One might argue that the efficacy of government is a convenient fiction. It is pleasant to rely on Big Brother to sort everything out. Politicians are fond of national energy strategies, five year plans, power generation schemes, and assistance to unlikely industries. They are increasingly seen to provide security through increased regulation and micro-management. They provide healthcare for all, and suggest in a myriad of ways that a comfortable life can be attained without effort. Yet the nanny state saps freedom and initiative while power costs soar, subsidized industries fail, and the wheels of centrally planned health care slow ominously in the sticky muck of reality. It is instructive to see the deference paid to the United Nations, which is a startling testament to the ambition, inefficiency, and corruption of government writ large.

We have just been asked by Google – our friendly e-mail provider – to supply them with our cell phone number. Their pretext is that, should there be any "suspicious" attempts to gain access to our e-mail account, the cell phone number would serve as an extra security safeguard.

Well, we are not having any of this. Apart from the fact that our cell phone is used only on the occasions of Geezermobile Breakdowns, and relatively rare Bear Attacks and, as a result, we have no idea what the number is – we see this only as part of a gigantic Plot – the unstated but surely logically compelling aim of all governments – in conjunction with Google, of course -- to turn us all into bees for the hive.

The more we have considered our suggestion (see below) that improvements in technology, together with the irrefutable argument for the primacy for the common good, will inevitably result in a single chip – implanted at birth in the left shoulder -- containing our Social Security, Health Card, Cell Phone, and IP address numbers -- the more compelling it appears. These numbers may be scanned at will; indeed, they will be available at a distance, thanks to the constant monitoring of the central tracking device.

With the smooth operation of the system, crime would become virtually non-existent. Much employment in the system of criminal justice will be rendered obsolete, paving the way for a commensurately increased focus on human rights commissions.

A whole genre of literature – including the detective crime novel and the murder mystery – will be rendered obsolete. The questions of the courtroom lawyer will sink into absurdity:

"And do you deny having an affair with Pamela Milkwood, Mr. Smither’s secretary?"

Such questions will be nonsensical. The chip record will clearly indicate that Mr. Peabody was indeed at the home of Mr. Smithers on the night in question. And it can clearly be shown that Mr. Peabody and Ms. Milkwood were at the Lonely Hearts Motel on many occasions in the preceding months. Indeed the chip "black box" records suggest elevated heart rates and deep breathing.

We think that there is an inevitability about this process; at each step of the way, we will be assured of the great advantages to our safety and security, and the huge savings in maintaining the hive.

As the full cost of our security becomes evident, there will undoubtedly be a backlash. Some will be impelled to go chipless, and live in remote caves. Others may attempt to exchange their chips with those worn by Rover or Mittens. But we suspect that technology will win in the end.

(National Post Article by Joseph Brean, February 4, 2012)

We recently invented our own Religion, Abracadabra, devoted to the worship of the Great God Murphy* – the most reliable predictor of human outcomes. We have not really had much time to publicise it, or work out the necessary rituals, prayers, and requirements–or to launch a recruiting drive for followers.

We confess, therefore, to being a little dismayed to learn that Alain de Botton has written a book entitled Religion for Atheists – which unveils a plan for the construction of atheistic shrines and temples in Britain, together with the institution of certain rituals such as a quarterly day of atonement, and an annual Feast of Fools.

As Joseph Brean’s article in the National Post (February 4) so cleverly puts it, Mr. de Botton’s aim is to save "the baby of ritual from the bathwater of supernatural belief." He gives credit to religions, which "know that to sustain goodness, it helps to have an audience." He also acknowledges that adults, like children, need authority, and are susceptible to formal public repetition of principles, which serves as a validation of belief.

Many years ago we read a book by A.W.T. Simeons entitled, Man’s Presumptuous Brain. The thesis was that man’s brain is an uneasy amalgam of the ancient diencephalon and the modern cortex. The diencephalon which, among other things, is responsible for "fight and flight" mechanisms, is often preparing the body for actions which the cortex perceives as inappropriate and firmly suppresses. From this battle of the brains, according to the book, many "psychosomatic" maladies result.

Hamilton, Ontario. Special to Forward News. At a press conference called today at the Offices of the Lumpenbangen Piano Institute, important statistics for the lumpenbangenpiano website were released.

The president, Dr. Idel Dreimer, wearing the traditional burka as a privacy measure, lamented a recent increase in visits to the site during January. The following has been excerpted from his lengthy address:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, it is with some concern that we note a nearly 20% increase in visits in January from the previous month. As you are probably aware, the site was conceived initially in order to entertain our Aunt Myalgia, who is currently languishing at the Shady Hollow Psychiatric Facility in Downtown Toronto.

With the exception of a few unfortunate lapses, every effort has been made to keep the site an entirely private matter. It is true that in occasional unguarded moment, a few personal acquaintances were apprised of its existence, and then hurriedly sworn to secrecy.

And on one or two occasions, in a state of regrettable inebriation, we paraded with an advertising placard at the corner of King and James Streets in downtown Hamilton. However it was late at night, and it is doubtful that anyone would notice a burka-clad picketer on the darkened streets of Hamilton, which are virtually deserted after six o’clock.

In addition, we have made the site as user-unfriendly as possible, using ersatz 18^th Century language in our Diary, and insisting on using complete sentences and conventional spelling in the tediously lengthy ramblings in the Drivel Section.

A postscript on Equality and the Law

We have noted that people are inherently unequal, but that it seems admirable to aim for equality of opportunity, and equality of treatment in many circumstances. When we go to the passport office, we expect to be dealt with equally on the principle: first come, first served. We expect each individual to have the equal circumstance of one vote. But equality is often elusive. While the healthcare system may claim to treat people "equally" by restricting them to a single monolithic system, it treats them both badly and–in practice--unequally–and so we think a greater degree of equality may actually be achieved by allowing the purchase of private insurance.

The greatest conflict between the idea that people are inherently unequal, but should be treated equally in many circumstances may be seen in the legal system. The idea that true equality of treatment is attainable–that every circumstance can be codified and a consistent penalty applied-- is belied by the variations encountered in real life. Judges Brown and Jones might differ in their treatment of Defendant Execrable based on any number of personal biases, philosophies, or circumstances.

We have concluded that the principle: "life is sacred," is convenient and sometimes helpful, but is limited in its application–that application being variable and socially determined.

The ideas that freedom, tolerance, and "equality" are absolute goods are also flawed.

Freedom is good, but there are obvious limits needed; one person’s freedom is limited by the freedom of others, or by the requirements of some perceived social benefit. Those limitations will obviously be perceived differently by different people under different circumstances; this ensures that we will always live in "interesting" times.

This is well understood, and scarcely needs elaboration–but here are two examples. In the first instance we see a limitation on individual expression in certain circumstances to be of social benefit; in the second we see the removal of restrictions to individual freedom to be of similar advantage.

We would like to see freedom of religious expression limited to the private sphere; we think it inappropriate for schools and government offices and representatives be seen to endorse a particular religion. Thus we oppose the distribution of Bibles by schools in Prince Edward Island, turbans for RCMP officers, and hijabs for Toronto Police Force.

Our own particular quarrel with limitations on freedom in Canada involves the coercion of our health care system, which requires us to patronize only one provider of care–the inadequate one run by the government. Similarly, we question whether Human Rights Commissions’ pursuit of human rights can justify the destruction of freedom it seems to entail.

The idea of tolerance as a universal good seems to have taken particular hold in Canada, which prides itself on "multiculturalism"–a policy which requires a degree of tolerance of differing cultural customs. What many are reluctant to accept, perhaps, is that excessive tolerance can become spineless stupidity.

Were a group of ancient Mayans to move to Canada and engage in the practice of ritual human sacrifice, tolerance would seem to be an inappropriate reaction. Such is the fear of being denounced as "intolerant" in Canadian society, that it would not surprise us to see a defence being made by some exquisitely sensitive left-wing group, citing the importance of traditional culture in maintaining a healthy sense of self-esteem.

We have long bemoaned the fact that Canadians, having a culture which seems so attractive to others that much immigration is inspired, seem so anxious to alter it in favour of cultures from countries where conditions of life are manifestly less desirable.

We are particularly annoyed by the tolerance for face-coverings, and are pleased that a face-cover is no longer acceptable for an applicant in a Citizenship ceremony. We feel that revealing the face should be required in all interaction with government, and it should be legitimate for shopkeepers–jewellers especially come to mind–to deny entry to masked individuals. We can understand that other cultures may be perfectly accepting of masks. Ours, for reasons of safety and social cohesion does not.

George Jonas once referred to "equality" as a "convenient fiction.". The inspirational rhetoric–"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is, in reality,  no more than pious piffle–a fact underscored by American custom of slavery at the time. Like the idea of the "sanctity of life"–"equality" sounds attractive–but when examined it turns out to be an concept fraught with difficulties.

The term "equality" is used carelessly. Recently, on his television program, Brian Lilley, in discussing the matter of special "aboriginal" parole hearings, said: We’re all equal aren’t we?"

What he meant was–we think– "We should all be treated equally, shouldn’t we?"

It is obvious that people are not equal. Some run faster than others; some can do math, while others can’t. People never have been, are not now, and never will be equal. Equality is not found in nature. Indeed, we have observed that, if, in the development of life, single-celled organisms had adopted the principle of equality, then the world would now be populated entirely by single-celled organisms. (Observation 8)

Those who seek equality should be careful about what they wish for.

It would be far better for people to seek improvement–for this is something actually attainable. In fact, of course, people who say they seek equality don’t really mean it. If Mr. Jones were to attain–for example–equality of income with his neighbour, Mr. Brown–would he then be satisfied with that "equality?" Of course not. He would continue to seek what he was really after– improvement.

At any time you achieve a valid definition of human equality–you discover that it is so broad as to be virtually meaningless: All human beings are equally mammalian, sentient-- or are equal in "the sight of God."

Now there is a kind of equality which we can strive for in society–not the equality of beings–but equality of opportunity, equality in voting, equal treatment of citizens. Even here, perfect equality may not be attainable–but it seems legitimate to use the term to represent the goal of creating a "level playing field"–from which each may pursue–not equality–but improvement.

In conclusion, the devil is sometimes in the principle. We often use terms which represent "convenient fictions" or "helpful illusions," without being aware of their limitations.. The danger is that they become absolutes–viewed as irrefutable principles and used as bludgeons in order to stop all dissent.

Life is only as sacred as we determine it to be; freedom and discipline are complementary concepts; there are limitations to tolerance; equality of opportunity is worth striving for; equality of result is a unicorn at the bottom of the garden.

The natural world is, as Tennyson noted, "red in tooth and claw." While some animals are vegetarians, most are both prey and predator; the world functions on the basis of "creative destruction"–the lives of animals do not seem so much "sacred" as part of a continuing cycle of predation. Indeed, the universe seems to care little about individual creatures or even species. It would appear that  major extinctions of life have occurred several times in the history of the earth. In addition, 98% of documented species are now extinct. Were we able to conduct an interview with a dinosaur–one speaking from beyond the grave-- it is unlikely he would see the universe as showing a particularly protective benevolence. If there is a "plan," the sanctity of animal life does not seem to be part of it.

Those anxious to uphold the principle of abortion as a private matter, are inclined to allow the admittedly injurious practice of sex-selection abortion.

The following is excerpted from an address by Dr. M. T. Wasteland, of the Nullity Research Institute, delivered last Tuesday to the Burlington Branch of the Canadian Atheists Association. The address was titled "Atheists for Equality...and Beyond."

Ladies and Gentlemen, Fellow Atheists:

We are here tonight to discuss our difficult path towards equality. While equality is not found in nature, it remains one of the great dreams of humankind, and to that end much effort has been expended--yet much still needs to be done.

We have indeed seen much progress in Canada: hiring policies–particularly those of governments and universities-- routinely favour such historically oppressed groups as women, "visible" (as opposed to invisible) minorities, aboriginal persons, gays, and the disabled. The Human Rights Commissions are engaged in a tireless fight against even the most casual failure on the part of ordinary citizens to recognize the special status of such groups.

Many shocking inequities remain. The population of space capsules has been revealed as woefully lacking in blue-eyed, left-handed females. The profession of hairdressing is deficient in women over seventy with green eyes, and right-handed white males under six feet tall are significantly under-represented on professional basketball teams.

These glaring examples of inequality pale, however, in the light of the pitiable situation of atheists in our society.

We need not dwell on the oppressions of the past–the treatment of heretics by the Inquisition, the burning of witches at Salem. They are deeply ingrained in our collective unconscious. But it should not be overlooked that those prejudices of the past, albeit somewhat dimmed, are still with us today. Jonathan Kay, of the National Post, recently remarked that he found dinner table atheists "irritating." Similarly, Ezra Levant, on his television program The Source has suggested that atheists are deficient in vision–they just don’t get the "God thing." Indeed, a recent (2011) University of British Columbia study suggests that atheists are distrusted to about the same degree as rapists. A 2007 Gallup poll found that only 45% of Americans would vote for an atheist Presidential candidate.

Ladies and gentlemen–let us look at the facts. Atheists–considered by some to represent 19-30% of the Canadian population--are so oppressed, so marginalised, so fearfully stuck in the closets of godlessness–that they simply have not registered on the equality radar screen.

When have you seen an atheist asked to say a few words at a solemn ceremonial occasion? When has an atheist been asked to consecrate an Office Tower to the service of Mammon? What special Olympic competitions are held for atheists? What discussions are there in learned journals about the Belief Ceiling in corporate culture? What atheist football player has performed a ceremony of  disbelief before a game? When has the Mayor of Toronto refused to attend a parade of naked and half-naked atheists through the streets of his fair city? And how often has the enforcement of laws been suspended when atheists have blocked roads and demanded the presentation of atheist passports to disputed property?

But, my friends, this disregard extends into the warp and woof of the humdrum–the common interactions of ordinary life.

Once upon a time, in the faraway land of Adanac, in the satrapy of Ario, there lived a small boy called Malton.

As was the custom of the time, Malton attended a place of elementary learning a short distance from his home. That home was in a favoured part of the town, where the streets were broad, and where, in the summer, great trees cast their benign shade over brick houses that were comfortably substantial.

But it must also be noted that the nearby place of learning was not far from some rail lines, on the other side of which, the aspect of the town changed dramatically: the streets were narrow, the few trees stunted, and the houses often little more than ramshackle abodes held together with chicken wire and force of habit.

Thus it was that Malton’s school–as such places were then called-- was attended by the children of those in quite different social circumstances, and a certain element of rivalry and resentment was a continuing factor in the corridors and playgrounds of the learning establishment.

One day, Malton, a rather small boy, was accosted by a much larger one, Ab Riginal, who threw poor Malton to the ground, and demanded his lunch–that little brown bag of nutritious sandwiches, fruit, and chocolate chip cookies which Mrs. Deguinty had so carefully and lovingly prepared for Malton’s noontime repast.

"Malton," she said, "On no account must you fight back. That can be terribly dangerous. I will make you another lunch, which you can give to Ab. The poor boy is probably very hungry.

And so it was, for the next few days, Malton would present Ab with the extra lunch that his mother had packed, and Ab would take it and push Malton to the ground in gratitude.

Of course, it was not long before Ab was taking Malton’s own lunch, as well, and demanding all the money that Malton had in his pocket. In a relatively short period of time, Mrs. Deguinty was at her wit’s end, and eventually she persuaded Mr. DeGuinty to move to another school district. This was a somewhat costly solution, to be sure, considering the real estate commission, the hiring of movers, and the premium price of a home not quite so close to the rail lines. But it did avoid confrontation, which, as all will agree, is the greatest of evils.

In an odd, almost inexplicable turn of events, Malton grew up to be the chief Pooh Bah of the Satrapy of Ario. It should not be a surprise–of course: whenever he encountered a bully who wanted something, he would remember his mother, go to the taxpayers, and tell them to pack him an extra lunch.

We sent our diatribe of yesterday, which supported the position of the Globe and Mail–that the Saskatchewan move to fund religious schools was divisive-- to Jerry Agar, who is in favour of such funding.

He has responded that our position is totalitarian, arrogant and disrespectful of others.

While, of course, we do not see ourselves as particularly totalitarian–we do understand his point. Public education itself is totalitarian–a Ministry of Education–or a School Board-- decides what will and what will not be taught. The idea of shutting students up in rooms full of books and computers for four years, and letting their natural curiosity direct their study, has not gained currency–or at least–not yet.

What we see as a public system blessedly free of superstition and cant, Mr. Agar may see as a desert of arid godlessness, and blame a monolithic, totalitarian bureaucracy for creating schools which do not represent his values.

We have much sympathy with this sentiment, for we ourselves left the teaching profession precisely because the school system no longer reflected our values.

Mr. Agar would wish, no doubt, to lessen the totalitarianism by having both secular and faith-based schools which would allow for freedom of choice. While we would favour a competitive school system, in which individual schools would have more leeway in their approaches, and could compete for students based on results, we must admit that our inner totalitarian is triggered at the thought of those schools being primarily informed by religious sentiment–for all the reasons we adduced yesterday.

But–leaving the matter of schools aside for the moment–we feel we should reflect on the limits to atheism.

While we deplore the excesses to which a religion–since it is not amenable to restraint of reason–may lead–we think it unlikely that skepticism with respect to religion will ever become dominant.

First, it may well be that a belief in some comforting organization of the universe exists is selected during evolution. It would not surprise us to learn that comforted optimists survive better than uneasy pessimists, and are hence favoured in passing on whatever genes might affect such attitudes.

By replacing the anxiety about death with the notion of an afterlife, and by regulating anxiety about sex with rules and ritual-- much comfort is given. They also note that religions are connected to social structure–they have tribal effects–and encompass reinforcing ritual, glory, and music. They also provide an antidote to the hierarchial aspect of reality–in religion, all may be seen as "equal" in the sight of God.

Gosh, what’s not to like? In contrast, skepticism can offer only an uneasy withholding of assent, an arid uncertainty, a fearing of the worst, a puritanical demand for the truth, even when it is not readily discernible. Mr. Tiger admits that he thinks an afterlife "wholly improbable" –but the plain truth is not much of a match for comforting illusion.

We enjoy being tiresome and repetitive–it must be the religious impulse–but we can never pass up an opportunity to refer to our favourite novel--Heart of Darkness. (See Drivel August 15, 2010, for brief analysis.)

In that novel Joseph Conrad suggests that the need for illusion is greater than the need for truth. While there is a "flavour of mortality" in lies, and the result is a civilization which can be characterized as a "whited sepulchre"–we find ourselves compelled–when the pressure is upon us–to maintain a comforting illusion, lest the whole machinery of things collapse around us. It is this perceived necessity–to choose illusion over truth-- that is the darkness at the heart of human existence.

In jest, we have created our own religion, Abracadabra, devoted to the Great God Murphy, who has a realistic appreciation of the likely outcomes of human endeavour, but is otherwise comfortingly supportive of our opinion.

But who knows what subterranean neurological forces he may represent?

Our solution--a soma for the brave new world–is, we suspect, unreasonably optimistic: religions which retain all their soothing characteristics, but which can be set aside at will when it comes to dealing with the realities and truths of the world which we–mysteriously–inhabit.

On The Source (January 6–we did not see the program until January 8) Jerry Agar takes exception to a Globe and Mail editorial which criticizes Saskatchewan for moving to provide for more faith- based schools. Mr. Agar objects to the notion that religious people should be "quiet" about their religion. He evidently believes that "freedom of religion" means that people should be able to send their children to religious schools at taxpayer expense.

Our position is that there should be freedom of speech. We think that TimTebow should not be restricted in his ostentatious display of religion. We may think it foolish and in bad taste, but foolishness and bad taste are best dealt with–mostly–with ridicule.

Similarly, we think that Bill Whatcott should be allowed to distribute anti-gay literature, that holocaust deniers should be allowed their soapboxes (otherwise we would have justification for prohibiting climate change deniers), that members of the flat earth society be permitted to walk off the edge, and that Scientologists should be bound only by the laws against fraud, not the laws against stupidity.

We confess, however, that we do have a bit of trouble when it comes to School Boards devoted to the propositions that gays are sinful, that the holocaust never happened, that the earth is flat, or that Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy killed billions of his people, transforming them into Thetans. Alas, we must put religion of any kind in the same category. Yes, to freedom of religion–but not freedom to indoctrinate the young in school systems premised on beliefs which have no evidential justification. (We are not, of course, rejecting elements of moral codes that may have developed from religions; those codes may also be seen as practical in the operation of society.)

We would add that we also object to religious symbolism which suggests the Government espouses a particular faith. Thus we object to members of the RCMP  wearing turbans, or Toronto police officers wearing the hijab. In this manner private folly is given state sanction.

We hate to reiterate the obvious–but when faced with those who seem to think religion is a really great idea–we must do so.

2. The Christian religion–the only one with which we have the least acquaintance–does not have an awfully comforting track record. If it is now relatively benign, it is because it is now relatively toothless. At one point the believers thought that the sun moved around the earth, and were distinctly unkind to those with a different view. They thought that the earth was 6,000 years old, that all animals were created as they currently appear, with a godly decree. They believed man was a creature magically placed between Animal and Angel–not simply an animal with a highly developed brain. They thought that torturing people into submission to a belief was a good thing, and that witches should be burned at the stake. The problem is, as Voltaire (1694-1778) pointed out: "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." And we won't even mention modern sexual abuse scandals.

3. From what little we know of the Muslim religion, it is pretty scary. Apostates should be put to death; 72 virgins in heaven are the reward for bombing the enemy; bombing the enemy seems like a good idea if someone ridicules your religion; fatwas are pronounced for novelists considered heretical. (See Drivel, October 22, 2010)

4. All religions are understandably--but unconvincingly -- anthropocentric. Here we are, a species–our version of which is perhaps 100,000 years old–on an obscure planet in a Milky Way 100,000 light years in diameter, containing 200-400 billion stars, 50 billion planets, of which 500 million might be habitable. Neighbouring Andromeda Galaxy has 1 trillion stars. Oh yes, and there are perhaps 170 billion galaxies in the universe. You can certainly see why the First Cause would be devoting all his efforts to looking after us, and getting really upset about whether we are Druids, Zoroastrians, or agnostics. Yep, it all makes perfect sense.

By all means, let us have our comforting but unsubstantiated beliefs. But let’s not let them interfere too much with the way we try to make life as bearable as possible. Certainly we should not let school systems and governments be held in thrall to religion. Let us try to remember the words of Mark Twain (1835-1910): Faith is believing what you know ain't so. Then let’s try to put what we know ain’t so into a mostly standby mode.

Mr. Agar would classify our views as "bigoted"–a term which he uses the same way the politically correct use the word "racist"–a kind of unanswerable, catch-all accusation. But at some point, everyone must decide what is reasonable and what is nonsense. If rejecting nonsense is bigotry–then so be it.

Last evening, we happened to encounter a broadcast of a June 6, 2011 performance by Paul Simon at Webster Hall in New York. Both recent and early songs were included.

We have sometimes lamented the fact that Mr. Simon’s lyrics are less clear and explicable than they used to be. In an interview shown on the program he admitted that he initially chooses some words for their sound, rather than sense, and then edits things later. This would account, perhaps for the extraordinary originality in much of his work: he does not approach it with "left brain" logic, but "right brain" musicality.

This is also consistent with his occasional use voice sounds or rhythmic repeated syllables which eschew meaning in favour of the expression of a sort of child-like delight.

We were unable to follow the lyrics in the newer songs, but we gathered some general impressions. First, we would note how frequently the songs rest on underlying "upbeat" and optimistic rhythms. And yet the sweep of the melody and words often suggest a cry to the universe, an awareness of being caught in the web of existence, an unjudgemental pondering of questions to which there are no answers.

Mirroring this perception, in an interview, Paul Simon referred to the "split second we are alive."

The title of Mr. Simon’s most recent (April, 2011) album is So Beautiful or So What–which he describes as two different ways of looking at life. It is clear from his music, that Mr. Simon, despite troubled waters and the "slip-slidin’ away" aspect of human endeavour, sees life as primarily beautiful. The joy of song overcomes meaning; the lament, while articulated, is incorporated into the positive rhythm of life. The general effect is uplifting; the music itself is a bridge over waters both troubled and turbid.