no, it's true.

easter is a great time to teach your kids about science.

if i had kids, we'd have only talked about science this weekend.

to be clear: i don't have any particular aversion to rebirth celebrations. i'm maybe a little beyond it. but, if it makes you happy, whatever.

i'd just request that you take the time to actually understand what you're doing - and that means researching the history of this over comparative mythologies in order to understand the syncretic basis of it.

you shouldn't look at this as debunking something. rather, you should look at it as better understanding it. if you're getting all of your information from a specific tradition, whatever it is, you're blocking yourself off to the other perspectives.

the rebirth festival is easy enough to understand. it is close to the spring solstice, and meant to represent the end of darkness and beginning of light. i may argue that the astronomy of it is not a reduction but a complication, as it is fascinating on it's own basis. but, if you're so inclined, a better understanding of these themes is likely to deepen your experience, rather than negate it.

i will fully admit that i have an ulterior motive: encouraging people to seek naturalistic explanations of things will likely separate them from the more dangerous components of religious observance. but, i'm not being disingenuous. if you like these holidays, why not learn more about where they came from?

there is nobody in the world that is more disappointed in north korea's failure to present itself as a feasible threat than donald trump.

he won't even release a statement. maybe he's waiting, in the hopes that the next one will be quick and will justify a response.

i mean, he had to drop his giant bomb in afghanistan. he probably didn't even get any bad guys. what a rip-off, this job is, right?

...and that was after he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted in syria.

they make it seem like you get to be the commander-in-chief, but there's all these egghead generals giving you advice, instead, and telling you you can't do certain things. it's not what they make it out to be at all.

maybe you'll get to play this game next easter, don.

everything bad that you've ever heard about sugar assumes you're overweight (and, statistically speaking, you probably are) and does not apply to you if you're not.

yes, we've reached this level of absurdity: it's the healthy people that need to do extra research, because the media assumes that you're fat.

(and, you probably are fat, too.)

it's almost like the only people on the continent that actually believed the 80s drug war propaganda grew up into politicians, and are now behaving as automatons, or something.

no, really. that's what happened to the kid in the front of the class that actually believed this shit: she's writing policy for your pseudo-left politicians, because she at some point got confused into thinking that being a liberal is the same thing as being a christian. oops.

whatever. just pass the bills already, and we'll figure out ways to liberalize the laws from there.

if you're trying to make marijuana less cool, it's just...

marijuana has always been the drugs that losers and outcasts use in order to escape from the conformity of the mainstream. if you don't realize that, here's your wake-up call: you're not one of the cool kids. the cool kids do uppers. they always did.

you can go back as far in time as you want, the constant is that potheads are always losers, and generally by choice. that leaves you with a gradient between people that are losers because they're legit idiots and people that are losers because they're too smart to fit into society.

these tactics to make the drug less hip, if they were successful, might work in reducing cocaine use, or ecstasy use - or alcohol use, being that alcohol is the ultimate "cool kid" drug. but, pot was always the loser drug. and, trying to socially engineer an exaggeration of the point is just increasing it's appeal to it's natural user base of people that don't want to fit in.

is it a little draconian? probably.

do i really care? not really.

do i think it will actually be enforced? probably not...

....and, do i think a court will probably gut it? within a year or two, probably.

i've been over this before. do you know who gives these kids pots? their fathers, or their friends' fathers. that was my first contact: my friend's dad. then, it was my friend's brother.

if they keep the focus of the law to these imaginary bogeyman (that are actually selling addictive drugs, like cocaine), this law will sit in the criminal code, largely unused. if they start going after peoples' dads, it will get struck down in court.

it's not the way i'd choose to do this, but it's not a reason to hold up the legislation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justice-minister-defends-14-year-maximum-sentence-for-providing-cannabis-to-minors/article34717884/

"the president is making a lot of progress on this issue." - sean spicer, when asked to explain why donald trump no longer thinks that china is a currency manipulator.

"maybe you're right. the truth is that these guys don't tell me anything." - ronald reagan, when asked about the iran-contra mess.

how long before the first statement becomes the second? or, is it already just about there?

but, you don't understand. this isn't some accident. this is the exact reason they picked trump over clinton, and then rigged the election in his favour.

he's making progress, guys.