I was watching I can't remember which show the other day, and I started thinking about 'The Payoff'...

It's that specific scene or clip of a show that made watching the entire series really worth it. The 'getting to know the characters thru the ages', or 'knowing how our favourite people are doing' from one week to the next.

Sure, most of these scenea re written as pretty much 'stand alone'--which means that, pretty much, these 'pay off' scenes can be viewed by the uninitiated, but they have a profound greater impact on a person that has 'devoted' time and/or energy to the actual show from the beginning.

For example, most pepole watched the final episode of 'Cheers'--the second most watched television episode in the history of television (supposedly--the last ep. of MASH is still number 1, so I'm told)

When Sam says to the recently Diane-vacated doorway, "Have a good life...", we, as viewers, feel for him. We know that, in his head, he knows that she's not coming back. After those years of constant banter, it comes down to her leaving to pursue her dreams, and he's 'left at the bar'--where he's always been--where he'll always be. It was a touching moment, made more touching for viewers that watched the whole relationship between Sam and Diane develop for those numerous years (minus the Rebecca years, but they were good as well...)

Anyway, a more poignant moment, and infinitely more touching, was Sam straightening the picture on the wall in the very last scene. Oh I was really misty-eyed when that happened. But I won't go into the details--you have to know the history of the actors and such...

There are those 'payoffs' that trascend one show--the very last scene in 'Newhart', when Bob wakes up beside Suzanne Pleshette--priceless! Again, for those that barely watched 'Newhart' or Bob Newhart's previous show--'The Bob Newhart Show' (approriately named)--that wouldn't have meant much. To us 'Bob' watchers, however, it was brilliant!

Of course, I'd have to talk about this--I was sitting in a theatre in 1986. It was the matinee for 'Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home'. Sarek says to his son, Spock, that he may have been mistaken in opposing Spocks joining Starfleet. There was actually a member in the audience that started clapping and yelled, "C'mon trekkies!!!" Rather than overtly display my appreciation, I silently sat there, misty eyed.

A few other 'quick hits' of 'rewards' for 'time well wasted' in front of the tube--Sheridan pausing for a second as he's walking away from Deleen in the last episode of Babylon 5. Garibaldi grabbing the shot glass in the same ep. as he's leaving the station. Wow! Of course, B5 was full of 'payoffs' 'cause JMS is god.

Sarah Jane Smith (and K9) returning for one episode in the latest 'Doctor Who' series--wonderful!

The Gorn, Tholians, and a Constitution class starship showing up in a 2 part episode in the last season of 'Enterprise'... beyond cool!

K, some of these 'payoffs' that I appreciate are really showing my true geekiness...

Anyway, was thinking about it, so I had to write about it.

WKRP - Thanksgiving Turkey Drop

"As god as my witness, i thought turkeys could fly"

So the gas tank is almost empty in the Mighty Dodge (tm). Sandy and I frequent the Canadian Tire gas bar right there on Queenston near Nash 'cause the Canadian Tire flyer frequently has the 'Get (6, 7, 8, 9 , sometimes 10) times Canadian Tire $$$!!' which is good for us 'cause we like shopping at the CT.

Anyway, I have my discount coupon, I have my empty gas tank, and I have The Mighty Dodge parked beside the oldest gasoline pumps in the entire Creek area...

Which led to the following issue--I put the filler nozzle into the filler pipe on the truck, and I move the lever on the pump to 'On'. I squeeze the handle and nothing happens. On these 'older' style gas pumps, you can usually hear the pump running when you move the lever to 'On'. Nada on the sound, nada on the gas coming thru the nozzle. Nada on anything, really--the numbers didn't budge on the pump--all at '0000''s...

So I move the lever back and forth (off, then on) once on the pump. I hear it now--the pump just kicked in...

So I fill up the truck.

Sixty dollars and 5 cents--classic overfill, but I don't care 'cause it's going on debit anyway.

Walk into the building ('cause again, the pumps are so old that you can't pay at the pump) and Joe GasJockey says, "That'll be sixy dollars and twenty-five cents, please..."

"Ummm, the pump says $60.05," I state.

"Yeah", says the guy, "$60.05 now, but 20 cents from before..."

Well, now we get into it. "The pump didn't work the first time", I state, "I had to turn it off and on again for it to work."

The guy shakes his head, not really believing me, but, again, in a 'Customer is always right' idea, lets me 'get away with' not paying the 20 cents. At least, that's the attitude I could see emanating from his entire demeanour for the rest of the transaction.

Silence being the better part of valour in this situation, I didn't pursue the issue. What I should have said was that if the pumps are this tempermental, perhaps the CT gas station should invest in updating them with equipment at least vaguely reminiscent of the late 20th century.

But I bit my tongue, and let the gas jockey think that I was ripping off his business for 20 cents.

Which kinda really bothers me, actually. Hey, it's 20 cents, but again, it's the principle! If I didn't know how to operate a gas pump, or did it wrong and inadvertently put 20 cents into the tank, then hey, I'll give CT the 20 cents plus interest. However, I've been pumping gas since I was 14 years old (did so for mom and dad before I could drive)--I think I know how to use an antiquated gas pump. And if the pump doesn't come on when I move the lever to 'On' (I couldn't hear it and the numbers on the pump weren't moving), then how does 20 cents worth of gas get into my tank? Furthermore, if the number on the pump says 0 and the number inside the kiosk says 20 cents--again, not my problem? Finally, if the CT pumps don't perform as expected, then don't take that out on the customer.

This rant was brought to you today by the letter 'C' and the letter 'T', and by the number '20'.

Some explanations beforehand to get out the pertinent details so you won't get lost--

The LEGO Company (TLC) usually comes out with new sets every year. Stores sell these new sets at full price, and will sometimes sells 'older' sets at a reduced price to clear the sets off the shelves.

Zellers, once in a blue moon, will have what they call a 'BOGO' sale--buy one LEGO set and get another set at half price (which works well for us LEGO fans).

So there's the two points that you'll need to know for this--

The other day I'm at Zellers. Zellers is running a BOGO sale thru the week. I'm there to scope the selection--to see what sets I want Sandy to buy me for Christmas, and for her to buy 'em cheaper ('cause of the sale and all...)

Right at the entrance to Zellers is a display featuring very reduced toys for those toy buying Christmas shoppers looking for a great bargain. In the middle of all the various toys are LEGO Racers sets. These LEGO Racers sets come in a really cute plastic package shaped like a tire and normally cost between 5-6 bucks. These Racer sets in this display, however, were from last year and the year before and Zellers was clearing them out at 2-3 dollars. That's the good bit.

What wasn't the good bit was people taking one of these discounted Racers sets, and then taking a bunch of new racers sets from the actual LEGO shelf in the store, and trying to get the BOGO as taken from the already discounted set!

I saw this--a customer put down the discounted set first and it was scanned in at 3 bucks, then she put down the new 6 dollar set, expecting it to be a buck fifty! And when the cashier pointed out that the new racers were 6 bucks instead of 3 bucks, the customer became irate and went on about "it's the same set!! It's the same package!!" Look lady, I saw you take the discounted set from the clearance section, and then I saw you take the regular priced set from the LEGO section.

And even if you grabbed both sets from the LEGO section (I did note that the LEGO section had both old (discounted) and new (full price) racers sets sitting side by side on the shelf)--which you didn't, by the way--the cashier just told you what the actual price was, so stop trying to rip off the store! You grabbed one set at 3 bucks, and you grabbed 3 sets at 6 bucks, and, coincidentally, you let the cheap one get scanned first??? Somehow I don't think you're sense of innocence is all that truthful...

I was just about to walk over to the cashier and mention what I noticed, but the cashier, in a 'Customer's Always Right' vein, gave the lady the BOGO discount for a buck fifty.

Hey, who am I to argue?

I want to state that this is different than a legitimate mix-up. I have a friend who bought LEGO sets during a BOGO. See, the BOGO is applied to any set that 's the same price or cheaper than the first set. My friend put two sets on the counter, and the cashier grabbed the less expensive one first, entered it, then scanned the second more expensive one, which registered at half price. It was then that the cashier remembered the BOGO and realized that she should have scanned in the expensive one first. It was the cashier who told my friend that, 'Eh, it doesn't really matter--my mistake'. Therein lies all the difference in the world. Legitimate mistake vs. deliberately ripping off the store.

This is where 'Principles' comes into play. Those that'll do anything to 'save' 4 dollars and 50 cents off one single purchase, including mislead and lie deliberately and then go on a tirade about how they're right and the store was wrong--you have none. No principles whatsoever.

It's the old W.C. Fields story (at least, I think it's attributed to W. C. Fields--I could be wrong)--

I don't care how much money you think you got away with (and that's a whole other story...), if you purposely rip off someone or 'cheat the system' for any dollar amount at all--from a buck or two to a million dollars--what's that say about you?

It says to me, personally, that I can't trust you at all.

John Derringer on Q107 brought this to my attention on his radio show this morning--

Homeowner upset police didn't charge teen with B&E

John had Don Shaxon on the show, and just listening to Don's ordeal--I'm right there with ya, buddy!

A few things--the kid was dressed completely in black and hiding in a dark basement--doesn't sound like he was 'completely smashed' to me. From the radio interview, Don went on to say that the kid was hiding in the laundry/furnace room with the lights out. When Don went to investigate why the dog was barking so much, the kid lunged at him when Don was reaching for the light switch. Again--not sounding 'completely smashed'.

Beyond that--I reiterate--the kid was hiding in the basement in the wee hours of the morning. Don's got a wife and 2 daughters! Put yourself in his situation--a guy dressed all in black, hiding in the basement and lunging at him when Don investigates--as if any one of us wouldn't defend ourselves.

But nw we have this--Halton police revisit B&E incident

According to Don, when he was talking on air this morning, he mentioned that he'll find out on Friday (tomorrow) whether he'll be charged with aggravated assault or not.

Again, seriously--the home owner, by defending his family against an unknown intruder, may face charges of aggravated assault.

That kid is lucky he still can chew food with his own teeth. As far as I'm concerned, Don showed complete restraint in the ordeal. Wearing black from head to foot, hiding behind the furnace, and lunging at someone doesn't show the need for such restraint in my books.

And anyone attempting to do in our house what this kid did in Don's?? Nothing's more important to me than the safety of my family. If so much of a whiff of potential harm comes Sandy's way...

Well, let's just not go there.

Our house is alarmed as well--just an FYI to any potential crooks.

If you frequent this blog, well, frequently, you may recall that I did go on a bit back here about a pollster calling us.

See, the caller wanted to know my opinoin about 'same sex marriage'. When I started into my idea about all Canadians should be treated equally under the law, the caller promptly hung up.

That lead to that particular blog entry.

A seemingly unrelated event happened to some friends of mine--At their company, the employees have to attend a mandatory company meeting every year around Christmas. This meeting is run by a 'Charitable Organization', and it's the charity that the company donates to. Now, the 'Charitable Organization' actively seeking donations shouldn't be frowned on (though I won't donate to that particular charity due to my own personal reasons that I won't bore you with), but a company making it mandatory that all employees must attend the 'Charitable Organization''s sales pitch?? That's a little, well, wrong, isn't it? Isn't that like an employer stating that all employees must attend his or her church on Sunday?

But that's not really what I wanted to talk about. It's this--

See, the 'Charitable Organization' could use these meetings in a 'sales pitch'--"We had over 'X' thousands of people attend our meetings!", inferring, obviously, that they must be a wonderful charitable organizatoin that people can and should believe in, and therefore donate to. What isn't stated is that, for at least some of the 'X' thousands of attendees, their attendance to these meetings was mandatory for them to keep their job. It's called 'coersion'.

And the phone call? "We polled thousands of people and 'X' percentage responded against same sex marriage!! We should push for legislation because it's what 'the people' want!!" By hanging up on me, the pollster wouldn't have to put me in the 'favourable to same sex lawful marriage', and can just say that the call to me was 'incomplete'.

I restate, I could be reading way too much into these things, but I do hear pundits and pollsters using stats to make their points--"'X' percentage of people we polled perferred what I'm advocating! We should *insert whatever here*"

And that's the part that really gets me--what about those dissenting opinions? Were they tallied with equal vim and vigor? Is the 'Charitable Organization' interested in getting an honest representation of just how many people want to attend their seminars, instead being dishonest about it by 'padding' their numbers via coersion? Is the whatever Family Coalition that called me that night interested in an open and honest debate about legalizing same sex marriage, or do they just want a bunch of sycophants to pad their polling numbers to push thru their own agenda, exclusive of what the truth actually is?

See, just by looking at just these two real life examples, I'd have to say that these people aren't interested in truth, or an open and honest debate. Rather, they are only interested in, really, their own self-interest--what's best for them, and who cares about others...

These two examples speak volumes, at least to me, when it comes to people using data to make a point--how biased was the poll? How many people were coerced to attend the meetings?

And therein lies the truth of the matter. We don't know. So we have to make the best decisions for ourselves by doing our own research. I looked into the 'Charitable Organization' and what I personally found made me make my decision--I'll never give them my money. And it doesn't matter how many borchures or commercials or 'success stories' I hear regarding the 'Charitable Organization'--all charities have similar successes and stories, and I'll give my time and charitable donations to whom I please, thanks.

As for the callers who only want pro-their-agenda people--call someone else. If you call me, I'll give you my opinion, and if you were honest with what you're doing, you'd put that opinion in your little statistics, instead of hanging up on me.

But that's just me.

It's amazing what a coat o' paint'll do...

Since our 'Big Kitchen Reno' won't be happening for a bit, Sandy took it upon herself to give our existing kitchen a make-over.

Have a boo at this photo album--Kitchen Cupboard Painting

Here's some highlights--

The bare cupboards--well, bare meaning no doors in this context

Green doors (not that I know they're green) waiting to be painted

Sandy painting

All painted

And done...

See all picture goodness hereKitchen Cupboard Painting

It's amazing how much brighter the kitchen is after the painting! And during this process, Sandy also took the time to clean and reconfigure inside the drawers and cupboards--it's well organized now!

Thanks, Babe!

Over here--2006 Canadian Blog Awards--our little website was in two categories (that I know of)--Personal and Photo Blog.

Without any advertising and coersion on our part, we still came in 21st in the photo bit, which is kinda neat...

So there you are. Thanks for the nomination!

Since becoming somewhat more 'active' in the LEGO community--being interviewed on television and attending hobby shows--I'm becoming increasingly aware of the difference between a 'collector' and a 'hobbyist'.

When I was approached a few weeks back to possibly be a person to appear on a television show regarding LEGO collectors, I had to think about what it means to be a collector, specifically as it relates to my chosen hobby.

And thus my rant begins...

Here's the thing--I don't care about set numbers--I'm not memorizing the entire history of sets as produced by The LEGO company (herein referred as TLC) I'm not interested in how many mini-figs came in whatever sets, nor do I particularly care about buying new sets today and storing them in a closet somewheres because they may increase in value over my lifetime.

Because, to me anyway, any LEGO set or piece I received in my childhood works with any new LEGO set I'd purchase today. That is one of the beauties of LEGO.

As a matter of fact, a 2x4 LEGO brick produced today works exactly the same way as a 2x4 brick produced back in 1962.

Yes, TLC has changed the molding process, and the plastics that make up the brick thru the years. However, a red brick from 1959 and a red brick today--pretty much the same. To me, the differences are negligible. To a collector--all the difference in the world.

I mentioned this idea to the producers of this collector show and mentioned that I probably wouldn't be the best 'LEGO collector' to feature--they should probably look for the geek--I mean guy--who has the set numbers memorized and the finished LEGO models sitting behind a lint-free casing for display purposes.

I also hit this 'collectability = more money' every time I find used LEGO bricks--the sellers seem to think that, because the bricks were bought in the *gasp* '70's, that they're worth more now.

Let me state that LEGO isn't gold--it does not increase in value as it gets older--it's plastic, and TLC is producing billions of the same blocks as I'm writing this.

That said, I was rather polite the other day whilst attending the Christmas Toy Show at the International Centre. My friend, Jeff, and I were checking out the rows upon rows of people selling their wares. Jeff noticed the box--one of the original LEGO train sets, possibly dating back to the '60's--'still in the box'--Ooooohhhh...!!!

I'm looking at the pieces in the box. Not one unique piece in the box--I have several of each sitting in my basement. The conversation with the seller gets to the point where the price comes out--40 dollars...

40 dollars??? You're kidding me, right?? For the 70-100 pieces in the box??

But then the 'nice guy' comes out--I let him know that, at least to me, the contents of the box are worth, maybe 10 bucks (in my buying, anywhere below 5-10 cents a brick is good--10 still being pretty high, so the box o' bricks better be woth it). "But," as I tell him, "A collector would give you more than the 40 dollar asking price--I've checked the contents and the bricks there are from the era of the set, and it appears that you have a few extra pieces, also from the era that haven't been produced since the '70's..."

See, nice guy. I let him know that he'd probably do better selling the box on eBay.

Me--helping out LEGO collectors, even theough they don't deserve it 'cause they're artificially inflating the pricing for the rest of us.

I did walk out of the toy show with a pretty big tote full of (mostly) basic LEGO bricks--I paid 100 bucks for the whole tote and I figure around 5000+ pieces in the tote (2 cents per brick--extremely good!) and there were some interesting finds in that bunch.

The one time that I actually put on my 'LEGO collectors hat', as it were, I got burned--bid on a 'rare' LEGO set on eBay and it wasn't what the description stated. Eh, live and learn.

So that brings me to the 'final straw' that got me to post this in the first place--I was perusing eBay, and noted a set up for auction. From the '60's (which is good), certain pieces that are not produced now (better...), but mostly basic bricks (that you can get in a LEGO bucket from a LEGO store right now if you so chose)--about 50-100 pieces in all. The bidding is at 40 dollars right now and the reserve hasn't been met. 40 bucks? for 100 pieces?? 40 cents per piece?? And the reserve hasn't been met?? Someone wants too much money--thinks that the LEGO bricks are made of gold or something...

Eh, let the collectors have their fun and spend their money foolishly.

As for me, I think I'll just build...

I'll try to be brief this time...

David Klinghoffer, of the National Review, had this to say regarding Rev. Haggards fall from grace--

This brings me right back to being 8 years old and listening to my mom--"If little Teddy rode his bike off a cliff, would you want to ride your bike off a cliff, too???"

Gay marriage does not threated heterosexual marriage. EVER!!

I'm in a heterosexual marriage and I can state emphatically that if my wife and I were surrounded by married gay couples every day for the rest of our natural lives, I wouldn't be remotely tempted to 'play for the other team'.

Why?

Because I happen to like being straight. I'm honest with myself and with my wife about my straightness--therefore I happen to find myself in a loving, committed relationship with a woman. No external force, gay or otherwise, will change that. The rest of the world can extoll the wonderfulness of gayness, but I'm not partaking, thanks! It's called character. It's called being true to oneself. It's called, in the words of Dana Whittaker from Sports Night, 'This is who I am and this is who you need to love!'

Now if people aren't honest with themselves about who they really are--for example, if someone has 'gay tendencies' (if such a thing exists) and yet tries to supress these 'urges' (for lack of a better word), essentially they are being dishonest about who they are.

Ted Haggard didn't need 'gay marriage' and a whole bunch of gay couples around him for him to 'fall from grace'. His fall was based solely on his own dishonesty and hypocrisy.

So, as my dad taught me whilst growing up, let's take responsibility for our own actions and not go looking to blame 'those that tempted me!'

I don't smoke. I've never smoked (though I have lit other people's cigarettes--see, honesty) and no matter how many of my friends smoked, I wasn't partaking. Ever. Like illegal drugs, I'm not having any of it, no matter who is trying to tempt me.

I also like the bit where David Klinghoffer gets on his high horse and equates being gay with 'anti-moral'--"The more society undermines ancient standards of moral conduct, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation. This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage."

Let me get on my supposed high horse right now--"the more society allows alcohol, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation. This is why alcohol threatens moral society!"

Did that make any sense? I don't appreciate alcohol. That said, me stating that those that appreciate alcohol are threatening the fabric of our society is ludicrous.

Gay people are not going to bring down society. Gay marriage isn't going to make your heterosexual marriage any less significant. What will happen, though, when people stop discriminating against homosexuals and start treating all citizens with the same laws and standards, we may find ourselves in a more open and honest society where people can be who they are, and we can love them for it.

And appealing to 'ancient standards of moral conduct'? I won't even begin to discuss that one--I'll keep my moral conduct in the 21st century, where people aren't burned at the stake, stoned, drawn and quartered, or whatever else the 'morals' of the time dictated, thanks.

At least there was one honest bit--"there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others."

There it is right there, really--the government is discriminating against 'some sexual relationships' (read-'gay marriage'). We really should look into that.

Not for kids!!! (and a very long read)

So many things on my mind as of late...

I heard this on Derrigner's show a while back and it kinda stuck--I can't remember who said what during his radio show or what the context was, but the idea stuck in my head--stuck enough that I went looking for it today--

From IMDB.com for the movie 'Grand Canyon'

No gun, no respect.

And I thought about it. Guns = Respect. Anyone who has had any Psych 101 or with studying bullying mentality, or even watching cop television since 'Hill Street Blues', will recognize that idiom--I have a gun, therefore you respect me.

Well, not so much--fear of getting shot does not equate to respect, in my opinion.

See, I believe it's kind of like a defect in the mentality or character of someone who has to carry a gun in order to 'gain respect' from his or her peers. They really are schoolyard bullies 'all growed up' and yet, still missing the almost blatantly obvious point--respect isn't something you can 'take' from people (gun or not), it is willingly given to you by your peers who believe you deserve it.

Somehow, thoughts about that were morphed very recently. No, I haven't experienced any gun-related issues. But the fallout from the once publicly esteemed Rev. Ted Haggard got my thought running again.

My former poli-sci professor, David T. Koyzis, posted his ideas regarding Rev. Haggards 'fall from grace' on his blog--

Hypocrisy: the unforgivable sin?

I completely concur with prof. Koyzis on this matter--now is not the time for 'smugness or superiority' from, well, from my opinion, anyone.

I followed one of the links from David's blog entry to this article--

The Case of Ted Haggard

and it was this article written by Francis J. Beckwith that helped clarified things for me.

Again, as stated by David above, celebrating or smugness is not only unnecessary, it shows a lack of maturity and grace.

On this I also concur--whether you believe that Jesus is the 'son of God' or just a 'cynic of the times', it's hard to disagree with the idea that Jesus did not take pleasure in pointing out the hypocrisy of others, and he never 'bragged'.

Francis then goes on to quote two of the 'more famous' passages on hypocrisy--

So far, so good...

Here's where we part ways on agreement, however--

Yes, those that gleefully celebrate the downfall of Pastor Haggard are a bunch of graceless yahoos... That said, it's pretty much the height of arrogant presumption to say that the' liberal-secular chattering class' are not serious about the wrongness of hypocrisy. Digging the hole even deeper, Francis goes on to say that 'such seriousness requires a tragic understanding of the human condition...and that it is only by God's grace and support of the church that we can find forgiveness, redemption and the strength to carry our cross.'

So only the 'cross carrying' people get to point out and condemn hypocrites as well as they are the only ones that can be forgiven for their hypocritical doings. Anyone else doing it is 'disingenuous at best and mean-spirited at worst'.

Not to be flippant, but the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' people who have been condemning homosexuals to ever burning hell for centuries aren't mean spirited?

Not that it's again blatantly obvious, but stating that the only people that are able to point out hypocrisy (those that have a 'tragic understanding of the human condition') should be the only ones that can point it out (because the rest of us don't take it seriously enough), is somewhat hypocritical, no?

Ahh, but here's the explanation--

The secular liberal has no 'greater god' to appeal to for justifying their belief in the wrongness of hypocrisy. Got it. Don't believe it (not that I'm a secularist liberal by any stretch...), but understand the point. However, you don't need a 'greater god' or even appeal to a greater law of nature to do the right thing. Let me put it this way--do you give to charity or help someone because it's the right thing to do, or do you give to charity or help someone because 'god wants you to' and also because it's the right thing to do? See, it doesn't matter to the charity or to that someone who you helped--they don't care why you did it--they just care that you did.

We go on--

Right there I call 'straw man'. I'm not usually good at pointing them out, but that's pretty much a blatantly 'in your face' straw man argument if I ever saw one. No one in 'civilized society' thinks that cannibalism is a good idea. No one at all. So here's the scale in my head--

See, by finding a topic that is reprehensible to everyone and using it to say that the pastor would be a 'good hypocrite' if he didn't partake in what he was preaching, well then hypocrisy is good!

Not so much.

Let's strive to find a topic that the liberal secularists might think is 'good' or 'sinless', but which the pastor and the congregation would believe is a sin. Tough--can't readily think of one.

Waittaminit--What did Haggard do? Why did he fall from grace? Got it.

See, this is why hypocrisy is wrong--from my perusing of various websites and blogs, I've read that for decades, Rev. Haggard preached about the 'sins' of homosexuality, probably causing guilt, anguish, and bitterness in people struggling with homosexuality. No one that I know is struggling with thoughts of cannibalism. I did happen to know, however, a few people who were struggling with their feelings regarding their own homosexuality. And I also know, just by being their friends and talking with them, that the church certainly didn't help their struggle one little bit over the course of their lives.

Anyway, I have gone on a bit about this. Just one more passage from Francis and I'll wrap this up--

Again, the malcontents jumping up and down, shouting with glee at yet another 'fallen from grace' pastor is wrong. On the same note, the hypocrisy that can state that 'Christians and other theists do not have the same luxury to plead ignorance. We are both constrained and liberated by the awful truth about ourselves' is apparent. What Francis states is this--only the God believing people of the world get to point out hypocrisy because they're the only ones that 'get it'.

Wrong on both counts--anyone can point out hypocrisy. Not only that, more people should--it may make the world a better place if people were walking the way they were talking--it's called 'honesty' and you certainly don't need to carry God's cross to be honest with one another.

And anyone can see hypocrisy--it's like watching a cop speed on the road or go though a red light without the lights flashing--I don't have to believe in the laws of the road to point out that the cop just broke those very same laws that he swore to protect. And the judgement? By their own laws they shall be judged. Render unto Caesar...

How does this tie with the quoted movie at the beginning?

Had Haggard been a secular liberal, we wouldn't be having this particular conversation right now.

I guess the painting mood is due to the fact that our wonderful neighbour has decided to sell her place.

See, her place is beyond gorgeous. Her kitchen is a masterpiece. Actually, I think that most new homes don’t even have kitchens as nice as hers.

I'll admit it - I'm completely jealous of her kitchen and I'll be completely jealous of the new owner as well because they will now have the breathtaking kitchen.

Now, I'm not saying that our kitchen is hideous or anything but it is definitely not breathtaking.

I have decided that I am tired of the green kitchen cabinets (of course my husband is colour blind and had absolutely no idea that they were green until I told him).

We discussed it and figure it will be a few years before we actually gut the kitchen and put in all new cabinets and probably move the kitchen to a complete new area.

So, I thought - I can repaint the cabinets white and add all new hardware to the doors. This will give a fresh new look to the kitchen until we redo it completely.

I have never painted cabinets before but I have watched a few home renos shows and figure - I can handle this. It may not turn out like a Debbie Travis makeover but I think they will look good when completed.

Now, for some reason I decided to start this project last night around 10:30p.m. It's never a good idea to start something so late, especially when you are tired.

I took the front panel off one of the drawers, cleaned it and then painted the primer on it.

Now, I should have checked on the internet for some "how to's" before starting because even though I have watched a few shows, I really didn't pay much attention to the little details about prep work.

I learned after the fact that I should have sanded the cabinet, washed it and then primed it but we will see what happens.

I will complete the drawer panel from start to finish before I continue on -- better safe than sorry.

If anyone has repainted their cabinets and want to offer some advice - I'd really appreciate it!

So here I am, driving home from work yesterday. I'ts a little after 4 p.m. and the usual suspects aren't making me happy--Q107 was playing some AC/DC or some other 'too loud' crap, and 96.3 had some obscure symphony on.

So I let the radio to scan the frequencies... hit the button and the radio stops for a few seconds on any strong signal--works pretty good when you don't know what you're in the mood for...

Suddenly I hear this guy talking. That's not the odd bit--guys talk on the airwaves all the time.

What was unusual, so I thought, was, "Hey! That guy on the radio sounds just like Ian Thomas!"

Now, again, Ian on the radio wouldn't be that unusual... See, Ian's a pretty good musician and he's pretty well known in my neck of the woods.

I would know his voice 'cause his son Jake and I were pretty good friends at one time--we even made a few LEGO movies together (alas, I don't have copies anymore ) So I hung out at the Thomases quite often in my teenage years.

Now here I am, in the Mighty Dodge, listening to this guy who sounds like Ian talking on the radio about the book that he just wrote.

In my mind, then, it can't be Ian--writing books?? He's a musician!

But it certainly sounded like him, and he's going on about politics and the environment and how we're all running this beautiful blue-green planet into the ground for the sake of the almighty dollar (wish I had a transcript right now--profound points!)

Turns out that, yes indeed, Ian is writing books! Here's his website--

Ian Thomas Band

You can read an excerpt from his book, Bequest, by clicking on the link on his page.

I'm buying it, site unseen, 'cause I already know it'll be good--Ian has yet to disappoint!

Favourite point from the interview? Politicians do whatever they can to get re-elected and then don't do much of anything when they are elected. The only time Jean Chr%E9tien did anything of significance for Canada was at the end of his political tenure--when he wasn't running for re-election. He stood up to the U.S. and didn't drag Canada into the Iraq debacle, he enacted laws that lessened the severity of pot use, and he got same-sex marriage on the table. If he was running for re-election, none of those things would have happened.

Loved it.

And I hope that his book does extremely well.