A group of British, American and Canadian lunk heads will be studying out of body experiences to see if they are in fact “real.” It seems that not only are these “doctors” not currently aware of medical studies that explain an out of body experience and dash the hopes and dreams of those who have found alternative religion, they cast out logic all on their own too.

It’s worth mentioning that scientists even found a way to not only induce, but manipulate out of body experiences as well. It’s all just as simple as the brain creating a hallucination of some sort when you’re on the verge of death. Or to put it in a more humorous way; you’re brain’s about to kick the bucket so to deal with the stress, you’re totally trippin’ man!

Does the extensive plethora of data collected about this phenomenon deter the doctors who are about to undertake this study? Nope…in fact, a source for the CBC article by the name of Heather Sloan says:

It happened as far as I am concerned, and anyone who has had the same experience will say the same

Dear Ms. Sloan is a former Nurse. Because she had an experience and she has decidedly chosen to interpret it in a particular fashion, she’s a spreadin’ the good word of sky fairies and by gar, she can’t be deterred she says. Far be it for me to expect that a former medical professional realize that she may not be interpreting her body’s sensory information and as a result, envisions a group of medical professionals working on her body as she floats merrily above them. And people wonder why I don’t trust doctors to diagnose a simple cold.

Here’s how an out of body experience works. I don’t have a medical degree and apparently, no one is about to give me any grant money to explain this to you, but what the heck. I’m still wound up from work so before I crash and find a sudden and urgent need to make face love to my pillow, read on and be disappointed if you’re into superstition.

When you’re on the verge of death, your brain is totally freaking. Some would say, you’re goin’ flippin’ nuts. Ever actually thought you were about to die? Think back to when you were like six years old and you did something reeeeeeaaallly stupid on your bike. You were so scared that you thought you were about to die and your stomach suddenly shot right up into your chest. Remember that feeling? Ok, now imagine your unconscious and your brain is in the same head space….but a LOT worse. Your body is pretty much confirming to your brain that you’re about to buy the farm. This is a hell of a lot of stress so the only thing left to do is make life a little more easy to deal with and depart from reality…kind of.

You start to hallucinate but the most readily available information to fuel the hallucination is what’s happening to you right now. You might be unconscious but your brain can still gather and interpret information gathered through your nose, your ears, nerve endings in your body and in some cases, even through your eyes…I think. Not so certain on that last one but run with me here.

Even if we get rid of sight, the body can still do a reasonable job of using the senses to figure out what and who is in the room with you, what they are doing and where your body is positioned and in what way. Since you’re hallucinating and since this sensory information is the most readily available information for your brain to play with, you get to float above yourself (all the cool kids are doing it) and look at what’s going on. No spiritual mumbo jumbo, no hand of an angel or whatever…it’s just your brain dealing with death.

As for people who “see the light” or other popularized junk, they see it because they want to see it or expect to see it for some reason. If you’re heading for the big sleep and just before you get there, you’re expecting to see heaven and grandpa Jim holding that fish he caught way back in ’79, you’ll probably see it.

Here’s the bottom line. A bunch of doctors are using up a bunch of money to study whether a group of people will see randomly selected images above them while experiencing an out of body experience (they are going to be horribly disappointed) while some one dies of cancer. This is not only stupid, it’s down right disgusting. Why would anyone think it ok to throw money at something this rediculous when we don’t even have a cure for Monkeypox?

Seriously, that’s a deadly illness. I looked it up.

I really do honestly hate criminal acts for the most part.  I hate it when some one kills some one else and I hate it when property is stolen from some one.  That second one is probably why I hold such a great deal of hatred for government.

I really hate fake crimes though.  Crimes that are made up by government simply because a few people think it’s a good idea.  A few people thought it would be a good idea to arrest people who consume pot and so it became a law.  A few people thought it would be a good idea to make up hate crimes and so now, gay bashing is a law.  If some one strikes me down in a parking lot and says “That’s for being a Jewish sissy!” it is not only a charge of assault they’ll be facing, the cops will probably tack on a hate crime charge.  As was so eloquently explained by “the boys” in South Park, hate crime legislation is a savage hypocrisy.

In government’s never ending quest to intervene in our lives at every turn, everything becomes moralized and legislated.  Assaulting some one has always been bad under the eyes of the law and rightly so.  When considering whether or not some one should be arrested for an action of some sort, one should always ask a simple question.  “Who’s rights were violated?”  If the answer is no one, there should not be a criminal charge.  If the answer comes up with a victim, a charge is warranted in most cases for sure.

Police are charging some one with a hate crime because anti-gay remarks were made by some idiots…err…men who then went on to physically assault a fellow who was holding the hand of another fellow.  Now let’s be clear here.  I think these idiots should be punished for punching some one in the face when self defence was clearly not the motivation.  This was an unabridged case of unjustified physical assault.  Why does it become worse in the eyes of the law if anti-gay slurs were made before the crime was committed?  Is it truly justified to factor motivation for a crime into the charge?  I don’t think it is.

People often think that we have a right to not be offended by some one and in Canada, the law kind of says we do in many cases.  It’s a rediculous false right that should simply not exist.  I find a lot of stuff offensive but I would never think to bring the heavy hand of the state down on some one for simply saying something I disagree with.  That’s not a quality of a free country that is home to the free exchange of ideas and information.  The more we regulate what we are supposed to be thinking or saying, the more Orwellian our society.  No one can regulate what I say or think in truth, they can only oppress my mind and that never seems to end well.

Aside from the fact that regulating an individual’s motivational thought process is silly, this desire to separate people into groups is entirely counter-productive.  Homosexuals, people of colour, religious minorities and others all seek equality but they seek it through special protection from the state.  So far as I am concerned, if some one attacks me for being a Jew, it is down right anti-semitic for the state to say that I should be treated specially because my aggressor was motivated by my blood line.  Why should I be expected to use the heavy hand of government to punish some one for thinking I’m a subhuman when all I really think is that they should be punished for hitting me?

When some one assaults another human being, it’s assault plain and simple.  I don’t think any crime of assault could actually not be called a hate crime.  Does not all violence stem from some type of hatred?  Why is it worse to assault some one for being gay than it is to assault some one for being rude?  In either instance, the motivation for assault is downright stupid and the end result is that some one’s right to security of their person is violated.

Hate crimes are rediculous.  No one should have the right to be protected from being offended.  Frankly, that’s a violation of one’s right to express themselves.

Lots of things suck.  Drivers generally suck.  People who write cheques in line at the super market suck.  Police with more authority than compassion suck.  The government sucks.  Saskatchewan Members of the Legislative Assembly being paid over $80K/year sucks.  Lots of things suck and some of them have been written about in this very blog.  Welcome to yet another edition of “_____ sucks” here on the Zach Bell Show.

I figured it would be good to point out (in part) why elections in Canada are horribly inaccessible, anti-democratic and woefully unfair.  I’ll address a few points that I think are unfair and leave you to assume that whatever I failed to talk about was so complex and full of red tape that I just didn’t think it was worth mentioning why I think it sucks.

$1,000 DEPOSIT:

Every candidate seeking election must provide Elections Canada with a $1,000 deposit when they file their nomination papers.  Whether the candidate be a Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Independent or what have you, every single one of them must provide the deposit before being on the ballot.  This sucks.

I believe that requiring would be candidates to come up with a $1,000 deposit makes democracy inaccessible.  never mind that I think the idea of democracy is some what flawed, it’s what we’re using for governance and it comes with “as seen on TV” claims about being open to everyone.  Somehow, it doesn’t seem to me that a destitute single mother with great ideas about how we can run government would be able to make it on the ballot with this requirement.  Of course she could raise the money and get there just like anyone else but why does she have to raise the money and a small business owner who has the excess funds available does not?  Why should we be making ballot access difficult for some and easy for those with the chosen required resource (cash) readily on hand?

A CANDIDATE MUST HAVE:

• An Official Agent
• An Accountant

This isn’t entirely unreasonable.  An official agent is some one who manages the finances of the candidate and the accountant is some one who is able to sort out the books and verify the authenticity of the claims of the agent when all is said and done at the end of the election.  The bit about the account sucks though.  It can not be a public accountant.  It must be a CMA, CGA or some other type of alphabet soup type of accountant.

While some public accountants may find some worth in doing the work required for a candidate, a CMA will be doing so mostly out of charity.  Beyond that, they may simply charge an arm and a leg to get the job done…unless you are friends with one as many politicos are.  This again seems to shove the single mother who is not financially well off out of the picture.  Really, what average citizen has ready access to a Certified Management Accountant?  This requirement sucks.

NO CASH CONTRIBUTIONS:

Over $20.  Now this rule is made to be broken but it’s still stupid.  This doesn’t make the process any more or less accessible for most but it’s just flippin’ silly.  Frankly, I would very much like to receive a contribution of $1,000 cash from Vinny “the hammer” Goonellie…or something.  It would make for an interesting political situation at the very least.  I guess I’ll have to ask him for a cheque some day.

VOLUNTEER LABOUR ISN’T FREE:

If you volunteer for a political party outside of your working hours, you’re providing a monetary contribution believe it or not.  A political party can not simply accept some one as a volunteer, they must ensure that it’s logged and accounted for in some odd fashion.  I’m sure the rule is broken often enough but wouldn’t it suck for an independent small time candidate to suddenly be nailed for not keeping track of the commercial value of having some guy named Steve phoning his neighbours?

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=page4index&dir=pol/ec20229&lang=e&textonly=false#_Toc73148620

That right there sucks.  Just try reading that.  Seem all that accessible to you if you’re a layman?

THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS?

Look, this post could go on for a very long time.  It’s just a repetitive way of saying that elections in Canada are complicated, inaccessible to the average person and it’s a wonder that we have anyone voting, never mind 50 or 60 percent.

The limit on financial contributions to apolitical party or candidate also sucks.  I find it offensive that if I wish to donate $5,000 to the party I want to, I can’t.  I understand why this requirement exists, but I think it’s terribly misguided.  People were generally upset that corporate interests had a great deal of influence on how a political party operated because this is where the money came from.  I understand that this was an inequitable situation but dang it all, this could have been solved in a much more intelligent fashion and no one would have had to tromp all over my financial autonomy to do it either.  Why not simply remove the incentive for corporate interests to go after government?

Government is a complicated behemoth dominated by lawyers because we have accepted that we need to have an administrator for every part of our daily lives.  When we decided that government needed to regulate the supply and quality of prescription drugs, we created an incentive for pill makers to pressure government into relaxing rules, or making new rules to favour their lot.  When we decided to have the government regulate the banking industry and become intimately involved with it, not only did we see bankers develop a need to influence government, we see bankers IN government.  When we got the government to decide that we can’t ingest certain drugs, we saw police associations protect these laws with the same kind of zeal we see other labour unions protecting pro-labour union laws.

When we make government complicated and attempt to see it serve the interests of everyone, we end up with a government that is influenced by those with the most ability to do so.  We end up with an inequitable society run by a government that didn’t have any business meddling in our affairs to begin with.  If I want to run for office, it should be as simple as signing up.  If you want to donate money to a campaign, it should be as simple as giving it away and if a political party wants to maintain a website, it should be as simple as asking some one to do it for them.  Believe it or not, it’s not that simple at all and that really sucks.

Dang it all, government really sucks.

“What on earth is a liber…lib…libre…whatever it is you just said”

Yes, this is the question that often pops up when I say “I’m a libertarian” and follow it up with some short rant about how government needs to stop stealing from me.  Some people get it bang on and pronounce the word libertarian properly and others…well they have heard the word “liberal” too often and usually in the context of a centre right wing party that thinks creating a gun registry will reduce gun violence in our country.

Chit chatting with the Safety Guy and the Assistant Terminal Manager today was lots of fun of course.  The Safety guy professes to be a libertarian but still believes in government regulation over things like pharmaceuticals while I believe the regulations should go as far as what the free market expresses a desire for.  The Assistant terminal Manager is a socialist type of guy from the U.K. who saw fit to expound the benefits of the National Health Service and the idea that taxes are not in fact theft but a functional part of representative democracy.

I work with truckers, dock workers and other blue collar slobs (I’m slobbier than them all of course.  YARRG!) as well as managerial types, one of which I saw in the possession of a bag of golf clubs.  Who on earth brings his golf bag to a shipping dock?  Anyhow, on the front lines where we’re driving trucks and moving freight, you don’t expect to hear a heated discussion on the merits of taxation, the negative points of public health care and industry standards for the production of prescription drugs.

I guess all I’m trying to say is that I found out at work today that people who have enjoyed talking to me about how fun it is to tip a bottle at a weekend party are also ready, able and willing to talk to me about their political views.  It’s a refreshingly positive thing to realize.

If you didn’t think the NDP were idiots already for booting candidates for smoking pot that had already admitted it, take a gander at this steaming pile of stupid.

Remember how the NDP unceremoniously booted candidates Dana Larsen and Kirk Tousaw for smoking pot?  Well ok, they “accepted their resignations” and tried to make like they were playing nice.  Heaven forbid the NDP be up front and say that while they accepted that their candidates smoked pot before the election campaign, they decided to tuck tail and run once it hit the media during an election cycle.  Asinine dopes.

My major beef with the NDP leadership on that debacle was/is that they didn’t stand by their convictions.  They threw their candidates and a lump of their supporters under the bus because they realized that they would have to actually answer questions about whether or not they were honourable jackasses or not.  Since actions speak louder than words, we can easily conclude that they most certainly are.  It seems like the NDP is making a huge effort though to prove it to us.

The NDP refuses to stand by a couple of candidates who readily admit to smoking pot but will stand by their candidate in Saskatoon who has a grievance launched against her.  For what you may ask?  The investigation paid for by the City of Saskatoon found that she had violated work place policy regarding bullying in 11 different instances.

Not only do they stand behind her but they say that this is not cause for strengthening their vetting process but that their two candidates in B.C. that smoke pot are a demonstration of a need for such.  Whaaa?  Violence in the work place is ok but widely and readily admitted use of pot is not?  What on earth happened to the NDP this year?

I just can’t understand it.  One one hand you have two cannabis legalization activists who have admitted from day one that they smoke pot.  When it shows up on video during an election cycle, (videos which were freely available and even promoted for aeons) the party suddenly loses the strength of its convictions.  When a city investigation finds that some one has been a bully in the work place on several occasions, that’s somehow ok.  I seriously just can not wrap my head around that.  Anyone care to explain why this makes any sense?

Also by the way.  If Charles Adler (Nationally syndicated talk radio show host) is anything like me and googles his own name.  He might find this post.  I’d like to point out to him that when he said the two candidates in B.C. were “caught” on tape smoking pot, he was being an idiot.  Dana Larsen and Kirk Tousaw were not only readily aware of their being filmed, they often referred to it in the past and were fully aware of the video’s existence.  They were not “caught” on tape, they were simply filmed.