Via Patrick Lagacé, clips of news reports about apparitions of Jesus and the Virgin Mary in various inanimate objects.
Most of these are in the form of oddities, those non-news “before we go” or “finally tonight” segments meant to give people a chuckle. So at least the TV news people don’t take them too seriously.
Still, it’s amazing what people can see human faces in.
If you’ll excuse me, I think I see Jesus in that melting snowbank…
You know, this almost makes me want to watch Vision TV. For the subject matter, not for Ralph.
For any of you who thought we here in the True North Sane and Free were too good for the “War on Christmas” and other nonsense, Jean Charest would like to set you straight.
UPDATE: CTV also wasted time on this non-story. It’s funny how pundits can argue at the same time that nobody cares what it’s called and that it must be called Christmas because that’s our tradition.
A double dose from yours truly today:
This week’s Justify Your Existence is an interview with a member of Anonymous, the anti-Scientology group. Though she’s unnamed, you’ll recognize her as the same young woman I made fun of talked about earlier when a video was posted on YouTube in which she said Scientology conspired to get her fired from her job. Though I suggested she was weird, to her credit, she was willing to sit down with me and explain herself. Reaction on their forums is starting to build here.
There’s also a protest today at 11 near Lafontaine Park, for anyone interested.
UPDATE: For those of you who are reading this article because it was posted on the Anonymous forums and have never read it before, Justify Your Existence by its very nature takes a tough stand against its interview subjects — part of the reason it’s tough getting interviews sometimes.
Also, from the Enterbulation forums:
NO WAY!!!!
His name is Steve Fagay?????
Actually, no it’s not. But I’m touched by the maturity.
Finally, I’ve already got hate mail. Sweet.
This week’s Bluffer’s Guide is about the Buffalo Bills game in Toronto this week, and what the NFL testing the waters in Canada could mean for our national football game. There’s suggestion that the Bills might move to Toronto after its current owner dies and the franchise is sold off. Such a move, worryers say, would spell the end to the Toronto Argonauts, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and probably even the CFL itself.
It comes the same day as this piece from The Gazette’s Herb Zurkowsky, quoting league officials worried about the NFL threat. He also has some interesting history in his notes that I wish I’d stolen from is useful for context.
UPDATE (Aug. 21): A reader points out that other NFL games have taken place on Canadian soil. This will be the first time that regular-season games take place in Canada, however.
I’ve been asked (along with other bloggers, local media and left-wing conspiracy rags) to write about this video, in which an anonymous person in sunglasses and a tie rants about being “fair gamed” by the Church of Scientology and its minions (in the same way that someone rants about her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend).
I guess I’m just supposed to assume that everything this person said actually happened, and for the reasons given.
All I know for sure is that the anti-Scientologists seem just as weird as the people they’re protesting against.
UPDATE (July 17): I knew from the moment I posted this It’d get undue attention, and comments like this:
Title: Fagstein is gay | URL: http://fagsteinsuckscock | email: fagsteinisafag@fag.fag
Read about Scientology before you take a shit on the internet you dumb fuck
Fagstein is gay
Leaders of the FTQ and CSN told the Bouchard-Taylor commission that workers in Quebec should be forbidden from wearing anything that indicates what religion they are.
So I guess that means no more crucifix necklaces.
The article (I’m guessing it’s more their position) is a bit confusing, later going on about how they just don’t want employers to have to change any rules about safety or uniform codes in order to accomodate religious minorities.
It’s odd to hear about a trade union arguing for restricting workers’ rights, but then again these hearings are creating a lot of crazy ideas.
So when does the witchhunt begin for determining what constitutes a religious symbol? Does a black top hat make you Jewish? Does wearing a loose-fitting dress make you Muslim? Does a spaghetti-strap top make you a Pastafarian?
A gaggle of the usual radical left subjects is already condemning a debate on reasonable accomodation as “racist and sexist.”
Their diatribe produces golden gems of sociological claptrap like this:
In this respect, we reassert the dynamic nature of the various manifestations of our beliefs or cultural identities, which express themselves within a larger social and political context.
In particular, we observe that the analysis of the oppression of women and gender inequality, as expressed in the mass media, as strictly a phenomenon internal to religions, explicitly ignores the external, universal systems of patriarchy and sexism which all women face, while also definitively homogenizing religion.
Among the things they denounce:
– mass media
– the State
– capitalism (not quite sure what that has to do with Hérouxville)
– “imperialist feminist discourse”, whatever that is
– war proponents
– colonialism/imperialism
Things not denounced:
– oppressive religions