What to Say?!

I have been dying to write a blog for such a long time. As mentioned previously, I have so many topics to cover...there is just not enough time in the day. I'm so incredibly busy learning a ton of music for various things that I don't have time for sitting and musing much.

Well actually, that's not entirely true. I muse a lot at work because I basically do nothing there. It's kind of sweet actually. I mean, it's nice to get paid to sit around, but when I think about all the stuff that I really should be doing, it gets very frustrating to know that I'm sort of wasting my time at this damn job just because I need to make some cash.

Let me tell you a little something about working with the general public though - people smell. And they smell bad. I'm a receptionist and when people come up to my desk, I can notice right away when they are stinky. I don't know how many times I have had to bite my tongue so I don't blurt out "Did you take a bath in cigarette butts before coming here?" The smell of stale cigarettes is so incredibly disgusting. Then there's B.O., must, dust, mothballs, old-apartment-smell...the list goes on and on.

I'm not trying to be mean...this is a simple observation...sorry if I offended those who are prone to smelling bad. It happens...I understand.

Now for some exciting news - I'm going to Africa this summer...TWICE!!

I'm going to Uganda for 3 weeks with my mom, my sis, and our friend who is from Uganda. Her brother is getting married and she invited us along. It'll be really great to go there with someone who is from there and has family and friends there - much easier to get around and see things etc. I do want to spend some time on my own, though, just exploring and taking in things all by myself - have an adventure!

Then, a week after I get back from Uganda, I'm off to South Africa for a month to plant trees and do presentations on AIDS awareness. I'm pretty stoked about this, seeing as it ties in to my life philosophy to make the world a better place. But I have to admit, I'm really nervous about it because I have no idea what to expect. The other thing is that I'm absolutely terrified that this trip will fall through like my India trip fell through...and then I will have to consider myself one big failure at getting by butt out of Canada to opportunistic destinations on the other side of the world.

I do have to fundraise a nice chunk of change for this trip, though, so if anyone is willing to help me out and give me a donation, let me know via posting to this blog and I'll get you more details on how to go about doing that. Thanks in advance :)

What else? Well, I'm single. Not entirely freshly single though...it's been 4 months since my relationship ended with what I thought was a great guy. That illusion ended when Mr.Not-So-Wonderful came back from India engaged to a girl he'd known for a total of about 72 hours. This happened 3 days before my ex was due to come home to his ever-faithful and dutiful girlfriend (aka me). So he held off the family pressure for 5 weeks and caved at the last minute. Well if he agreed to an arranged marriage with a girl he doesn't know and who hardly speaks English, she's got to be something special - by that, I mean she's probably a looker with a nice rack.

I have to admit that I'm basically over this. I mean, it was really sad when it happened, especially because I found out from someone else, my ex being way too much of a coward to do the right thing and tell me to my face. But fortunately I have a logical pattern of thought that pulled myself together and said - Forget about this douchebag, gather yourself, stay strong because it's his loss and he knows it (and he does).

I remain optimistic that there are still good men out there who have the ability to be loyal and have the strength to say what needs to be said, when it needs to be said. It's a big world out there after all.

Also - nothing like watching the first 4 seasons of The Office post-breakup to really get you laughing again. That got me through the first bad weeks.

So to anyone going through the extremely unfortunate circumstance of heart-break, just know that there are other people who have gone through some ridiculous blows to the ego and made it through to the other side more-or-less unscathed. And actually, I have met some really great guys in the last little while - guys who are laid-back, whose company I enjoy, and who are smart, polite, and extremely personable.

Okay that's all for now.

Make sure you get your taxes done - only a few weeks til the end of April :)

Peace.

M,I.A.

Okay so I realize that I have been M.I.A. for quite some time now. My apologies to those of you who actually read this thing. Anyway, I did actually become really busy and then went away on vacation blah blah blah. But I want to be fairly dedicated to my blog so I'm going to lay down some thoughts.

There are actually a variety of topics that I have been meaning to write about lately: Barack Obama; breast cancer; breaking up; honesty; change; and true friends. Unfortunately, I don't really have all my thoughts collected enough to write a coherent statement on any of those topics. So for now, all you get is a retraction...and a demi-retraction at best.

In a previous post, I decried Rich Terfry's musical selections for this program on CBC Radio Two. As it would happen, I ended up listening to nearly the entire show on a trip home in January. And as it would happen, I ended up thoroughly enjoying many (if not all) of the musical selections that I heard on that program.

So while I do not enjoy all of the music that Mr.Terfry plays on his show, I have to admit that he does showcase some extremely unique, talented, and exceptional artists that would otherwise not receive the attention they so deserve.

There. Happy now?

The Enchantress of Florence

So I just finished reading The Enchantress of Florence, the latest work by renowned author Salman Rushdie. I wasn't quite sure what to expect of this novel. I had previously read a few of Rushdie's novels: Shalimar the Clown, to which I became immediately enthralled; Fury, a good novel, but definitely a little strange; and The Satanic Verses, which I found highly overrated and way too long. I started reading The Ground Beneath Her Feet, but couldn't get into it.

I figured The Enchantress of Florence could go either way, based on my prior attempts with Rushdie. Still, I found the synopsis interesting and of course no harm done if I liked it or if I didn't - it's only a book, after all.

The novel concerns a young European traveller - 'Mogor dell'Amore' - who arrives at the court of the Emperor Akbar claiming to be the son of a lost Mughal princess: Qara Koz, a woman so beautiful she is believed to have powers of enchantment. The story covers the history of Qara Koz and how she came to arrive in Florence, following captivity by an Uzbeg warlord and then a Persian Shah. The narrator alternates between the Mughal city of Sikri and the city of Florence. The book jacket asks the question: "But is the Mogor's story true? And if so, then what happened to the lost princess? And if he's a liar, must he die?"

An intriguing story!! Would I be as captivated with the story as Emperor Akbar? And the verdict: I LOVED IT! You know you're going to love a book when the opening line strikes you: "In the day's last light the glowing lake below the palace-city looked like a sea of molten gold."

There were a few things that I found so remarkable about this book:

1) Unlike so many books today that lament how miserable everyone's life is (no really, it's true!), this book had a captivating tale that was almost like a children's story. You had kingdoms and enchantments and battles and ghosts, plus some sex and profanity. Not since Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy or Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings have I thought a story has held me in its attention so well.

2) The way in which Salman Rushdie continues to question religion. That he does so in his controversial novel The Satanic Verses is fairly obvious (though I did not find it nearly as offensive as I thought it was going to be). In The Enchantress he uses Emperor Akbar as a scapegoat in which to convey philosophical musings on whether or not humans really need God.

Consider the following quotes as examples:

p.83 “He wanted, for example, to investigate why one should hold fast to a religion not because it was true but because it was the faith of one’s fathers. Was faith not faith but simple family habit? Maybe there was no true religion but only this eternal handing down. And error could be handed down as easily as virtue. Was faith no more than an error of our ancestors? Maybe there was no true religion. Yes, he had allowed himself to think this. He wanted to be able to tell someone of his suspicion that men had made their gods and not the other way around. He wanted to be able to say, it is man at the centre of things, not God. It is man at the heart and the bottom and the top, man at the front and the back and the side, man the angel and the devil, the miracle and the sin, man and always man, and let us henceforth have no other temples but those dedicated to mankind.”

p. 83 “If man had created god then man could uncreate him too. Or was it possible for a creation to escape the power of the creator? Could a god, once created, become impossible to destroy? Did such fictions require an autonomy of the will that made them immortal?”

p. 310 “If there had never been a God…it might have been easier to work out what goodness was. This business of worship, of the abnegation of self in the fact of the Almighty, was a distraction, a false trail. Wherever goodness lay, it did not lie in ritual, unthinking obeisance before a deity but rather, perhaps, in the slow, clumsy, error-strewn working out of an individual or collective path.”

However, in perhaps a contradictory statement, the Emperor reasons:

“The past was a light that if properly directed could illumine the present more brightly than any contemporary lamp…Understanding was another such flame. Knowledge was never simply born in the human mind; it was always reborn. The relaying of wisdom from one age to the next, this cycle of rebirths: this was wisdom. All else was barbarity.”

This may seem contradictory in lieu of the Emperor's comment regarding why one must follow the faith passed down by one's forefathers. Is it not the case that in religious families, parents feel the best knowledge they can pass on to their children is that of a religious nature: how to please God. I know this is certainly true in the families of many people I know. Who is to say what can be deemed as "knowledge" from the past, and what can be deemed as "a distraction, a false trail"? I don't have the answer to these questions, and merely pose them for interests' sake.

3) The power of women. Subtitled: the power women have over men/how easily men are swayed/the weakness of men. Rushdie describes many times over how the book's main woman, Qara Koz, is so beautiful that she can put a spell over people - usually men. However, we see that both men and women do her bidding. And not that she is evil in the use of her powers, but rather she uses her sorcery for harmony and contentment.

In one interesting passage, Rushdie alludes to the fact that men behave in such a way that they believe they are invincible. Granted, he is talking about soldiers. However, one could suggest that at some point in any person's life, the invicibility factor wears off and one is left with the cold reality that they will die. And in that moment, where do we turn?

p.214-215 “There is a weakness that comes over men at the battle’s end, when they become aware of the fragility of life, they clutch it to their bosoms like a crystal bowl they almost dropped, and the treasure of life scares away their courage. At such a time all men are cowards, and can think of nothing but women’s embraces, nothing but the healing words only women can whisper, nothing but the joy of losing themselves in the fatal labyrinths of love. In the grip of this weakness a man will do things which unravel his best-laid plans, he can make promises which change his future.”

p.215 “The need for a woman to cure the loneliness of murder…To wipe away the guilt of victory of the vainglory of defeat. To still the tremble in the bones. To dry the hot tears of relief and shame. To hold you while you feel the ebbing tide of your hatred and its replacement by a form of higher embarrassment. To sprinkle you with lavender to hide the scent of blood on the fingertips and the gore stinking in the beard. The need for a woman to tell you that you are hers and to turn your mind away from death. To quell your curiosity about how it might be to stand at the Judgement Seat, to take away your envy of those who have gone before you to see the Almighty plain, and to soothe the doubts twisting in your stomach, about the existence of the afterlife and even of God himself, because the slain are so utterly dead, and no higher purpose seems to exist at all.”

On another point, and not that I am advocating using sexual favours as a means to achieve, well, anything (!), but Rushdie's book certainly uses this form of coercion on several occaisions. I would merely like to take this opportunity to illustrate that so often there is only one thing on the minds of men, and they will do many things to get it.

Of course this is certainly not the only way in which women are strong. I highly enjoyed this quote:

p.51 “Women think less about men in general than the generality of men can imagine. Women think about their own men less often than their men like to believe. All women need all men less than all men need them. That is why it is so important to keep a good woman down. If you do not keep her down she will surely get away.”

Well, I'm not so sure if I liked the part about keeping a good woman down...though I suppose it is true: A good woman should try and get away if you don't give her a reason to stay!

Then there is the loyalty shown between women is much higher than the loyalty between men and women:

p.204 “Women have always moaned about men…because while they expect men to be fickle, treacherous and weak, they judge their own sex by higher standards, they expect more from their own sex – loyalty, understanding, trustworthiness, love..."

And what I really enjoyed about Rushdie's painting of Qara Koz was, to be honest, the way she resembled a man in her actions. Her swiftness in choosing a new lover/transferring her loyalty. Her surprise at finding herself in love and actually having feelings for a man. And despite this, her strength and conviction that she would rise above anything and continue on, with or without a man by her side:

p.259 “But if she lost him, she would grieve wildly, she would be inconsolable, and then she would do what she had to do. She would find her way. Whatever happened today, she would make her journey to the palace soon enough. She was meant for palaces and kings.”

That last quote reminds me of myself in a way (although the circumstances were different than those of Qara Koz in this instance). I had a recent break-up and yes, I was sad. I wouldn't say I was inconsolable or wild with grief, but I certainly cried and felt like shit. However I gathered my resolve and moved on, because I'm better than some boy - I was meant for palaces and kings :)

4) Magic/Religion vs. Magic.

I don't really believe in magic. I know there are things that may not be able to be explained. But I'm not sure if I could ever agree to label them as "magic". So it's always fun to read a book where there are spells or enchantments or ghosts. It almost makes us yearn for that ability to cure everything with a simple potion. Alas, such is not the way of real life. And I guess that's why we have books - to enter a different world for a while and live vicariously through the characters who have the powers to change their circumstances without necessarily working through them the way we regular humans do.

But in a way, wouldn't magic just be a kind of religion? Some things today that people call "miracles" might be called "magic" to another person. I thought that this quote was funny in that way:

p.318 “It was important not to offend against the laws of magic. If a woman left you it was because you did not cast the right spell over her, or else because someone else cast a stronger enchantment than yours, or else because your marriage was cursed in such a way that it cut the ties of love between husband and wife. Why did So-and-so rather than Such-and-such enjoy success in his businesses? Because he visited the right enchanter. There was a thing in the emperor that rebelled against all this flummery, for was it not a kind of infantilization of the self to give up one’s power of agency and believe that such power resided outside oneself rather than within? This was also his objection to God, that his existence deprived human beings of the right to form ethical structures by themselves. But magic was all around and would not be denied, and it would be a rash ruler who pooh-poohed it. Religion could be rethought, re-examined, remade, perhaps even discarded; magic was impervious to such assaults.”

Because really, a lot of people attribute their success in work, marriage, and life to their faith in God. I do agree that people shouldn't so blindly grant their successes (or failures) in some outside power. And I also agree with the suggestions of what can be done to religion. But I don't think that "magic" deserves the kind of adoration or responsibility that is most commonly reserved for religion. We are the ones accountable for our successes and failures. Still, our world is not necessarily devoid of all magic. The magic that is in our world is the magic we create in our relationships with people; the stories we tell; the music we make. The world can be a magical place, of our own making!!

Of course, Rushdie is telling a story in a different time, so this must be taken into account as well. But really it was said best this way:

p.75 “…witchcraft requires no potions, familiar spirits or magic wands. Language upon a silvered tongue affords enchantment enough.”

Which, of course, brings me full circle as to why I fully enjoyed this book: it was truly enchanting. I was held by the story; involved in the lives of the characters; excited at what was to come next - all tell-tale signs of a great novel!

I would definitely recommend this book to anyone. And I really hope that this post hasn't given away too much of the novel. Although I can say for a certainty that it hasn't! I don't think any of the quotes I used served to indicate the turns that are taken in the story...I merely used them to point out some of the interesting themes I thought were explored in the book. But I am sorry if I ended up ruining it for anyone...The essay-writer in me really came out tonight I guess ;)

But please, read the book if you get the chance because: “…the world is still mysterious…and the strangest story may turn out to be true.” (p.104)

Peace.

Pending

I will never ever cease to be amazed at how stupid people can be. You think you can have faith in the human race to get their shit together, and then you end up being completely astounded at the way thoughts get connected in someone's mind.

And that's not to say that everything that goes through my head is 100% logical all the time. But I pride myself on having the mental capacity to examine my thoughts and consider what makes sense and what doesn't.

The very fact that people on this planet rarely do this kind of self-analysis on their thoughts is the reason why everything is so fucked up!

I'm going to post more things later. There have been some extremely interesting occurrences in my life as of late and I really think they ought to be shared. It's just such a fitting example of how ridiculously people behave. Honestly though, life is way too screwed up. You know when you watch a movie and you think "Wow that is fucked" - well I bet that some of the things that happen in those movies have actually happened in someone's life. Because seriously, my life could be made into a movie and people would literally say "Wow that is fucked"...well, my life doens't even need to be made into a movie for people to say that...that's what they say everyday when I tell them about recent events.

I've been waiting to write about this because I've been collecting my thoughts for some time now...but in due course I will definitely have something to share!

Point in case

It's as if CBC Radio Two read my mind - driving home from work today, I decided to listen to Rich Terfry's show (at least the beginning of it). His first selection? "Love is the End" by Keane...Keane!!! Keane just screams British-emo-indie-pop!!!

Funny thing? I like Keane. And I liked the song. But it was something that could be played on either the independent radio station, or the 'lite' radio station where I live. Why is a pop sensation band being broadcast to a national audience?! It really bothers me that there is no classical option for listeners tuning into the radio between 3 p.m. - 10 a.m.

And in the words of Monty Python "And now for something completely different"...all I'm going to say is...two weeks...two weeks baby.

The demise of CBC Radio Two - RIP

Having lamented the semi-recent changes introduced to CBC Radio Two to a friend, he suggested I write a blog regarding the issue. So here is my editorial.

To begin I should state that I am a musician - primarily a Classical musician, raised through Canada's Royal Conservatory of Music and also through the Suzuki program (strings). So I love playing and listening to Classical music. Of course it's not the only kind of music I listen to or play. I played jazz for 5 years, too. And I have my non-Classical music passions too (Radiohead, Tool, RHCP, Eminem, and select rock-a-billy to name a few).

Why am I detailing the music I grew up with and the music I listen to and love? It's because in September, 2008, CBC Radio 2 took an ax to their Classical music programming, reducing it from twelve hours to a mere five! The new programming would consist of world music, jazz, and "adult" (ya, adult contemporary - like those sections they have in HMV with Enya, Luther Vandross, and Barbara Streisand).

Anyway, even though I love Classical music, I do enjoy hearing about new artists so I thought that maybe the new Radio Two would still be a great station to listen to. WRONG!

For starters, the DJs are incredibly annoying. I mean, I can hardly stand the sound of Julie Nasrellah's voice (sorry Julie). She gets under my skin and I really can't listen to her for more than about two minutes (and don't even get me started on Katie Malloch *induce vomiting*). Of course Julie Nasrellah is trying to step into Jurgen Gothe's shoes, and they are big shoes to fill! Jurgen was definitely my favourite DJ - what a totally random and hilarious guy. And now he only gets one hour of programming, on Sunday afternoons. Tragic.

Next, the five hours of Classical music that Radio Two plays now are required to be "accessible", which means nothing contemporary, nothing too dissonant, nothing that pushes the boundaries. Thank you very much CBC. You wanted the new Radio Two to embrace today's current artists, and yet the only Classical music you seem to play is Beethoven and Tchaikovksy symphonies.

Don't get me wrong - Beethoven and Tchaikovksy symphonies rock my world...but there is a lot of amazing classical music out there, some of which is seldom played. So when a whole hour out of five is taken up by playing an entire Tchaikovksy symphony (when you could only have played one movement of said symphony and then filled up the rest of the hour with some Previn, Respighi, Bruckner, Ravel, Somers etc.) it can be frustrating. This is especially so when this "accessible" music that is played is stuff that is generally familiar to listeners - perhaps something many listeners own in their personal CD collection!

What about the new programming? From 3-6 every afternoon, listeners are treated (? hmm...maybe I should have used the word subjected) to a selection of music chosen by Rich Terfry (aka Buck 65). The music I most often hear during this time consists of folky singer-songwriters (that generally all sound the same), usually accompanied by a guitar and possibly a harmonica (music one might hear on the program The Signal hosted by Pat Carrabre). However, I rarely hear something I enjoy during those 3 hours. The rub really came when I tuned in one afternoon to hear Rich Terfry describing one "epic songwriter" whose music seemed to enrapture anyone who listens to it. Intrigued, I awaited the name of this musical genius. How incredibly disappointed...no, disgusted...I was when the artist proved to be Jack Johnson! Uhh...I'm sorry...does anyone notice that all of Jack Johnson's songs sound the same?! To quote Mugato "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!" It was at that moment that I truly hated the new Radio Two.

Perhaps I haven't given the new Radio Two a big enough chance. And perhaps I'm over-generalizing the musical content of some of the shows. Whatever the case, Radio Two has changed, and not for the better it seems (at least in my eyes...keep in mind this is merely an editorial). So I have to say (because I can) that it's so unfortunate that a station which was once my favourite driving music has become yet another station to flip through, hoping there will be something half-decent being played.

Harry Potter, Departure, and Intelligent Design

A three-fold post about a few things that have struck me as of late:

To begin, I recently finished reading the last Harry Potter novel: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Readers be warned there are spoilers ahead, so if you'd like to skip the next few paragraphs, please do so.

I found this book to be similar to the preceding books of the HP series: too long. I would say half of this book could have been eliminated to create a much more satisfying novel. So much time was spent describing Harry, Hermione, and Ron sitting in a tent puzzling over where the remaining Horcruxes were located. (It had been two years since I had read the last HP novel, so for the majority of this book I had no idea what a Horcrux was...) Not to mention the search for the Deathly Hallows which, although supposedly the main idea of the novel (at least according to the title), seemed to be trival compared to the more obvious query of who would survive: Harry or Voldemort.

And, in fact, this dispute was not so easy to solve either. Despite Harry walking straight up to Voldemort and receiving a death blow, he was not killed. Rather he spent some idyllic moments with Dumbledore in some sort of Purgatory, where Dumbledore explained (rather clumsily, I thought) why Harry was not yet dead.

To be fair, I'm glad that Harry Potter didn't die. I mean, it would have been plain cruel if J.K.Rowling had allowed the beloved hero of so many children to have met his demise, even if it meant that Voldemort would also die. Still, I think it would have been a more "epic" novel if Harry had actually died, and the remaining chapter wasn't about how everyone lived happily ever after.

In any case, I found it rather unfortunate that so much of the book was wasted with uselessness. The real action started in the last third of the book, at which point, I have to admit, things became very entertaining. I have to say that I enjoyed the last few chapters. And I really did believe that Harry was going to meet his end.

To J.K. Rowling: your last HP novel gets a 7...maybe a 7.5 out of 10 from me. I know, it means nothing because you're a millionaire but hey, I can critique if I want to.

(p.s. - Does anyone else find that Rowling's language is quite simple - obviously, these are supposed to be children's books after all - but every now and then she'll throw in an obscure word, seemingly just for the hell of it? It's so out of character...drives me crazy.)

Next on the list: departure. I had the rather unfortunate circumstance of having a bunch of people all leave my current city at around the same time. Two very good friends left within 5 days of each other, my darling boy left as well, and so did my brother.

It was nice that so many of my friends randomly came home for a week or two and we were all able to spend time reminiscing, partying, just hanging out and enjoying each other's company. The only bad thing was that these people left!

Then my sweetheart departed on his journey to India. That was not fun. I had been bracing myself for it, obviously, but it still sucked big time. Fortunately he has been spoiling me by keeping in touch so well - I have to admit, I'm pleasantly surprised :) Still, it's another few weeks until his return and it's going to feel like forever!

And lastly, my brother returned briefly from his job in B.C. before heading off to Australia! I'm so proud of him for going because it's been a goal of his for a very long time and it's so wonderful that he's doing something he really wants to do. Of course it makes me terribly sad that I have no clue when I will see him again, but I know that this is an important thing for him to be doing and so I'm sending him all kinds of good vibes as he sets out for whatever he's looking for.

So with all these departures (and, in fact, another good friend is going back to her locale tomorrow) it feels like my life is emptying out a little bit. I mean, I have plenty to keep me busy - learning all this challenging music - but it's nice to have all your friends around. I don't like saying good-bye, either. I mean, once they're gone, they're gone and I can sort of deal with it. But it's that last hug, that..."Okay well I don't know when I'll see you again but...take care...keep in touch", that...leaving - those are the things that really get to me.

My last rant has to do with the concept of Intelligent Design. Now, i've had my fair share of debates on this topic, and I know many of my friends will attest to that! But I watched a movie tonight that really has me thinking again about all this creation vs. evolution business that I've kind of pushed aside for a few years.

The movie was Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and it's a documentary featuring Ben Stein visiting a sequence of universities to question scientists and professors on both sides of the debate between evolution and creation.

Due to my own personal departure from any form of organized religion, I have to admit I have questioned the existence of a creator. I believe, though, that there really must be a creator - a god, if you want to call it that - who is responsible for creating the universe and the first life form on planet earth.

What I found most interesting was that despite the most fervent claims from proponents of the Darwin theory that humans have evolved, no one knows how life got here in the first place. Celebrated novelist, atheist, and Darwinian Richard Dawkins stated in his interview that no one knows how life first came to be - even at the smallest level of the first cell.

Another point that was raised by an atheist (who also said that the study of Intelligent Design was a concept so boring to him that he could not bear to think about it) was that his investigation into Darwinism led to his atheism. He also brought up something that I used to think about alot, which is that evolution takes away the possibility of life after death, a deep sense of morality, and the concept of free will.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of what this gentleman said (his name eludes me at the moment), but that evolution presents no hope for any kind of afterlife is obvious. I have atheist friends who have a sense of morality (though what constitutes morality these days is also up for grabs), though who they owe any responsibility to is only their conscience, and hopefully an obligation to other humans on this planet. Therefore, if one becomes jaded, it may become easier for an atheist (or even someone who doesn't really care about god's role in their life, if they do believe in a higher power) to allow their sense of morality to collapse.

As for the concept of free will...well, I don't even know if I have enough information to start. Could evolution take away free will? Why would it? I don't really have an answer to this at the moment.

A touching (although perhaps unnecessary and unrelated) portion of the movie is when Ben Stein learns of the connection between Hitler and Darwin - namely that Hitler apparently used Darwinian principles in his efforts to stamp out anyone not of the Arian race.

However...It seems a little farfetched that evolution/Darwinian concepts of "natural selection" were the driving force behind the eradication of so many Jews, homosexuals, handicapped, and many other groups of people...Perhaps it had an influence - one cannot say it was the only influence, but, on the other hand, one cannot say that it had no influence whatsoever.

I think the biggest problem (and one rightly addressed by Stein) is the freedom of speech (or lack thereof) in discussing Intelligent Design as a possible theory to the origin of the first life forms on this planet. Because, after all, evolution is technically a theory like anything else.

And if you want to apply this principle to a wider degree - it's freedom of speech in many different areas. In this case, I don't know why teaching the possibility of Intelligent Design in a classroom should not be banned. Why is the teaching of evolution put on such a pedestal? It's because ID presupposes some kind of religious belief, and if you allow religion to get its foot in the door, there is no telling what other liberties it might take in the education of today's yound minds (not that I'm advocating religion in the classroom).

But is that not teaching a narrow-minded point of view? Should we not present all arguments in order to give people the best, most well-rounded education? Is teaching evolution as the only valid explanation to human existence not a little ignorant?

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Take them or leave them.

Peace