Body Armor Ban Back Again

Kash Heed, the new BC Solicitor General introduced legislation that would make it illegal to purchase, posses, or wear “body armor” without a permit.  I have written on this subject previously when it was first suggested and while this may seem like a small issue that only impacts very few, it is a prime example of what is wrong with our political system–or rather–what is wrong with our politicians.

Those who I have voiced concerns to all claim that banning body armor will give the police more “tools” to use against gangs.  Really?  The only “tools” I see are the politicians in the legislature.

Some will claim that police will be safer as a result of this bill.  No they won’t.  No police will be saved by this bill, as the kind of people who would arm themselves and then shoot illegal weapons are going to break any law banning body armor.

The question is why are the police out-gunned and out-armored by twenty-something year old criminals?  If criminals can buy level 4 body armor with plate inserts, and a Canadian made special forces M-16, perhaps the police should have more than a thin vest and a potato gun? Though, that Taser is deadly…

The same arguments also invalidates the idea that the public will somehow be safer as a result of this legislation.  In fact we will all be less safe as gangsters will still wear body armor, while us law abiding citizens are no longer allowed to protect ourselves… wtf?

I love analogies, they allow us to isolate contradictions; banning body armor is similar to the government banning all cars because a handful of gangsters use them to run each other over, or because someone rammed a police cruiser.

Maybe I’m being pessimistic.  Let’s just imagine the legislation was a complete success… and gangsters began shooting at each other in grocery store parking lots without wearing body armor…  How are we safer?  Armor or no armor–unless someone strikes a very critical area early on in the gun fight–they will all run out of ammunition before it is over.

This is ultimately unconstitutional and no convictions of this “crime” will ever stand up under judicial review.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all citizens and visitors and even those accused or convicted of a crime by guaranteeing our right to life.  It can never be illegal for a person who is in danger–even a gang member in a gang war–to shield themselves from impending bodily harm.  No one’s rights are ever violated by the wearing of body armor because, by law, no one in Canada has the right to kill you.

Constitution Act, 1982, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Taking away the ability for someone to shield themselves from bullets is the same as killing them and is not “in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” as the death penalty is not legal in Canada.

From an earlier post:

“On the issue of the rights of the accused and the duty of the government and police to uphold our rights:

1.) If a gang member was being shot at, the police have a duty to protect the life of that gang member.  It is illegal for anyone to knowingly take actions that contribute to the death of another person.

2.) It would be illegal to take away the helmet of a speeding motorcyclist claiming that the helmet assisted them in exceeding the speed limit.  It would be illegal to take away the knee pads of a trespassing skateboarder claiming the knee pads helped the skateboarder break the law.

3.) For a police officer to drop off a suspect in the middle of the dessert is illegal, because they can reasonably assume that that person will be harmed or killed.

Therefor: To take away body armor from a suspect or ex-con that has reason to believe that they may be harmed is also illegal.  If someone prevented an individual from wearing body armor, and that individual was killed by a bullet that under normal circumstances would not have killed them if they were to wear body armor, then they could, theoretically, be criminally charged in connection with the death.“

If a known gang member applied for a permit, they’re associates, or enemies identities, should support the “reasonable need” required by the proposed legislation to obtain a permit.  So why are we passing a law that we won’t enforce against most people and we can’t enforce against those targeted by the law?

eg.  A woman is threatened by her trigger-happy, gun-lovin’ intoxicated ex.  The Charter guarantees she has a right to instantly obtain and use body armor without delay, permits, approvals, back-ground checks, criminal record checks, or any other restrictions or the slightest fear of being labeled a criminal, being incarcerated, or fined.

There is a way to give police more tools to fight gangs while protecting our Charter Rights by changing the Criminal Code of Canada to make it a crime to commit a crime, or intend to commit a crime, while wearing body armor, as other jurisdictions have done successfully.  The downside (For the BC Liberals) is that this change would be under federal jurisdiction–not provincial–which means no press release or photo op.

This legislation is also not specific enough.  What is “body armor”?  If a helmet can stop a bullet, is it now illegal for gang members to wear helmets?  How does the crown prove intent if the armor is “adapted”?  What if a gang member carried around a steel baking pan to hold in front of him in case he is shot at?  Will the police show up and arrest him? take it?  Who will test items?  This is an expensive regulatory mess–think gun registry.  How many years of court challenges and millions of taxpayers dollars need to be spent sorting out this terrible legislation so the BC Liberals can implement their election strategy on the public dime? when a judicially sound and effective alternative (changing the Criminal Code) is available?  What a waste…

I don’t expect that many people will passionately oppose this law, as most people only become passionate about the things that effect them directly, and the question of the legality of body armor will not effect anyone outside of those at higher risk of being wounded by munitions–which is a few percent of British Columbians.  I do however, expect that those blessed with the opportunity to take part in the democratic process to be passionate about holding our politicians accountable.

I hope all of the readers can see this legislation as illegal, completely ineffective, an assault on our most basic human right–the right to life, and a waste of public resources, and I further hope you oppose the re-election all those MLA’s who vote for one of the worst bills in the history of British Columbia out of their ignorance, or blind self-interest.

It is time that our culture wakes up to the reality that fighting, arresting, and punishing criminals isn’t justice.  Prevention is the only justice and until we can reduce the demand for drugs we will never stop gangs and gang violence.  Unfortunately, prevention–education, community support, and medical support has nothing to do with the police that have hijacked our concept of justice and monopolized the resources of our judicial system.

Why?

One out of the “W5”: Who, What, Where, When, Why; it is the last that first avoided me.  Since I was young, I have asked “Why? Why?Why?Why?” and never would an answer make sense.  It would at the start, but it would always come down to…
…because that’s the way it is…
Why? Fuck! You see?

Usually “the way” is a someone’s way. Our society is built on power structures that were built by neurotic people that have a need to control others for their own amusement or gain.  Our society fails because it was never designed to succeed–it is designed to cater to emotional needs of those in power.  The first to gain power were those most ready to use violence.  Not much has changed since prehistory.

I once heard at a business conference that to get to the root of any business problem you should ask “why?” five times.

Example:

“Why are we losing money?”
“Because we keep losing big clients.”

“Why are we losing clients?”
“Because they get frustrated by our shipping.”

“Why are we not shipping correctly?”
“Because the staff are drunk by lunch.”

“Why are they getting drunk at work?”
Because their pay is so low that they feel life is hopeless and and shitty is easier to ignore when intoxicated.”

“Why do I pay so little?”
“…”

I still ask “Why?” When it comes to people, you can ask “Why?” five thousand times and still be left wondering.  My last post was from Tony and if you had read it, you would have found the parts that speak of the inevitable end of civilization as we know it and even the theory that civilization itself is unsustainable.

The civilization we have today will indeed not continue, just as the civilization of the 1980’s no longer exists.  Change happens.  We adapt.

Many focus on altering society and our laws–to adapt society to people.  This left-wing idea can only be moderately successful and is entirely dependent on the values of the individuals in that society.

Another approach is to adapt individuals, and their values, to alter society.  This is the conservative approach and the one I favor as being the guiding force for civilization, family, peace, and even love.

Think of the abortion debate, which is a debate of polarized ideologies–an apple telling an orange it isn’t red enough.  One group tries to alter people’s values–to respect life more, while the other argues that the nature of people necessitates the need for legal abortions.

I have always found in my search for “Why?” that I prefer order.  My argument has been been, since childhood, that we can choose differently–we can choose peace, acceptance, love.  When I was at Harold Bishop Elementary School in Surrey at 7 years old, I won a contest where we had to design a recycling poster.  Mine read, “The choice is yours.”

There is no limitation whatsoever that can overcome human will.  A group of righteous people can absolutely create a near utopian society.  Any arguments against can be overcome with, “Righteous people will not make those choices.”

Can civilization be saved?  Can we be saved?  Why save either?  Let’s build something better.

Tony Isn’t Stupid

Here is a great post from Tonyisnt about philosophy, society, and life.  Enjoy!

http://tonyisnt.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/more-quotes-personal-philosophy-and-civilization/

(Please reserve comments for Tony’s blog)

Pursuing Paparazzi

I just got back from BC interior, where I was doing security for the cast of major motion picture being shot here in BC.  The air-tight confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow me to go into too much detail about some of my experiences, including four 9-1-1 calls, bears, knife wielding road-ragers, new scars on my hands, and my first up close dealings with paparazzi, but I feel once again compelled to question the actions of the media and police.

A righteous society creates laws in order to guarantee and increase freedom–not limit it.   For example, laws against murder may seem to limit our freedom to… murder …but in reality, the law gives us the freedom to live, and is consistent with the idea of upholding our highest laws, written into our constitution, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens is the right to walk down the street and be in any public place or any private place we are authorized to be in, as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others, as set out in the Charter.

Paparazzi are scum.  They stalk people and attempt to harass and entrap people to sell useless gossip.  They don’t care about how many lives they destroy.  Remember how Princess Diana died–murdered by paparazzi who delighted in taking pictures of a grusome accident.  Remember how Michael Jackson was declared guilty by tabloid media, but declared not-guilty by a jury.

“Stalking” is a clear violation of our rights, and there are several sections of the criminal code that can be invoked to protect us all from harassment.  Certainly, following someone around for weeks using sophisticated monitoring (spying) equipment and secretly taking pictures of people’s hotel rooms with a telephoto lens is illegal.  If an ex-partner did these things you could have them arrested and given a restraining order, as your rights, including your explicit right to privacy would be violated by such actions.

Yet, when I reported these same illegal actions to the police, they told me that nothing could be done as there was no criminal intent… so… paparazzi “accidentally” followed us through three cities?  Sounds like a double standard for citizens and media.  Let’s look at the criminal code for reference, with my notes in parenthesis:

PART V
SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Voyeurism

162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity; (Like taking pictures of a hotel room with a telephoto lens)
(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or
(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
Definition of “visual recording”(2) In this section, “visual recording” includes a photographic, film or video recording made by any means.

Exemption
(3) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a peace officer who, under the authority of a warrant issued under section 487.01, is carrying out any activity referred to in those paragraphs. (Media is not listed as having an exception)

Printing, publication, etc., of voyeuristic recordings
(4) Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1), prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available. (This section specifically makes it a crime for media to use such images)

Punishment
(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (4) (Observing, recording or publishing)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good. (Taking photos of people for money is not in the public good and it certainly extends beyond any claim of public good.  This sub-section protects people who would expose politicians or public servants)

Question of law, motives
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6),
(a) it is a question of law whether an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged goes beyond what serves the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the act does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good; and
(b) the motives of an accused are irrelevant.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 162; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 4; 2005, c. 32, s. 6

Let’s recap:  It is a crime to take pictures of people in their homes or hotels, as they may be nude, no exception is given to media under the law and in fact an additional sub-section makes it a crime to publish any photos arising from such behavior, and the motives of the publisher is not a defence.  Yet I am told that paparazzi is immune because there “is no criminal intent”–not for a sexual purpose.  Ultimately, we will never know if this paparazzi guy masturbates to my photo, but we could assume he does–cause I’m hot.  The law against voyeurism was clearly broken and not enforced by the police.  So, according to the RCMP, it is legal to stalk anyone as long as you claim to be with the media.  Why?
Let’s examine the arguments of the paparazzi:

“They’re public figures” What is a public figure?  If your boss approaches you about being in the background of a commercial as an employee, do you lose your right to privacy as long as the commercial is on TV? forever?

It is the media who chooses who is or isn’t a public figure (media figure).  The only reason we have heard of the Octo-mom, is because the media chose to focus on her instead of just reporting that she had 8 kids and then moving on to a real news story.  If she had only three kids anyone who hung around her house taking pictures would be arrested as a stalker.

“I’m on public property” So what?  The laws and our Charter Rights still apply.

As a legitimate blogger (media) who has previously reported on media issues, I am going to do a story on the next police officer that refuses to enforce the law.  I will stay outside their house and follow them and the people they associate with, around the city taking pictures and attempting to catch them doing something embarrassing or unlawful.  Somehow, I think that they will become far more eager to enforce the law… all I ask is that they enforce it impartially and protect the privacy of all.  Perhaps I will do another story on the paparazzo and see if he likes how he treats others.

To strengthen privacy laws and anti-stalking measures:

• Prohibit recording and monitoring of private property without the consent of the owners and visitors.
• Limit the number of pictures that a person can take of any person in a public place without their consent.  Limit the length of time one can record a person without their consent.
• Prohibit all secret recordings.  People taking pictures should have to declare themselves and their real intentions, and show identification.
• Give each persons image and persona the same protection of copyright law or trademark law–you own your image and no one should be able to make money off of you without your consent–especially since paparazzi often tries to ruin a persons reputation with their “coverage”.
• Prohibit fake news.  News is an event that has relevance to the public.  Britney’s new haircut isn’t news and it shouldn’t be presented as news.

The media is not in business to inform us, or for the public good.  The media has no obligation to tell the truth or be fair.  It is up to us to hold them accountable and protect our rights.

Why Am I Still Single?

Here is a great post by dating editor Kristine Gasbarre for YourTango.com

I think it is right on the money…

http://ca.dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/datingtips/88451/dating-101-why-am-i-still-single/

Lies About Our Economic Recovery

There are several bullshit stories coming from major Canadian media regarding our economy.  We keep hearing about how well our economy is doing–or recovering–yet today I read that 40,000 more people applied for Employment Insurance in June.  At this rate, we will have doule the number of people on EI as last year at the same time.  Why are companies closing and/or laying off so many people if the economy is improving?  Hmmm… let’s look closer…

There is this particular story from the Conservative Party of Canada cheerleaders at CTV claiming that the economy is recovering.  They point to a rise in retail sales.

We are told that retail sales rose 1% in June, though they forget to mention that we are still down 4.4% from a year ago, according to Stats Canada’s own “seasonally adjusted” figures, which is the source of the raw data sited by CTV.

Not surprisingly, CTV fails to mention that the figures they use are manipulated.  Stats Can has calculated a dodgy “seasonal average” to measure against and CTV has disregarded the actual figures.  The “unadjusted” retail sales figures are actually over 1% lower than May’s numbers–not 1.0% higher.  See for yourself on Statistics Canada’s website. (It will help to hve the figure on a new tab to refer to)

“Unadjusted”
“Seasonally Adjusted”

I will use the unadjusted figures unless noted otherwise.

Half of the total increase reported came from higher gasoline sales (prices).  If we take out the inflated gas prices (that certainly don’t help the economies in our wallets) the loss is even greater.

The “automotive sector” is up 210 million over May, while gasoline (which is part of this statistic) is up 243 million… meaning the automotive sectors numbers, without gasoline to inflate them, are down 33 million–not up 2.1% as CTV dishonestly claims.  The numbers are still down 10.4% from the same time last year; gotta love that Conservative Inaction Plan (almost as much as how Stephen Harper said we should all buy stock last fall as people lost tens of thousands of dollars in their investments and RRSPs as the economy crashed)

Which reminds me, we always hear how we have to vote Conservative to keep the economy strong, yet every time we elect a Conservative Government we lose hundreds of thousands of jobs… wtf?

When we look at the sectors that declined, one is very telling: “sectors that posted declines in sales were general merchandise stores…”–general merchandise stores meaning that stores that sell everything sold less… yet the media, by saying retail is up 1% (which we now know is a lie anyways) suggests that sales of everything are higher?  No way.

If you read some of the comments on the CTV site, some Conservatives, have posted comments about how thankful we should be that we have a Conservative government.  Others have illuminated the fact that this minority Government can only take credit for raising prices on things we must purchase (making our lives harder)–how some think that is a good thing is beyond my understanding, but then again, for some reason I like shit to make sense…

The comment process at CTV deserves a comment, or even its own blogpost.  I swear, the Editor, or paid Conservatives operatives with special access, “moderate” (lol) to show a manipulated public opinion.   The first few comments on any political story on CTV always have a few very deceptive and well worded Conservative opinions, and I can recognize the difference between some guy with nothing better to do and a professional communications strategist’s perfect talking points.  Also notice that the CTV story on EI recipients rising doesn’t even allow comments…  hmmm…

For our economy to improve, labour intensive industries must improve and paying at the pump doesn’t employ very many Canadians–and before you say it helps Alberta, oil prices are driving up the Canadian dollar which hurts the labour intensive manufacturing sector, and Canada as a whole.

The most incredible thing of all is how a Security Guard is informing you of the facts while the “experts” with all their titles and degrees lie to keep Stephen Harper’s incompetent government alive, and our economy continues to lose tens of thousands of jobs every month while millions of underemployed go unreported.

Ultimately, this has more to do with the values of our culture–of us.  Why is it legal to lie or deceive for personal gain?  Give me one good reason… anyone?

Dan Loves Gold Diggers

My crazy work schedule, which included 93 billable hours last week, has me considering money and my future.

Let’s say you have two identical twins, who even have identical personalities and experiences–except–one of them is rich, while the other one is poor.  Since they are identical in every way except financially, you are equally in love with both, but can only be with one.  Which one?  Assuming that the wealthy twin lives a balanced life, one would have to be a masochist to choose the poor twin.

It becomes more interesting for me to consider what would happen if I was one of the twins.  Now let’s say that a set of female twins, that are identical in every way are courting myself and my brother.  One of the sisters wants a rich man, the other does not.  Regardless of which brother I am, rich or poor, if I had the choice between the sisters, who should I choose as the superior mate and life partner?  Who would the Philosopher Princess choose?

I cannot fault others for wanting what I myself want–financial freedom and security.  Seeking out favorable situations and striving for success are life skills I hope my children learn well.

The issue of pregnancy excuses and validates “gold-diggers” the world over.  We all have responsibilities–which is to say that there is a cost to that which we desire.  My cost, as a man, is having to support and provide for a family the best I can.

My difficulties with this subject stem from my desire to have more than just a vagina and womb in my bed–not from a rejection of all wealth, or a rejection of those that are or would like to be wealthy.  The fact is, I myself would like to be filthy rich–stinking rich–shower me in food stamps to get rid of this smell of money, power and champaign rich–like a rap video!  Though, I do not want to exploit or lie my way to wealth.

Some say the money makes the man.  I think the man makes the money, and that means my finances (as are all things that are observable) are a reflection of me–part of me.  It would be wrong to try and separate the two.  Ultimately, I am in no position to get married and have babies right now (hence the 93 hour work week), so I withdraw my Husband Resume until such time as my market value is high enough to catch the attention of the Uberwench–the Philosopher Princess.

I hope that I can avoid becoming obsessed with money or “more”, and remember that money is a means to an end–and only an end when it destroys us.

Protesting Against the Olympic Protesters

I know many people that were not in favor the 2010 Olympic Winter Games being in Vancouver.    Some have some legitimate concerns with the prioritization of funding, the awarding of contracts, or the use of foreign workers.

Some people want to protest to voice their concerns about the Olympics.  That is their right.  I hope they do so in a peaceful, professional and constructive manner.

Some people want to scream about ridiculous ideas to riot police because they like the spotlight, and it covers up that nagging sense that they don’t have a clue how to do things better, they just know shit’s wrong and that it would be better for everyone if they were in charge…

These wackos, with their relatively minor and petty concerns that get off screaming about purely local ideas to an international audience, are an embarrassing display of our proletariat.  I wish they would look around at their company and begin protesting against their own crazy ideas–far away from here.

I know that many people see the Olympics as an expense.  I remember the “Healthcare before Olympics” stickers. The bill has been paid, and debt has been accumulated, while our workforce has benefited from the economic activity.

The olympics are an investment in our future.  Vancouver will be on the international map in an age where name recognition equals prosperity.

However, branding is vital. How will shutting down streets help feed people?  How ruining the vacation experience of thousands of people save our environment?  We will all benefit from a smooth and successful Olympic Games.

Mass demonstrations–particularily violent demonstrations–also threaten our safety.  Vancouver will be one of the juiciest international terrorist targets in the world during the games.  We must allow the police and security forces all available resources to protect us against attack.  We must not endanger ourselves over these pet issues.

Some people want to protest against the response to protests that haven’t happened yet.  Any idea that we should have any kind of Seattle WTO bullshit here is absurd.  That is not productive.

What would be productive would be to have a united progressive political alternative?  Why not work towards that instead of against the Games that will–with 100% certainty–happen anyways?

In February, while we are on display, let’s show the world our best.

Good-bye Love

I have been doing a lot of thinking.  I have also been experimenting by pushing people’s buttons.  I have had some ideas to explore–contradictory ideas that both seem plausible.  My initial conclusions have been pretty tough to wrap my head around.

I have always believed in love.  It is such a comforting idea, but many see love as a debt to collect, “If you loved me… you would give me _______.”

I have believed in soul-mates.  I found a few that I even thought were my soul-mates, only to watch them float away.  On my birthday a few years ago, I found out that a girl I loved with all my heart–loved me with only half of hers… for six years.  I told her that I could never love again.  I didn’t know how true it was at the time.

More than anything, it is the things we place between us and love that give us away: Money, sex, fleeting desires, ego, materialism.  How can we claim to want love?

My experiences conclusively point to a universe that exists independently of the naive notions of love.  It is the dream of a defenseless child to be loved unconditionally.

Relationships are deals.  If love was real, marriage wouldn’t be a contract.  Two (or more) people agree to uphold a bargain that cheapens their living and entertainment costs and gives them certain perks.  It is a transaction: genes for dollars, sex for dinner.  A quality relationship is one where each gets what they want from the other–that’s not love.

Adjusting to this new paradigm will be difficult.  I feel like I just lost every love I ever had or would have ever had.  It’s a bit of a mind-fuck.  I feel free, unchained–yet stripped and empty.

Love is still an action that we can perform at will, but the foundations for relationships are elsewhere.  Let’s make a deal… (vomit)

Sex 5,000

Wow, 5,000 hits exactly.  I knew it was coming but I wasn’t watching too close.  I have unplugged for a bit.  It’s cool to see the exact number 5000.  I guess someone must be reading this…

In other news, I have noticed that putting “sex” in the title is a great way to get traffic to the site.

I haven’t written in a bit because I am unsure what to say.  I don’t want to let my ego blather on about garbage.  These blog posts are the things I am inspired to say.

There are a few ideas that perplex me under examination.

Jealousy:  Let’s break this down.  You love someone, so you prohibit them from experiencing pleasurable sex with others… wtf?  That doesn’t make sense to me.  Shouldn’t we want our partners to be… entirely fulfilled?  Yet jealousy is so universally accepted.

What about sex itself?  Sex is fun.  Sex is more than natural.  Our bodies are built to have sex and our better maintained if we have sex.  Sex builds our core muscles.  Sex works our hearts.

Sex is beneficial to body and mind.  Sex brings people together.  Sex promotes long-term honesty.  Did I mention sex is fun?

Yet I had come to a conclusion that sex was something to avoid with anyone but the Philosopher Princess herself…, though, how am I supposed to even recognize her until I verify that she is the sexy nymphomaniac I picture her to be?  Experimentation is unavoidable.  Hmmmm…

I am also working on a bit about purpose.  I can’t keep it focussed.  There is so much to do and to consider.  I have written a lot, started several posts, but I get distracted by something unknown.  When finished it should shed light on my peculiar approach.  I don’t want to publish anything that isn’t oozing truth.

If you enjoy reading this, bookmark the front page, or join the facebook group The Quantum Buddha’s Blog and invite your friends, or subscribe to the RSS feed, that way I won’t have to put the word “sex” in the title of every post.