.”

    Oh please… what BS. Atheists are not hate filled people despite what religious people ~like~ to believe!
    They just don’t believe in god(s) – that’s it people! There is nothing else!

    “I’ve found that atheists generally hate the IDEA of God”

    I’m an atheist and I don’t hate the idea of god. I simply find it ridiculous. There is no “hate” involved.

    “Every honest atheist will admit to cursing God. As a former atheist…”

    Your first sentence negates your second one. You were never an atheist – you might have pretended (to yourself) but you weren’t. I can promise you that I do not “curse god”. It would never occur to me to curse that which I don’t even believe exists!

    “If one doesn’t believe in God they are going to have a hell of a hard time on their deathbed.”

    I hate to break it to you buddy but god/no_god – you’re going to have a hell of a time on your deathbed. It can’t be a nice feeling – to feel oneself dying.

    But the idea of an afterlife is irrelevant! Being an atheist doesn’t mean I fear death. On the contrary – I know death is necessary and the circle of life means my worm-food body will do some good after I die!

    “If one needs help in believing in a God…”

    Why would anyone need help? I am perfectly happy living in the real world thank you very much! The idea that anyone “needs” god is insulting!

    “his creation of infinity is beyond science and our imagination. If there is an end to infinity, then what is beyond it? See what I mean?”

    No. I don’t see what you mean… I don’t follow you at all here… You seem to be talking nonsense.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 2:18 pm e
  15. 15
    Peter LeBlanc Says:


    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 4:25 pm e
  16. 16
    Chimera Says:

    “Interesting comment, Jim.”

    You’re being too kind, Neil. It was a bunch of bafflegab without cohesion. Kinda like a politician’s promise. And the most glaring clue was the reference to an “end to infinity.”

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 5:27 pm e
  17. 17
    jim Says:

    Don’t you know that infinity has an end? It ends with a “y”. My blurb was not supposed to have cohesion. I take it you don’t recognize jottings when you see them. The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on…….

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 6:05 pm e
  18. 18
    Joe Agnost Says:

    @jim: Rather than an incoherent rant would you like to explain your “jottings” for us? Are you showing by example the kind of thinking that religion will lead us to? :)

    What about jim’s comment was “interesting” neil??

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 6:15 pm e
  19. 19
    Peter LeBlanc Says:

    Hi Neil, I always look forward to watching Bill Maher on the Larry King show.

    There is obvious some truth in what he says. Just read the history of Christianity.

    The Church has provided millions of people with a great deal of comfort and nurturance throughout the ages. Atheists who don’t think there is a God because of lack of proof would agree with Jesus who said to Peter that flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven. Therefore it is faith that provides us with our belief.

    Faith leads to hope in life eternal. A Church experience that is holy infuses us with cosmic hospitality which is catholic or universal and means Jesus came for the whole world and not just you and me.
    It doesn’t matter if we know God, God knows us.

    It is faith that tells us that God is present in the Eucharist. God is all depth, all breadth, all width, and all length. He is cosmic in His dimensions. The Sacrament heightens our awareness of the everywhereness of God and when we eat God we believe.

    I don’t think there on to anything. I think there a little bit off.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 7:22 pm e
  20. 20
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It’s really great to see you back.

    Posted on September 19, 2008 at 9:00 pm e
  21. 21
    imabbb Says:

    Never confuse religion with God. Greed and lust for power have corrupted the message, but the truth is still there. The best we can do is to try to keep an open mind and look for the common points in our major religions.

    Oppose intolerance, love your neighbors!

    Posted on September 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm e
  22. 22
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    Many thanks for your thoughtful comment.

    Posted on September 20, 2008 at 5:40 pm e
  23. 23
    Chimera Says:

    Imabbb, you have an interesting outlook on things. I captured this paragraph from your blog:

    “Another thing I’m pretty sure of is that God is not a megalomaniac. She is not interested in your worship. Someone great enough to create the universe would not need to be put on a pedestal and adored. Such a desire would imply that God is immature and shallow. Why would anyone respect such a god?”

    Why, indeed? I’d purely love to eavesdrop on some of your conversations with fundies…

    Posted on September 20, 2008 at 7:00 pm e
  24. 24
    Terry Brady Says:

    Hello Neal
    I was looking for Opus Dei’s position on evolution when I came across your website. I have fond memories of your radio show when I lived in Montreal twenty years ago and I’m glad to see that you are still at it.

    Re: Bill Maher and Atheism.
    First let’s look at why Religion is such a hot topic, especially in the United States. Since “the permissive1960’s” the religious right, in reaction to perceived hedonism, has been gaining disproportional political power in the United States. Should the Republicans win the next election, they will be in a position to appoint perhaps as many as three Supreme Court Judges. This will put them in a position to overthrow hard fought “settled law” such as a woman’s right to choose an abortion (The singular hot topic for the ultra religious right.) And a relatively youthful and conservative Supreme Court could or would likely hold sway for several generations.

    But that’s just the beginning. A whole myriad of hot issues such as (teaching creationism along with evolution), are at risk. Christian Fundamentalists, particularly the Dominionists are a hair’s breath away from turning the United States into a fundamentalist theocracy. So we have a country whose bedrock paradigm was based on (the Separation of Church and State) now in jeopardy of having religious dictates trumping their Constitution.

    This would not be a liberal theocracy. The fundamentalists are well organized. They have infiltrated all branches of the military, where they proselytize at will (contravening military law.) And via wedge issues, they have “Steeple-jacked” or infiltrated the Synods of many Congregationalist churches. (Episcopalian, Methodist and Lutheran to name a few.) They have done so in order to enhance both their political power and wealth. Just like Opus Dei, secrecy and stealth is their modus operenndie.

    One needs to look no further than the present day U.S. Justice Department to see what they have accomplished so far in their rise to power. (For instance you have an Attorney General, calling the Constitution “quaint” and young Christian zealots, graduates of Pat Robertson’s school of law, politicizing the Department of Justice in the name of God.) A very unchristian attitude don’t you think?

    So what does this all have to do with Bill Maher? Like Maher, I was raised Catholic. And like Maher, through a long and arduous process I came to the conclusion that there is no god, at least not a Judeo/Christian or Islamic one. Unlike the atheist Maher, I’m more comfortable being agnostic. I’m prepared to admit the possibility of a deity, just not one that curries favor on mankind.

    We have been down this road once before. Do we really want to return to the age of Oliver Cromwell?
    I join with Maher and so many others such as Richard Dawkins that must cry out against un-civilizing civilization. Aristotle “the philosopher” may have had the right answers for the pre-Christian era and Augutine and Aquinas might have been perfectly legitimate models for their time. But none of them have answers for our pluralistic post-modern world. And none of them have accomplished anything more beneficial for mankind that a lowly country doctor hasn’t surpassed.

    “Seek and ye shall find.” Yes but what if your search replaces your faith with reason and dogma by logic?
    Edward Gibbon claimed that not a single medical advance was made by the entire Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire 300ce – 1453ce. And the renaissance period of Islam 800ce.with Bagdad as the city of light, advanced civilization and the sciences until it plunged itself into darkness by embracing religious dogma 1100ce.
    And here we are in the 21st century with segments of many religious faiths denying science. Their willful ignorance towards evolution and biology, indeed science as a whole, is appalling. I refuse to have my children and grand children thrown back into darkness and I particularly don’t wish it on your daughters and mine.

    People of faith are entitled to their faith. It’s a free country. They are also fully entitled to participate in government. But they are not entitled to their own facts. And they are not entitled to cease power by subterfuge. Nor are they entitled to dogmatic governance should they attain power. That is why so many atheists, agnostics and people of good will have come out of the woodwork to stop them. I FULLY EXPECT THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS “THERE”, WILL HAPPEN “HERE.”

    Oh, and by the way, Opus Dei’s position on evolution? It’s a secret.

    Terry Brady

    Posted on September 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm e
  25. 25
    Cornelius T. Zen Says:

    Good morrow, all!
    The premise of religion is not that Man needs God; the premise of religion is that God needs Man. Consider the phrase “God-fearing.”
    Why should one fear Someone who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and all-forgiving? The opposite of fear is trust. Whatever/whomever one would trust, one need not fear. And vice-versa. Therefore, “God-fearing” adherents of the Religions of the Book do not trust their God. Interesting. Very interesting.
    I believe that such belittles The One Whose Word Is Life. Lewis Black once observed that “the God of the Old Testament…was a prick.”
    The Almighty, as portrayed in the Old Testament, and many books of the Quran, comes across as capricious, petty, cruel…um, human…
    I admire the Jewish people. They are the only religion with the balls to argue with God. And, wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, they’re still around. Must be something to it. Maybe TOWWIL needs us to remind Him/Her that life should go on. Not a bad idea, I trust? CTZen

    Posted on September 20, 2008 at 11:51 pm e
  26. 26
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    I’m really glad that we have connected again after so many years. Thanks you for your thoughtful and informed comment. I hope you will come back from time to time.

    Posted on September 21, 2008 at 12:55 am e
  27. 27
    exposrip Says:

    I highly recommend this article. The religious right is not a monolithic entity.

    Posted on September 21, 2008 at 4:13 am e
  28. 28
    Terry Brady Says:

    Thank you for your kind words Neil
    I promise to return every once and a while
    I’d like to thank Exposrip for steering me on to a very interesting article It is a very good summary of Protestant faith in the United States. I’m not sure if the article was directed at me or not but I’d like to critique his comment if I may.
    Re: Fundamentalism /Liberalism/ Evangelicalism
    “Not a monolithic entity”
    No, it is not. Nor does it have to be to usurp the reins of political power. Did GWB actually win in 2000 or 2004?
    Did anyone foresee the subversive Constitutional train wreck that would be brought on by George Bush?
    Government support of faith based charities.
    Science under siege in the classroom and in the laboratories.
    Anti-Woman’s rights decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. (equal pay)
    Anti-Affirmative action decisions by the U.S. Supreme court. (private school issues – read “segregation.”)
    Support for torture!
    Spying on U.S. citizens
    Not to mention two wars brought on by the ideals of U.S Manifest destiny etc.
    Who knew before GWB took power that he would be guided by God and not the Constitution? Who knew that he would be so regressive?
    Who knew that he would completely disregard his oath of office.
    All of this brought on because recently politicized fundamentalists / some evangelicals / some Catholics (Opus Dei?) believe that the Bible trumps the Constitution. Ah yes, the Lord works in mysterious ways.
    Bill Maher would say – I can’t imagine a Godless society doing any worse.
    If GWB was round one, can you imagine what a openly fundamentalist government would look like?
    Let Jesus Christ have the last word – Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s)
    I only wish that he had added another line. (And never the twain shall meet.)
    I leave you with an equally interesting link: Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith
    Terry Brady

    Posted on September 21, 2008 at 8:34 pm e
  29. 29
    Cornelius T. Zen Says:

    Good morrow, all!
    Jesus also said: The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath. And: He who would lead must first serve. And: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. (*whack*) MOM! (okay, I stole the last part from Dave Allen)
    If the fundies actually READ the Gospels, they would see themselves in the portrayal of the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees and the Saddusees. On second thought, I take that back. It is precisely BECAUSE they are fundamentalist that they are blind to the plank in their own eyes, while getting their knickers in a knot over the mote in the eyes of their brother.
    My philosophy is simple:
    All men are brothers. All women are sisters. All children are family. All life is precious. All we really have is each other. Let there be peace.

    Posted on September 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm e
  30. 30
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Yes CTZ, I can imagine. Unfortunately all I can do, as long as men will be men, that is all I can do…besides trying the best I can to be peaceful and brotherly myself.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 11:06 am e
  31. 31
    revromansky Says:

    Now I find that belief in God is “not your reality”. Where is this reality, and why is it different than any other? Is it at a P.O. Box, or can it be found down at the corner store.

    As to “let there be peace”, why? Atheism spawned the murder of 40 million Russians via the Bolshevik Revolution in just the last century. Why not “let there be murder”?

    Even Dawkins believes in intelligent design, which theory has a firm scientific basis.

    Respectfully, I challenge any one of you to give me firm scientific theoretical basis for atheism. Or is science not part of your “reality”?

    We are not so smart as God is dumb.


    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 4:27 pm e
  32. 32
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Respectfully, I challenge any one of you to give me firm scientific theoretical basis for atheism. Or is science not part of your ‘reality’?”

    The scientific basis for atheism is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence for god(s).

    I am an atheist for the same reason I don’t believe in santa claus!

    “Even Dawkins believes in intelligent design”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this… Dawkins most certainly does NOT “believe in” intelligent design! What an odd thing to say!

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 5:21 pm e
  33. 33
    revromansky Says:

    Ben Stein’s “Expelled”. Dawkins blows it big time. Odd, but true.

    Intelligent design is a sound theory that, at its basis, points to a higher being, traditionally referred to as God. Might want to research ID before dismissing it.

    God Bless,


    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 5:48 pm e
  34. 34
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Ben Stein’s ‘Expelled’. Dawkins blows it big time. Odd, but true.”

    Yikes! You have just lost ANY credibility you (might) have had… Stein’s movie is NOT factual. Why not read what Dawkins himself says about this movie (and the way they tricked him into appearing, and edited his interview with BS to appear the way it does)… here’s the link:,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

    Skip to the paragraph that begins: “Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred”

    Dawkins continues to explain what you see in the movie… he puts it into context – which also happens to completely change it’s meaning!


    “Intelligent design is a sound theory”

    It’s not even a SCIENTIFIC theory – much less a “sound” one!

    “Might want to research ID before dismissing it.”

    I’ll tell you what – as soon as anyone (and I mean ANYONE) produces a peer-reviewed article on ID, I will read it.

    Sadly, you don’t seem aware that this hasn’t happened yet.

    It’s simply NOT science… it’s theology.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 6:08 pm e
  35. 35
    Chimera Says:

    “I challenge any one of you to give me firm scientific theoretical basis for atheism.”

    Why? What makes you think there is any science in atheism? And why should there be?

    And as for reality, I create my own. That is part of my religion. And the only person to whom I need answer for that is me.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 6:43 pm e
  36. 36
    Joe Agnost Says:

    I just re-read the dawkins link I provided above – it’s a super read! It certainly puts the validity of “expelled” to rest… RIP!

    So Rev…. do you have anything to add about ID now?

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 7:03 pm e
  37. 37
    revromansky Says:

    Why not rent the DVD and find out what Dawkins is sputtering about? He states he believes in intelligent design, howbeit alien in source. He can backtrack all he wants, whining about being set up, but that only belies his confoundment at his own admissions. Another religious icon is shattered, and his followers scrabble to reassemble the pieces.

    And so we conveniently, and strawman-edly, avoid the blood that lies at the altar of atheism as well as the the quite founded scientific theory of Intelligent Design.

    Gentlemen, it’s not about words, which can be subtily crafted and woven in a veritable Babel of sounds. It’s about the pressure of Spirit, which you paradoxically deny and to which you respond.


    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm e
  38. 38
    Chimera Says:

    Rev, you are so full of it, I’ll bet your eyes are brown.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm e
  39. 39
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    I think it would be preferable to advance an argument than hurl an epithet.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm e
  40. 40
    Joe Agnost Says:

    My comments aren’t showing up… I’ve posted several replies to the “rev” and none of them have appeared!

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 8:36 pm e
  41. 41
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “the quite founded scientific theory of Intelligent Design”

    Why persist? Do you enjoy looking silly in blog comments??

    I said it before, but let me repeat it slightly differently:

    If ID is scientific, in ANY way, please show me ONE peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal (of any kind) which discusses the science behind it.

    This can’t possibly be difficult to produce – you insist that ID is science… ONE (just ONE!) article would be great!

    You know what? You won’t be able to do it… because it isn’t science.

    I can’t believe I’m having this discussion… have you not heard of the Dover PA case of 2005? Google “DOVER PA ID” and you’ll get the info…

    The judge, in no uncertain terms, called ID religious and NOT scientific in ANY way. He then threw the ID bums out of court…. :)

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 8:39 pm e
  42. 42
    Chimera Says:

    Neil, there is no argument to that tripe. Any attempt to counter with actual facts is being dismissed wholesale.

    Rev says Dawkins “believes in” “Intelligent Design.” Dawkins says he does not. Yet Rev insists that he does. Why should I even give credence to such garbage?

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 9:00 pm e
  43. 43
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

    Well, of course, one option is to ignore him.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 9:05 pm e
  44. 44
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    You know what? All “isms” generate hot air and intolerance. We do have a brilliant demontration here.

    Posted on September 23, 2008 at 11:42 pm e
  45. 45
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “If ID is scientific, in ANY way, please show me ONE peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal (of any kind) which discusses the science behind it.”

    You know what? Perhaps I scared the Rev off with this request. The last part isn’t necessary.

    So Rev: Just provide ANY peer-reviewed article in ANY science journal that discusses ID. Anything at all….

    (note: I took the “discusses the science behind it” out – not that it will matter. They don’t publish BS in science journals so he’ll never succeed in this task).

    “All ‘isms’ generate hot air and intolerance.”

    Not necessarily. Being an atheist (to me) simply means that I have no belief in god(s). I don’t think I’ve been “intolerant” or full of “hot air” in this thread either. I do tend to get my knickers in a knot when the discussion turns to ID as science. This isn’t atheistic though – this is about science and religion trying to masquerade as science.

    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm e
  46. 46
    revromansky Says:

    How’s this, gents? Instead of commenting on what Dawkins said he said, why not rent the DVD and see what he said? I know it’s a novel idea to go to the source, but there you go. All of $4, and you really gotta love Ben Stein.

    Or you could just continue to say what Dawkins said about what he said. Wouldn’t want to see a crack in the icon.


    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm e
  47. 47
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Instead of commenting on what Dawkins said he said, why not rent the DVD and see what he said?”

    Because Dawkins doesn’t deny what he said! I KNOW what he said – he does too. Seeing him actually say what he already admits to saying would be of no use – what would the point be?
    He doesn’t DENY what he said in the movie – he simply puts WHAT he said into context, and the context CHANGES the meaning (as context often does).

    And I would sooner kiss the pope than give $5 to Ben Stein and his merry band of ignorant idiots!

    The movie is full of untruths and outright lies…


    How’s this Rev – why not provide (even the slightest) bit of evidence that ID is scientific? You claim it’s a “sound theory” and it’s “scientific” – why not prove your point??

    You’ll notice that by avoiding to do this you admit defeat (and continue to appear willfully ignorant).

    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm e
  48. 48
    Cornelius T. Zen Says:

    Good morrow, all! Especially to you, Rev…
    “Atheism spawned the murder of 40 million Russians via the Bolshevik Revolution in just the last century.” Interesting how you equate the philosophy of atheism with the psychosis of one man, Joe Stalin. The Bolsheviks sought to substitute, by the sword, the worship of the State for the worship of God, just as Christians sought, by the sword, to convert pagans, just as Muslims sought, by the sword, to convert all and sundry in their path. A difference that makes no difference IS no difference.
    Atheism is not a religion. There are no places where, on one day of the week, people gather to compare clothing. Atheists are not more inclined, than religious people, to harm others in the name of The Great Invisible All-Being. For the Bolsheviks, their God was the State, and their prophet was Joe Stalin. Theirs was a Crusade, a Holy War, a Jihad, as much as any perpetrated by the Believers of the Book. That atrocity was just as religious in nature as anything preceding it in history.
    Yes, let there be peace. You have every right to challenge that philosophy, although I find it odd that you would attack a philosophy that eschews any attack on other philosophies. Show respect, and you will earn respect. Anger is merely the child of Fear, and that begs the question, what have you to fear from me? This, and this alone: Raise your hand in anger, to me or anyone else who matters to me, and you will lose that hand. Apart from that, you and I will get along quite peacefully…oops, I digressed again…CTZen

    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm e
  49. 49
    Chimera Says:

    “…one option is to ignore him.”

    And allow him to be the only voice in the room? C’mon, Neil…you know very well that if we just allowed his scatological leavings to stand unanswered, not only would he erroneously claim a “moral victory,” but it would soon start to stink up the entire place.

    Lies are lies, and out-of-context quotes that are deliberately twisted to “prove” the opposite of what was actually said are self-serving lies, and the man who insists on inventing them and then repeating them is a liar.

    A judge would slap him with a fine and a jail sentence. Why should I cut him any slack?

    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 7:39 pm e
  50. 50
    revromansky Says:

    So Dawkins did say he believes in Intelligent Design, as long as it’s aliens from outer space doing the designing. Is the context right?

    And Stalin all by himself murdered 40 million people. And his totalitarian communist system is not an expression of atheism, even though its founded on atheism and the very first move Stalin made was to eradicate religion. Oh, yeah, atheism is not a religion so, because Stalin is an atheist, he is exempt from being called a “religious murderer” like those evil Christians and Muslims who go around murdering everybody all the time.

    Oh, yeah, it’s “god” with a little “g”. How novel, subtle and clever.

    Keep it coming. This is getting interesting.


    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 8:15 pm e
  51. 51
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “So Dawkins did say he believes in Intelligent Design, as long as it’s aliens from outer space doing the designing. Is the context right?”

    Thanks for showing that you didn’t bother to read Dawkins’ side of it… so, no – that still isn’t the right context.

    He does NOT believe in ID, whether it’s alien in nature or not. Get the context of the discussion (and the stuff that the movie CUT) and you’ll see how foolish you are with your claim (that dawkins supports ID).

    Didn’t you say: “I know it’s a novel idea to go to the source, but there you go.”

    The “source” isn’t the movie – it’s Dawkins himself! Go to the source rev!

    Everybody here will notice that you have completely avoided my request that you back your claim up about ID being science. You sure aren’t subtle about it!

    Are you willing to admit that you are wrong?? Because you are… horribly, horribly wrong…

    Posted on September 24, 2008 at 8:22 pm e
  52. 52
    revromansky Says:

    The source isn’t what Dawkins said in the movie. It’s what he said on his site. Now that’s just great. As long as Dawkins said he didn’t say what he said, but he meant something he said in a different way than hwo he plainly stated it, that’s alright.

    I really hate icons, Joe. And I don’t believe in aliens, do you?


    Posted on September 25, 2008 at 4:17 pm e
  53. 53
    Chimera Says:

    “The source isn’t what Dawkins said in the movie. It’s what he said on his site.”

    If you think you got something, son, then link it.

    Posted on September 25, 2008 at 5:35 pm e
  54. 54
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “The source isn’t what Dawkins said in the movie. It’s what he said on his site. Now that’s just great.”

    Are you disagreeing? Do you not see how an interview (obtained under FALSE pretenses) could be edited in such a way as to change the meaning of what was said??

    “As long as Dawkins said he didn’t say what he said, but he meant something he said in a different way than hwo he plainly stated it, that’s alright.”

    You’re not exactly clear here… but I think I’m getting your point. You still haven’t read the link I posted did you? If you had you would realize that you’re not making sense…

    “I really hate icons, Joe.”

    That’s funny, because god’s a pretty big icon!!

    And Dawkins isn’t an icon to me. A smart man who is good at writing, but not an icon.

    “And I don’t believe in aliens, do you?”

    The isn’t exactly relevant, but yes I do. I think we’d be pretty naive to think, with the billions of stars and planets out there, that we’re alone in the universe. I don’t believe we’ve been visited by little green men, but I think there has to be other life out there – the odds are too great!

    And once again you avoid your earlier claim about ID (which happens to be the most interesting part of our discussion – to me).

    Will you admit you can’t back up your claim now? It’s getting pretty obvious that you can’t. Will you finally admit that ID is NOT scientific in ANY way – and thus irrelevant to science?

    Posted on September 26, 2008 at 1:51 pm e
  55. 55
    Chimera Says:

    ““And I don’t believe in aliens, do you?”

    “The isn’t exactly relevant, but yes I do.”

    Good for you, Joe! But his “relevance” in bringing this point up was to intimidate you into agreeing with him on some point so he could stick out his metaphorical foot and trip you up. The inference was that only children and fools “believe in” aliens, as if aliens were fantasy creatures in some kind of fairy tales written by fundies who want to scare their children into behaving themselves. He was treating you like a child, and you aren’t having any. Bravo!

    And yes, there has to be life out there. There’s way too much there there not to have life forms of some kind!

    Posted on September 27, 2008 at 6:57 pm e
  56. 56
    revromansky Says:

    Excellent, Joe and Chimera. Based on the same scientific facts, none to be exact, given by Dawkins, you also believe in aliens. Just because, which is the same reason given for the atheism upon which you base your belief in aliens.

    Just the statistical end of ID theory is staggering. For example, if the expansion of the universe changed in speed by as little as 10 (-)23rd power, the universe would not exist.

    Atheism not required to have scientific proofs, Christianity required by those same atheists as having to have scientific proof, and the apparent belief by leading atheists in aliens.

    I suppose you must find a way to fill the void created when you dispel God from your soul. ET call home.


    Posted on September 29, 2008 at 12:44 am e
  57. 57
    Chimera Says:

    “Based on the same scientific facts, none to be exact, given by Dawkins, you also believe in aliens.”

    Did I mention facts? No, let me rephrase that: WHERE did I mention facts? Belief has nothing to do with facts. And atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of or denial of belief.

    And where did I say I believe in aliens?

    I personally don’t give a damn what you believe. Or what you believe you believe. Or what you believe I believe. It has nothing to do with me.

    Posted on September 29, 2008 at 3:04 am e
  58. 58
    Joe Agnost Says:

    “Based on the same scientific facts, none to be exact… you also believe in aliens.”

    Not quite. I use the FACT that there are billions of stars out there, many of them orbited by planets just like our earth, to deduce that the odds favour alien life. I don’t believe alien life is supported by the current evidence though – that’s why SETI is working so hard to solve this!

    But, as you no doubt planned to do, you’ve derailed the discussion! You must be hoping nobody would notice that you have avoided ONCE AGAIN to provide ANY proof that ID is scientific in ANY way!

    Do you remember I asked for ONLY ONE peer-reviewed paper on ID, just one! You can’t even provide one…. which doesn’t surprise me as I know there are NONE out there… because ID is in NO WAY science!

    “Just the statistical end of ID theory”

    Please… You have NOT been able to show that ID is a “theory” so can you please stop referring to it as one! It doesn’t deserve that stature…

    You try to provide a reason for ID, but you don’t provide any science:

    “if the expansion of the universe changed in speed by as little as 10 (-)23rd power, the universe would not exist.”

    First of all – what does this have to do with ID? Second of all – the universe as we know it would not exist, but that doesn’t mean an alternate universe wouldn’t exist in it’s place. The expansion speed isn’t the way it is because of us – we’re the way we are because of it!
    You have it backwards…

    If this is your reasoning for ID good luck ya!

    “Atheism not required to have scientific proofs”

    Because atheism ISN’T science either! It doesn’t make any claims – it doesn’t need any evidence.

    “Christianity required by those same atheists as having to have scientific proof”

    I’m not surprised an ID’er like you doesn’t understand science – but scientists don’t talk about “proof” – it’s called “evidence”. Proof is left to mathematicians…

    The thing here is that christians have made a VERY big claim – the existence of god. This requires evidence because it’s a claim. Atheism doesn’t make any such claims (it just refuses to believe religion’s claim because there is NO evidence the claim is correct).

    “the apparent belief by leading atheists in aliens.”

    Really? “leading atheists” believe in aliens? I’m not sure why that is so bad in your eyes though.

    I believe in alien life – but my “belief” in alien life does NOT mean that (a) I think my views are backed up by science, I understand it’s just my belief and (b) that it should be taught in science class!

    That’s what this is about!! I don’t care that you’re a creationist – I really don’t! What I care about is that you try to propose ID as a scientific theory on par with evolution. ID is NOT science!

    I’ve given you many many oportunities to support your claim that ID is science. You OBVIOUSLY cannot do this…. doesn’t that say anything to you??

    Posted on September 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm e
  59. 59
    Joe Agnost Says:

    Another comment (and shamelessly putting this thread back to the top of the comments).

    “I suppose you must find a way to fill the void created when you dispel God from your soul.”

    Wow… just wow. Where to start with such an insulting AND ridiculous statement??

    I have 2 kids 5 years old and younger – I can promise you there is no “void” to fill. I barely have time eat, worrying about imaginary beings is the farthest thing from my mind.

    “when you dispel God from your soul.”

    I love it! “dispel god”? You think I had to do ~something~ to remove this ridiculous notion from my mind?? The idea that god is the default position is just another ludicrous position religious people take… I can assure you – we’re all born atheist until the church gets ahold of us!

    I was lucky enough to avoid the child abuse children of religion have to endure – so I didn’t have to have the exorcism you describe above. I’ve been happily atheist my whole life!

    And BTW – ID still isn’t science. :)

    Posted on September 29, 2008 at 8:45 pm e
  60. 60
    Joe Agnost Says:

    Sorry – I’m just wondering where the rev got to… the thread is so old that it’s off the main page, and perhaps seeing a comment on it might result in a rev-response!

    Posted on October 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm e
  61. 61
    Chimera Says:

    Aw, fergit about ‘im fer now, Joe. He’s gone all control-alt-delete on us, tryin’ to reboot that sneering curl in his upper lip. He’ll be back as soon as he figures it out.

    Posted on October 1, 2008 at 10:23 pm e
  62. 62
    Is Jesus a Hoax? – the Bible and Other Jewish Fairy Tales | Says:

    […] IS RELIGION A HOAX? – Where other people saw a sacrament, they saw the Eucharist as a male power grab to control millions of credulous people over the ages. Do you think they’re onto something? Is Bill Maher onto something? Is religion a hoax? […]

    Posted on November 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm e
  63. 63
    Romoboy Says:

    Believers become Athiest, not the other way around. Anyone who’s says the were once Athiest were never Athiest to start.

    Posted on March 29, 2010 at 10:30 am e
  64. 64
    Vin Smith Says:

    I am looking for a good manuscript on the basic thematic that organized religion is a sham and a scam. Anytime you subscribe to opionion leaders and thought controllers, you have given away your mind. Anyone have a good manuscript on this subject? I’m certain my agency can get it published! Vin Smith

    Posted on September 7, 2010 at 12


August 29, 2012

Top blogs: Every so often, we will republish some of the top blog subjects. This topic, ‘Do Canadians and Americans like each other?’, is revisited by new visitors to this blog virtually everyday. Please feel free to continue the conversation by adding more thoughts.

A new poll, just out, has some revealing information about the relationship between our two countries.  Full y 92 per cent of Americans say they have a favourable view of Canada.  This compares to 72 per cent of Canadians who say they view the United States favourably.

When Americans were asked which country they viewed most favourably they chose Canada followed by Great Britain and Germany.  Canadians chose Australia and Great Britain , Germany, then the United States in third place.

Fifty-eight per cent of  Canadians said Canada should remain neutral when the U.S. has conflicts with other countries while 73 per cent of French-speaking correspondents said this country should not get involved.

Forty per cent of Americans said they agree that Canada has a better health system than the United States.

When it comes to proposing that the Canada-United States border be erased, only 22 per cent of Canadians and 16 per cent of Americans agreed.

If you are a Canadian, do you like Americans and would you move to the States if you could?

If you are an American, do you like Canadians and would you move to Canada if you could?

Do Canadians and Americans like each other?

What do you think?

  1. I like USAers individually but I would not move to the U.S. although I enjoy visiting south of New Jersey.

  2. I like Canada and Canadians. I can stay here in SW Florida and meet all sorts of Canadians anyway, especially at this time of year. I prefer to live on this side of the border. It is home.

  3. Neil McKenty Says:


    It’s great to have a comment from SW Florida. Makes it seem warmer here in the tail-end of the Montreal winter.

  4. Caleb Says:

    It is something I must find more information about, thank you for the blog post.

  5. Vin Smith Says:

    I actually attempted to move to Canada–Victoria, B. C., to be exact, in 1979. Just to start over after a horrific divorce. However, as a law abiding individual, when they told me at the proper office in Victoria that no country in the world was looking for ordinary people–and I was nearing my ten week limit–though I certainly could go back to the states–he suggested Seattle–and apply for landed immigrant status, then perhaps work toward citizenship (I would have gladly become a dual citizen of the U. S. and Canada–which I do not think the U. S. allows), that pretty much stopped the whole thing for me.

    I love the climate around Victoria B.C/Port Angeles, WA, so that is where I moved. Port Angeles. I can understand the words of the official who talked to me, in light of the thousands of American young men who fled to Canada to escape Vietnam. That had to be overload. On the other hand, we had Canadian ex-pats living in our neighborhood in Southern California in the 50′s and 60′s by the boatload. In fact, my parents rented to a marvelous couple from Ontario.

    Actually, I would like to see the borders erased, as long as Canada retained absolute autonomy over all of its territory. Allow qualified American and Canadian workers to work and live anywhere they would wish. That might not work too well for Canadians, as your country has sometimes been described as five countries trying to exist as one…

  6. Neil McKenty Says:


    Than k you for sharing your personal experience with Canada.