One of the reasons I love the holiday season stems from my enjoyment of contradiction. No matter your faith or culture, this time of year is replete with dichotomies great and small. There's nothing quite like watching the look of pure joy on a child's face when they see Santa Claus in a shopping mall...transforming into sheer terror as that same child is placed on the aforementioned elderly gentleman's knee.
The holidays themselves, of course, are conceived in contradiction. Christmas celebrates the birth of the Saviour of mankind...who for all his power and parentage first entered the world amidst sleeping farm animals. Hanukkah memorializes the re-dedication of the second temple in Jerusalem, where despite the auspiciousness of the occasion there was only enough oil to light the eternal flame for one day...except that this same oil managed to last eight. Ramadan brings practitioners closer to God through fasting and abstinence...giving things up in order to gain something even greater.
And, of course, we musn't forget the greatest contradiction of all. As our wise and learned politicians/pundits never fail to remind us, the holiday season (a time when all religions of the world celebrate their own versions of peace and joy) is the perfect time to fight amongst one other.
Yes, the halls are decked and the trees are trimmed and it's time for this year's installment of the highly-televised 'War On Christmas' newscasts. In fact, it's not only highly televised...television is the one and only location of this media-doctored winterly bitch-fest that returns with the inevitability and popularity of frostbite. Just in case you were wondering, here's a breakdown...
Everybody hates Christians. That's the premise. It's mostly because of that whole 1500 years of post-Roman-Empire "persecution of other faiths" thing. So now, in a petty act of revenge, the remaining religions of the world (friends and allies all) have deliberately manufactured a global mindset that every Christmas-related exigence, from a model stable to a warm salutation, is actually a thinly-veiled attempt to return to the "good old days" of Inquisitions and Boncentration Bamps.
Fortunately, we have the good people of TV-land to stand up for us, ensuring that no assault on our beloved holiday can go unpunished. Which only begs the question, who exactly is doing the assaulting? My family celebrates Christmas every year, the way our neighbours celebrate Hanukkah. Being in Toronto, I am sure there are multiple families within walking distance of our house who also recognize Ramadan, Kwanzaa and who-knows-what-else. Funny thing...twenty-seven years in this neighbourhood and we have yet to conflict with any of them. Call me naive, but I bet this year will pass by just as smoothly.
Fact is, the 'War on Christmas' is itself born of contradiction. It's as old as the holiday itself. Let's listen in on a conversation from, oh, let's say Christmas the first...
"So what does the star mean?"
"It means our Saviour is born, King Herod."
"You mean the one from the Scriptures? The one all Jews, myself included, have been awaiting since the time of Abraham? The one who will free us from captivity and lead us to the Promised Land?"
"Yes, King Herod."
"So what does that mean for me?"
"Well, sire...I suppose, with the Son of God in our midst, there will be no need for earthly rulers any longer."
"So I won't be king?"
"Well...no, I guess not."
"No, that's no good. We'll have to kill him."
"Uh...we don't know where he is."
"Then kill ALL the babies in the surrounding area, just to be safe. That'll teach God to try and bring eternal peace to mankind!"
Fast-forward two thousand years. For eleven months, the TV-people give us reason to fear. In the world there is war, there is genocide, there is violence, there is hatred. We must fear our neighbour and defend ourselves against him. We must give absolute power to our rulers, that they might "protect" us from these faceless foreign foes.
Then comes December, the annual period of "oh, wait, remember how God said he wanted us all to love each other?". Every religion's winter holiday revolves around that same theme. And the leaders begin to s*** themselves, because a population that loves one another no longer fears, and people without fear no longer need kings. So the kings find it necessary to remind us that even in this most blessed and joyful time of year, there is still a reason to keep the fires of hatred alive in our minds.
But there isn't. It's a stupid concept and a blatant corruption of what Christmas is supposed to be about. The only upside is that most normal people (read: non-televised) don't ever seem to pay much attention to it.
So what if a store chooses to market cross-culturally? That's a business decision, not a moral one. Not having Christmas-specific signage is a way of saying: "We want ALL faiths to shop here." Of course, if you're the type who takes offense at that concept, it's certainly not unheard of. Wasn't too long ago that we not only segregated our stores, but our water fountains and our schools as well.
"Happy Holidays" does not mean "I hate Christmas". It actually means "I have no idea what your faith is. I'm not going to assume that you're Muslim just because your skin is dark, or that you're Jewish because you have a substantial nose, or that you're Christian because...well, let's face it, you're buying a gift in December, odds are it's for Christmas. But I don't know, and I don't want to get it wrong, so I'm just going to play it safe and wish you general peace and happiness."
Which brings us right back to the whole POINT of the season in the first place...bringing people of different backgrounds together in harmony. Maybe, rather than accentuating the differences between our holidays, we should be FOLLOWING this lead and concentrating on what makes them similar. We might find there are fewer contradictions than we expected.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
What an Ending!
In stage lighting, there is a rule of thumb among control desks known as "Last Takes Precedence". That is, if a particular dimmer or fixture is given two different commands, whichever command comes chronologically last is the one that will be followed.
In human psychology, this is known as the "Recency Effect", that is, our nature is to remember most prominently the things that happened most recently. This can be summed up in the old party maxim: "No one remembers how you arrive...it's how you leave".
The world would do well to remember these words, as it seems that some of our aging celebrity demographic is losing touch with how they are perceived by the general public and either don't know or don't care that what they do as their careers now wind down could end up defining them to posterity more than the decades of positive accomplishments that led to it.
Case in point, Mr. Charlton Heston. Fifty years a leading, respected Hollywood celebrity...no doubt the chief reason why the NRA decided to make him their central, indeed their ONLY, visible representative to the public at large. That isn't to say that Mr. Heston did not believe the words he was saying, though the age at which he said them should provide at least some rationalization for his eventual extreme behaviour.
Nevertheless, to many of the living generation, that image of the silver-haired old man shouting at the top of his lungs while brandishing a rifle is the first that comes to mind when the name is mentioned. Never mind Ben-Hur or Planet of the Apes, The Ten Commandments and dozens of other (if not always great films) iconic cinematic features. He will now largely be remembered as the confused senior, stuttering and mumbling in an armchair under Michael Moore's incisive and unavoidable questioning.
Several others are on that same road. If Mr. Gibson doesn't shape up fast, the loveable action hero of Lethal Weapon will evaporate completely, replaced by the ultra-Orthodox beard enthusiast with a penchant for drunk driving and ethnic slurs. The less said about Mr. Cruise, the better. Why have the film stars of the 80s all turned into the tabloid humour columns of the 2000s?
In the wide world of sports there is Brett Favre, fresh off his (3rd? 4th? 19th?) retirement, whose Minnesota Vikings are ranked somewhere between "poor" and "joke" in the NFL standings. Again, a great athlete whose final image could very well be that of an old man who hung on just a BIT too long for his own good, much like fifty-year-olds who grow ponytails and pierce their ears in an attempt to be teenagers again. Most teenagers I know don't take arthritis medication.
Then there's politics. In the United States, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the military is finally coming up for review as the unconstitutional bit of injustice that it is. This isn't just a left-leaning initiative, either...military top brass, political leaders from both sides, former generals and a survey of over half a million troops have all come to the same conclusion: How can we ask people to fight and die for their country, but insist that they lie about who they are in the process? You don't need to be an expert in law to see this as unfair.
And for some strange reason, one of their main opponents in this repeal is,,,John McCain. Yes, that John McCain, over twenty years the self-described 'maverick' of Washington, who never committed to any one political party, who was deemed "too progressive" to be the Republican leader, who only ever followed his own ideas of right and wrong. And now, in an uphill battle that Jon Stewart has appropriately compared to the anti-reality mindset of Holy Grail's Black Knight, Senator McCain flatly refuses to give this motion any consideration.
He says the military leadership should be involved...and they come out in favour. Then he says they're not the REAL leadership...which is true, though all of them have commanded troops at one time or another. That's not enough, he says; they should consult with the rank-and-file...so out comes this survey. But only 28% of the surveys were returned...which, as the leaders point out, still represents over 150 thousand people & families.
This hole-in-the-bucket stubbornness, however, will prove more detrimental to the Senator than the bill he is (inexplicably) holding fast against. If he isn't careful, all those decades of being "voice of reason" and "his own person" will evaporate and he will end his career, and life, with the less-encouraging mantle of "senile old homophobe".
Much like the other 'Maverick' mentioned above...I wonder if there's a connection?
In human psychology, this is known as the "Recency Effect", that is, our nature is to remember most prominently the things that happened most recently. This can be summed up in the old party maxim: "No one remembers how you arrive...it's how you leave".
The world would do well to remember these words, as it seems that some of our aging celebrity demographic is losing touch with how they are perceived by the general public and either don't know or don't care that what they do as their careers now wind down could end up defining them to posterity more than the decades of positive accomplishments that led to it.
Case in point, Mr. Charlton Heston. Fifty years a leading, respected Hollywood celebrity...no doubt the chief reason why the NRA decided to make him their central, indeed their ONLY, visible representative to the public at large. That isn't to say that Mr. Heston did not believe the words he was saying, though the age at which he said them should provide at least some rationalization for his eventual extreme behaviour.
Nevertheless, to many of the living generation, that image of the silver-haired old man shouting at the top of his lungs while brandishing a rifle is the first that comes to mind when the name is mentioned. Never mind Ben-Hur or Planet of the Apes, The Ten Commandments and dozens of other (if not always great films) iconic cinematic features. He will now largely be remembered as the confused senior, stuttering and mumbling in an armchair under Michael Moore's incisive and unavoidable questioning.
Several others are on that same road. If Mr. Gibson doesn't shape up fast, the loveable action hero of Lethal Weapon will evaporate completely, replaced by the ultra-Orthodox beard enthusiast with a penchant for drunk driving and ethnic slurs. The less said about Mr. Cruise, the better. Why have the film stars of the 80s all turned into the tabloid humour columns of the 2000s?
In the wide world of sports there is Brett Favre, fresh off his (3rd? 4th? 19th?) retirement, whose Minnesota Vikings are ranked somewhere between "poor" and "joke" in the NFL standings. Again, a great athlete whose final image could very well be that of an old man who hung on just a BIT too long for his own good, much like fifty-year-olds who grow ponytails and pierce their ears in an attempt to be teenagers again. Most teenagers I know don't take arthritis medication.
Then there's politics. In the United States, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the military is finally coming up for review as the unconstitutional bit of injustice that it is. This isn't just a left-leaning initiative, either...military top brass, political leaders from both sides, former generals and a survey of over half a million troops have all come to the same conclusion: How can we ask people to fight and die for their country, but insist that they lie about who they are in the process? You don't need to be an expert in law to see this as unfair.
And for some strange reason, one of their main opponents in this repeal is,,,John McCain. Yes, that John McCain, over twenty years the self-described 'maverick' of Washington, who never committed to any one political party, who was deemed "too progressive" to be the Republican leader, who only ever followed his own ideas of right and wrong. And now, in an uphill battle that Jon Stewart has appropriately compared to the anti-reality mindset of Holy Grail's Black Knight, Senator McCain flatly refuses to give this motion any consideration.
He says the military leadership should be involved...and they come out in favour. Then he says they're not the REAL leadership...which is true, though all of them have commanded troops at one time or another. That's not enough, he says; they should consult with the rank-and-file...so out comes this survey. But only 28% of the surveys were returned...which, as the leaders point out, still represents over 150 thousand people & families.
This hole-in-the-bucket stubbornness, however, will prove more detrimental to the Senator than the bill he is (inexplicably) holding fast against. If he isn't careful, all those decades of being "voice of reason" and "his own person" will evaporate and he will end his career, and life, with the less-encouraging mantle of "senile old homophobe".
Much like the other 'Maverick' mentioned above...I wonder if there's a connection?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Give it a little Gas
I consider my self to be a reasonable person.
(pause while laughter dies down)
By that I mean I believe in reason. I don't want to use the tired terms of wings, left and right, but if I must then I would definitely say I lean towards the left, particularly in terms of correctional services. I know that prison is not a deterrent; it is punishment for offences committed, pure and simple. I don't argue the need or desire for such an institution.
And of course, I am as aware as anyone of the fallibility of said system. Mistakes can be made and, as a result, we should never put ourselves in a position where we cannot make some form of amends. For this reason, I have always opposed the death penalty as punishment for extreme offences. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't punish anyone (I firmly believe that fifty years in a tiny cell would be far, far worse) and there's always the off chance that the person could be innocent.
Recent events in my life, however, have forced me to re-evaluate my system of belief. I believe there is one area of criminal law where the death penalty can be and SHOULD be applicable, one area where the callous nature of the act and extreme risk of re-offending are such that permanent solutions become desperately needed...TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS.
Hear me out...
1.
Bad drivers consider themselves to be above the law, or at least believe that the law does not apply to them. Example:
a. Person who sees another car run a red light: "Where are the police? Why don't they do something about this jerk?"
b. SAME person pulled over for speeding: "Why are the police targeting me? Don't they have something better to do?"
2.
Bad drivers have no sense of right or wrong (specifically, 'right-of-way' and 'wrong turn'). I've said before, I'm not bothered by the person who enters an intersection JUST as the light goes yellow. I've done it myself. Nor do I blame the person behind him, nor the person behind HIM (who is in the middle of the intersection just as the light goes red). I also have sympathy for car #4, who entered on the red light but rather had to as he was moving too fast to stop and expected the yellow to last longer. Again, I have been in that position once or twice.
No, it's the person behind HIM, the dreaded car #5, the person who knew full well that the light would be red when they reached the intersection, who saw it go red when they were still two car lengths back, and who tailgates car #4 because there's really nothing any of us can do to stop them. Finally, the lefties (my term for people who hold up traffic for three blocks so they can make a left turn) get to move, but of course by now the lights going the other way are already green and EVERYBODY is getting delayed.
Car #5...you think you just saved thirty seconds of your drive time. Maybe you did, but you cheesed off thirty other drivers in the process. Worst of all, you don't even care.
3.
Bad drivers fit the profile of a sociopath inasmuch as they have no sense of moral obligation whatsoever. What else can you say about a person who stops in the right lane on a major road in peak rush hour traffic so they can just "hop out and grab a coffee", then (if, miraculously, they DO get ticketed) has the temerity to declare indignantly "I was only gone for two minutes!"
News flash, coffee boy...it's rush hour. In those two minutes, about a hundred cars had to pull around you to get by. Again, this slows up traffic (especially when there are 'lefties' in the other lane) and, at worst, could lead to accidents. But hey, buddy needs his java fix, right? The rest of us don't even enter your radar, do we?
4.
The most important point...bad drivers are at more risk of re-offending than all murderers, pedophiles, and embezzling executives combined. Think about it...they don't think they're doing anything wrong, so why wouldn't they do it again and again? Anyone who dares even tap the horn gets a rude gesture, because MR. MAKE-AN-ILLEGAL-U-TURN-ON-MAJOR-ARTERY is shocked and insulted that you think his maneouvre is somehow inconvenient, illegal, and downright maddening (yes, I'm talking to you, Beck Taxi Driver from last week...)
5.
The kicker...by invoking the death penalty for traffic violations, not ONLY do we get the satisfaction of ACTUALLY killing the people that we (in the moment) really want to beat over the head with a baseball bat, but it makes for ONE LESS BAD DRIVER on the road in future. Eventually, given enough time and electricity, we can get the city down to a manageable infrastructure.
Perhaps you find this idea to be extreme? Perhaps you're right. In which case, let me suggest a simpler solution...
Let's stop giving licences to every half-wit that can pose in front of a white screen and drive around a pylon on some back road in the country. Driving is NOT a right by any means. If you can't do it well, then you shouldn't be doing it at all. We wouldn't want unqualified persons to fly aircraft, perform surgery, or manage our tax return. Why, then, do we allow them free reign over those four-wheeled monsters that kill thousands every year?
(pause while laughter dies down)
By that I mean I believe in reason. I don't want to use the tired terms of wings, left and right, but if I must then I would definitely say I lean towards the left, particularly in terms of correctional services. I know that prison is not a deterrent; it is punishment for offences committed, pure and simple. I don't argue the need or desire for such an institution.
And of course, I am as aware as anyone of the fallibility of said system. Mistakes can be made and, as a result, we should never put ourselves in a position where we cannot make some form of amends. For this reason, I have always opposed the death penalty as punishment for extreme offences. It's not a deterrent, it doesn't punish anyone (I firmly believe that fifty years in a tiny cell would be far, far worse) and there's always the off chance that the person could be innocent.
Recent events in my life, however, have forced me to re-evaluate my system of belief. I believe there is one area of criminal law where the death penalty can be and SHOULD be applicable, one area where the callous nature of the act and extreme risk of re-offending are such that permanent solutions become desperately needed...TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS.
Hear me out...
1.
Bad drivers consider themselves to be above the law, or at least believe that the law does not apply to them. Example:
a. Person who sees another car run a red light: "Where are the police? Why don't they do something about this jerk?"
b. SAME person pulled over for speeding: "Why are the police targeting me? Don't they have something better to do?"
2.
Bad drivers have no sense of right or wrong (specifically, 'right-of-way' and 'wrong turn'). I've said before, I'm not bothered by the person who enters an intersection JUST as the light goes yellow. I've done it myself. Nor do I blame the person behind him, nor the person behind HIM (who is in the middle of the intersection just as the light goes red). I also have sympathy for car #4, who entered on the red light but rather had to as he was moving too fast to stop and expected the yellow to last longer. Again, I have been in that position once or twice.
No, it's the person behind HIM, the dreaded car #5, the person who knew full well that the light would be red when they reached the intersection, who saw it go red when they were still two car lengths back, and who tailgates car #4 because there's really nothing any of us can do to stop them. Finally, the lefties (my term for people who hold up traffic for three blocks so they can make a left turn) get to move, but of course by now the lights going the other way are already green and EVERYBODY is getting delayed.
Car #5...you think you just saved thirty seconds of your drive time. Maybe you did, but you cheesed off thirty other drivers in the process. Worst of all, you don't even care.
3.
Bad drivers fit the profile of a sociopath inasmuch as they have no sense of moral obligation whatsoever. What else can you say about a person who stops in the right lane on a major road in peak rush hour traffic so they can just "hop out and grab a coffee", then (if, miraculously, they DO get ticketed) has the temerity to declare indignantly "I was only gone for two minutes!"
News flash, coffee boy...it's rush hour. In those two minutes, about a hundred cars had to pull around you to get by. Again, this slows up traffic (especially when there are 'lefties' in the other lane) and, at worst, could lead to accidents. But hey, buddy needs his java fix, right? The rest of us don't even enter your radar, do we?
4.
The most important point...bad drivers are at more risk of re-offending than all murderers, pedophiles, and embezzling executives combined. Think about it...they don't think they're doing anything wrong, so why wouldn't they do it again and again? Anyone who dares even tap the horn gets a rude gesture, because MR. MAKE-AN-ILLEGAL-U-TURN-ON-MAJOR-ARTERY is shocked and insulted that you think his maneouvre is somehow inconvenient, illegal, and downright maddening (yes, I'm talking to you, Beck Taxi Driver from last week...)
5.
The kicker...by invoking the death penalty for traffic violations, not ONLY do we get the satisfaction of ACTUALLY killing the people that we (in the moment) really want to beat over the head with a baseball bat, but it makes for ONE LESS BAD DRIVER on the road in future. Eventually, given enough time and electricity, we can get the city down to a manageable infrastructure.
Perhaps you find this idea to be extreme? Perhaps you're right. In which case, let me suggest a simpler solution...
Let's stop giving licences to every half-wit that can pose in front of a white screen and drive around a pylon on some back road in the country. Driving is NOT a right by any means. If you can't do it well, then you shouldn't be doing it at all. We wouldn't want unqualified persons to fly aircraft, perform surgery, or manage our tax return. Why, then, do we allow them free reign over those four-wheeled monsters that kill thousands every year?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Savage, Christian, Bullies
Those of you who read Toronto Eye Magazine (and the even smaller percentage who would actually admit to it) may be aware of Dan Savage's recently-begun crusade for gay teenagers called the 'It Gets Better' campaign. Essentially, it is a series of letters and videos from various adults (some celebrity, some every-day) directed towards teens who may be at risk of suicide, brought about by endless bullying at the hands of their peers.
Actually, I'm not going to comment on the campaign, either in purpose or execution (incidentally, I approve of both). Nor am I going to comment on the life and times of a bullied teen in high school...okay, I will, but it's not the point of this post.
I will openly admit to being one of the lucky ones...I was overweight, shy and intellectual and thus easy prey for nasty-minded schoolmates with nothing better to do, but I was ALSO blessed with a solid group of very good friends with whom I could find shelter. In numbers there is strength.
I was also fortunate to be involved in extra-curriculars such as drama, which in a sports-based school was a devoted and dedicated fraternity of like-minded individuals. Simply put, it was the same core group throughout the years and it provided me not only with older friends in the early years (invaluable to ANY high schooler) but also gave me a chance to pay the favour forward by treating younger students with equality and respect in the later grades.
There, in a nutshell, is a solid defense against bullying...a few solid friendships and a chance to express yourself openly. Granted, not everyone is lucky enough to have these things dropped into their laps, but with a little effort nearly everyone can find a healthy outlet for their feelings.
But what inspired me to write this was a comment made by Mr. Savage (not a man particularly famed for his subtlety) that the perpetrators of this bullying "give actual Christians a bad name."
I don't know if I'm the first to say it, but...thank you, sir.
Where he could have used this as an opportunity to lay blame on ALL religious-minded folk (heaven knows there are enough nutjobs out there to merit it), he instead made a distinction between those who propagate hatred and violence "in the name of the lord", and those who actually practice Christianity.
I am not by any means a biblical scholar, but after nearly three decades of faithful practice I am reasonably familiar with the text. Unless there are some passages that I've overlooked, the message of Jesus seems to be entirely founded on love, acceptance and tolerance.
Jesus stops the self-righteous men from stoning the woman taken in sin (and yes, I KNOW it wasn't Mary Magdalene). Jesus speaks of a Samaritan giving selfless aid to a Jew (for modern translation, replace 'Samaritan' with 'Palestinian', and you see what a shocker this parable would have been). Jesus dined with known sinners and pariahs of communities, because (as he said) his mission was to redeem with love, not persecute with hate.
I must have missed the bit about "How blest are those who harass and bully others". Anyone know that particular passage citation? It must be in there, because those who do such things frequently claim to be "doing god's work"
So thank you, Mr. Savage, for taking such a subtle and yet important step towards reconciliation. To quote that most sacred of gospels (I'm referring, of course, to The Simpsons), "some of them are...just...jerks!" I am a Christian, and I am against bullying for any reason. Fact is, there are a lot of others out there who agree with me...they're just not loud enough.
And to the bullies out there: I can't stop you from doing what you do. There have always been vicious assholes like you in the world, and there always will be; THAT (unlike some other things) IS a choice. All I ask is that you stop using my faith to justify yourselves.
Actually, I'm not going to comment on the campaign, either in purpose or execution (incidentally, I approve of both). Nor am I going to comment on the life and times of a bullied teen in high school...okay, I will, but it's not the point of this post.
I will openly admit to being one of the lucky ones...I was overweight, shy and intellectual and thus easy prey for nasty-minded schoolmates with nothing better to do, but I was ALSO blessed with a solid group of very good friends with whom I could find shelter. In numbers there is strength.
I was also fortunate to be involved in extra-curriculars such as drama, which in a sports-based school was a devoted and dedicated fraternity of like-minded individuals. Simply put, it was the same core group throughout the years and it provided me not only with older friends in the early years (invaluable to ANY high schooler) but also gave me a chance to pay the favour forward by treating younger students with equality and respect in the later grades.
There, in a nutshell, is a solid defense against bullying...a few solid friendships and a chance to express yourself openly. Granted, not everyone is lucky enough to have these things dropped into their laps, but with a little effort nearly everyone can find a healthy outlet for their feelings.
But what inspired me to write this was a comment made by Mr. Savage (not a man particularly famed for his subtlety) that the perpetrators of this bullying "give actual Christians a bad name."
I don't know if I'm the first to say it, but...thank you, sir.
Where he could have used this as an opportunity to lay blame on ALL religious-minded folk (heaven knows there are enough nutjobs out there to merit it), he instead made a distinction between those who propagate hatred and violence "in the name of the lord", and those who actually practice Christianity.
I am not by any means a biblical scholar, but after nearly three decades of faithful practice I am reasonably familiar with the text. Unless there are some passages that I've overlooked, the message of Jesus seems to be entirely founded on love, acceptance and tolerance.
Jesus stops the self-righteous men from stoning the woman taken in sin (and yes, I KNOW it wasn't Mary Magdalene). Jesus speaks of a Samaritan giving selfless aid to a Jew (for modern translation, replace 'Samaritan' with 'Palestinian', and you see what a shocker this parable would have been). Jesus dined with known sinners and pariahs of communities, because (as he said) his mission was to redeem with love, not persecute with hate.
I must have missed the bit about "How blest are those who harass and bully others". Anyone know that particular passage citation? It must be in there, because those who do such things frequently claim to be "doing god's work"
So thank you, Mr. Savage, for taking such a subtle and yet important step towards reconciliation. To quote that most sacred of gospels (I'm referring, of course, to The Simpsons), "some of them are...just...jerks!" I am a Christian, and I am against bullying for any reason. Fact is, there are a lot of others out there who agree with me...they're just not loud enough.
And to the bullies out there: I can't stop you from doing what you do. There have always been vicious assholes like you in the world, and there always will be; THAT (unlike some other things) IS a choice. All I ask is that you stop using my faith to justify yourselves.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Whatever You Desire
So we've just come through an election and, for better or worse, Toronto has expressed its quote-unquote "anger" at the establishment by electing a man who could either shake the city up like an Etch-a-Sketch and start over with a fresh, clean slate...or just run us into the ground like an out-of-control, armaments-carrying freight train colliding with a fuel depot. Either way, the city has voted.
At least, half of it has. It is a sad day for democracy when critics applaud a 53% turnout as being "the highest in recent memory". On a report card, that's a D-. If you only pay 53% of your bill in a restaurant, you end up in the back room scrubbing dishes. Only in a Canadian election is 53% considered a good number. I think more people vote for 'So You Think You Can Dance'.
Hey, maybe we should text our votes from now on! That would certainly quash the lame excuses people come up with the rest of the time. "Oh, I didn't know it was today...that election everyone's been talking about for the past six months? That was TODAY?" Or, "Oh, I was very busy between the hours of 10am and 8pm and couldn't get to the voting location in my neighbourhood". Apparently a lot of non-voters run convenience stores and can never leave their post during the day.
Then there's "I don't like the candidates". News flash, folks...there are MORE THAN TWO candidates running in any given election. In fact, there were over TWENTY on the ballot for mayor of Toronto. So you don't like the front runners? Well, neither did I. But I still went and voted, because that's my right and my duty as a Canadian citizen (one of the few, may I add, that we still have left to our names).
I'm not going to wax on about "our forefathers dying for the right to vote" or "so many peoples of the world are denied this basic privilege". Let's skip through all the rhetoric and get down to the meat...I CARE about what happens in the city. In fact, everybody does, because what happens to the roads and schools and businesses of your city can't help but affect YOU. If there is good leadership, the city prospers and your life improves. If leadership is bad, your life becomes much more difficult.
And here's how I see it...if you ignore your right to vote, then you LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. That's right, if you couldn't be bothered to get your lazy keister our of your house and spend five minutes casting your ballot, then I don't want to hear one word about what's wrong with the country's government. I voted and my guy didn't win (I knew he wouldn't anyway, but that's not the point. He was the one I agreed with the most). Now, I can say what I DON'T like about the guy I DIDN'T vote for. On the other hand, if you haven't supported a candidate, then I can only assume you don't care what happens to the city. And frankly, I don't want to hear the opinions of anyone who doesn't care what happens to their city. Such a person is simply ignorant and irresponsible and not worth my time.
Almost as bad as not voting, of course, is this ridiculous concept of 'Strategic Voting'. Basically, it's a policy cooked up by unpopular parties and candidates to keep a potentially qualified dark horse from even coming close to winning. The seriously flawed logic is, in Canadian terms, "Vote for the Liberals, because a vote for the NDP is basically a vote for the Conservatives".
Let's be clear. A vote for the NDP is a vote for the NDP. In order to vote for the Conservatives, you need to (gasp) vote for the CONSERVATIVES. There is no 'basically' about it. Don't vote against a party you don't like; vote FOR a party that you DO like! There are actually a lot of political parties in this country; if you don't like the big three (and, let's face it, most of us don't), then do a little research. The Marxists, the Rhinos, and those Yoga-people are all eager for support. Your one vote is not going to make or break the system...so at least go to bed at night with a clean conscience, having supported a platform that you agree with.
Because it comes down to the same thing. If you vote Liberal, not because you like them but because you're anti-Conservative, and then the Liberals get into power and screw everything up (like we all know they will), then guess what...it's YOUR FAULT!!! That's right, once again you lose the right to complain. How can you not like them? If you don't like them, why did you vote for them? "Not-Conservative" is not an option on the ballot. You have to vote FOR someone. Who do you support?
To summarize...get your ass out of bed, exercise your duty as a free Canadian, and most importantly DO WHAT YOU FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING. If every single person in this country voted with their hearts, my bet is the next Parliament would be a three-ring circus of fifteen different political parties all trying to balance their minority power. And THAT would shake things up in ways that Rob Ford can only dream about.
I don't mind a little bit of chaos...as long as we're sure that it's what we want.
At least, half of it has. It is a sad day for democracy when critics applaud a 53% turnout as being "the highest in recent memory". On a report card, that's a D-. If you only pay 53% of your bill in a restaurant, you end up in the back room scrubbing dishes. Only in a Canadian election is 53% considered a good number. I think more people vote for 'So You Think You Can Dance'.
Hey, maybe we should text our votes from now on! That would certainly quash the lame excuses people come up with the rest of the time. "Oh, I didn't know it was today...that election everyone's been talking about for the past six months? That was TODAY?" Or, "Oh, I was very busy between the hours of 10am and 8pm and couldn't get to the voting location in my neighbourhood". Apparently a lot of non-voters run convenience stores and can never leave their post during the day.
Then there's "I don't like the candidates". News flash, folks...there are MORE THAN TWO candidates running in any given election. In fact, there were over TWENTY on the ballot for mayor of Toronto. So you don't like the front runners? Well, neither did I. But I still went and voted, because that's my right and my duty as a Canadian citizen (one of the few, may I add, that we still have left to our names).
I'm not going to wax on about "our forefathers dying for the right to vote" or "so many peoples of the world are denied this basic privilege". Let's skip through all the rhetoric and get down to the meat...I CARE about what happens in the city. In fact, everybody does, because what happens to the roads and schools and businesses of your city can't help but affect YOU. If there is good leadership, the city prospers and your life improves. If leadership is bad, your life becomes much more difficult.
And here's how I see it...if you ignore your right to vote, then you LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN. That's right, if you couldn't be bothered to get your lazy keister our of your house and spend five minutes casting your ballot, then I don't want to hear one word about what's wrong with the country's government. I voted and my guy didn't win (I knew he wouldn't anyway, but that's not the point. He was the one I agreed with the most). Now, I can say what I DON'T like about the guy I DIDN'T vote for. On the other hand, if you haven't supported a candidate, then I can only assume you don't care what happens to the city. And frankly, I don't want to hear the opinions of anyone who doesn't care what happens to their city. Such a person is simply ignorant and irresponsible and not worth my time.
Almost as bad as not voting, of course, is this ridiculous concept of 'Strategic Voting'. Basically, it's a policy cooked up by unpopular parties and candidates to keep a potentially qualified dark horse from even coming close to winning. The seriously flawed logic is, in Canadian terms, "Vote for the Liberals, because a vote for the NDP is basically a vote for the Conservatives".
Let's be clear. A vote for the NDP is a vote for the NDP. In order to vote for the Conservatives, you need to (gasp) vote for the CONSERVATIVES. There is no 'basically' about it. Don't vote against a party you don't like; vote FOR a party that you DO like! There are actually a lot of political parties in this country; if you don't like the big three (and, let's face it, most of us don't), then do a little research. The Marxists, the Rhinos, and those Yoga-people are all eager for support. Your one vote is not going to make or break the system...so at least go to bed at night with a clean conscience, having supported a platform that you agree with.
Because it comes down to the same thing. If you vote Liberal, not because you like them but because you're anti-Conservative, and then the Liberals get into power and screw everything up (like we all know they will), then guess what...it's YOUR FAULT!!! That's right, once again you lose the right to complain. How can you not like them? If you don't like them, why did you vote for them? "Not-Conservative" is not an option on the ballot. You have to vote FOR someone. Who do you support?
To summarize...get your ass out of bed, exercise your duty as a free Canadian, and most importantly DO WHAT YOU FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING. If every single person in this country voted with their hearts, my bet is the next Parliament would be a three-ring circus of fifteen different political parties all trying to balance their minority power. And THAT would shake things up in ways that Rob Ford can only dream about.
I don't mind a little bit of chaos...as long as we're sure that it's what we want.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
One For All
In my time with Disney, I pegged what I found to be the company's fundamental flaw. The Disney corporation was founded by a visionary fuelled by a childlike sense of mirth and magic. Since his death, the company has been run (for better or worse) by clod businessmen with no sense of magic. Realizing that it is "the magic" that sells, they have tried to mimic this as best they can, with reasonable success. Once you dig into it, however, you find it hollow and empty; these are men with a great mission and yet no real concept of why that mission matters.
So now, religion.
It's that time of year again...the temperature's dropping, the leaves are falling, and someone wants the Pope arrested for crimes against humanity. I find it rather ironic how the liberal voice is so quick to quash the conservative outlash against Islam..."Don't blame the whole group for the actions of a few maniacs."...while, when it comes to Christianity, those same liberals will cry out..."Well, they're ALL an intolerant bunch of rapists, really." Apparently the Pope (an individual, mind you) must be held accountable for ALL of us, good and bad.
Not that anyone will ever admit (or, in most cases, can even SEE) their own hypocrisy. So there's really no point in arguing with them. Even the most committed intellectual atheists, professors and researchers all, seem to devolve into no better than their screaming Conservative opponents when confronted with the question of religion. I've said it before; no one is angrier than a dyed-in-the-wool athiest.
"Peace be with you, my son."
"F*** off, I don't believe that s***!"
Am I being unfair? Any more unfair than those who blame religion for the actions of its practitioners? That's faulty logic, pure and simple, and the university types who propagate it should be ashamed of themselves. It's tantamount to blaming Mickey Mouse himself for the business practices of the Disney Corporation.
Fact is, like all organizations on earth, the Church is run by HUMAN BEINGS. Some are good, some are not so good, and the worst of all are the ones who make the newspapers. Abuse scandals are front and centre on the newspaper; meanwhile, the $200 000 that my parish ALONE has raised this year for the poor and the refugees goes unreported. Sadly, the latter are the typical Christian, not the former. People want to arrest the Pope in response to the abuse scandals. By that logic, he should also be given a medal for all the charitable work done EVERY SINGLE DAY by good Christians the world over.
How's THAT for ironic?
Please don't construe that I'm defending the bad people. But if we're ever going to have any progress, then emotion (on both sides) needs to be put aside in favour of rational conversation. The fact is, athiests will have no more success in eliminating believers than WE'VE had in eliminating them (we even had an Inquisition, and that still didn't do it!). So this planet, for better or worse, will have to be shared.
Does everyone remember how to share? We learned it when we were kids...from Mickey Mouse.
So now, religion.
It's that time of year again...the temperature's dropping, the leaves are falling, and someone wants the Pope arrested for crimes against humanity. I find it rather ironic how the liberal voice is so quick to quash the conservative outlash against Islam..."Don't blame the whole group for the actions of a few maniacs."...while, when it comes to Christianity, those same liberals will cry out..."Well, they're ALL an intolerant bunch of rapists, really." Apparently the Pope (an individual, mind you) must be held accountable for ALL of us, good and bad.
Not that anyone will ever admit (or, in most cases, can even SEE) their own hypocrisy. So there's really no point in arguing with them. Even the most committed intellectual atheists, professors and researchers all, seem to devolve into no better than their screaming Conservative opponents when confronted with the question of religion. I've said it before; no one is angrier than a dyed-in-the-wool athiest.
"Peace be with you, my son."
"F*** off, I don't believe that s***!"
Am I being unfair? Any more unfair than those who blame religion for the actions of its practitioners? That's faulty logic, pure and simple, and the university types who propagate it should be ashamed of themselves. It's tantamount to blaming Mickey Mouse himself for the business practices of the Disney Corporation.
Fact is, like all organizations on earth, the Church is run by HUMAN BEINGS. Some are good, some are not so good, and the worst of all are the ones who make the newspapers. Abuse scandals are front and centre on the newspaper; meanwhile, the $200 000 that my parish ALONE has raised this year for the poor and the refugees goes unreported. Sadly, the latter are the typical Christian, not the former. People want to arrest the Pope in response to the abuse scandals. By that logic, he should also be given a medal for all the charitable work done EVERY SINGLE DAY by good Christians the world over.
How's THAT for ironic?
Please don't construe that I'm defending the bad people. But if we're ever going to have any progress, then emotion (on both sides) needs to be put aside in favour of rational conversation. The fact is, athiests will have no more success in eliminating believers than WE'VE had in eliminating them (we even had an Inquisition, and that still didn't do it!). So this planet, for better or worse, will have to be shared.
Does everyone remember how to share? We learned it when we were kids...from Mickey Mouse.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
What did I say?
So some people are in a big tizzy over that crazy right-wing radio doctor in the States being pressured to give up her show when her sponsors (shockingly) abandoned her following an outburst of the 'n' word in a live broadcast. Unsurprisingly, she and her supporters (what few remain) stand behind her statements and claim that this whole incident is a 'violation of First Amendment rights'.
Not being an American and having never read the constitution, I can't comment on their argument. What cracks me up, however, is, as always, the feigned shock (or is it genuine?) of these people as they claim inability to fathom reasons for the public outcry against their actions or words.
"Why am I being attacked? Why is everyone making such a big deal of this?"
MEMO TO ALL CELEBRITIES/FAMOUS PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!!!!! READ AND LEARN!!!
There are people out there who don't like you. Whether its your morals or your politics or just you as a person (hey, we can't all smell like roses), there are people who do not like you. There are people who don't like ME, but I'm not famous. Heck, no one's even reading this paragraph. I'm not worth attacking.
You, on the other hand, are. The people who don't like you want to tear you down, get you off of television (or, for the older ones, radio), make you look foolish in the public eye. They will use any opportunity, large or small (incidentally, this particular incident qualifies as LARGE), to destroy you.
People who didn't like Bush latched onto every stutter, stumble and stupid remark; they played them over and over, even making full-fledged documentaries about it. On the other side, people who don't like Obama twist each of his words individually, in an effort to alter his intended meanings. Even in Hollywood...it's no coincidence that Mel Gibson's road rage is somehow more newsworthy than anyone else's (I, myself, say some rather unpleasant things when stuck in traffic...but nobody bothers to report that); the fact is, there are groups that don't like him and use every chance to make him look foolish.
So it may be unfair, but here's a little tip...DON'T GIVE THEM AMMO. If you're not totally stupid, then you know there are people out there who don't like you and will try anything they can to tear you down. They will not be fair. They will not be understanding. They will not look at 'your side of the story' or keep things in context. It may not be fair, but you must be extra careful not to do obvious things that these people can then turn against you.
I'm not saying that I support the abovementioned radio 'doctor'; personally, I was one of the group that was glad to see her go. But that is beside the point. The fact is, she should have realized that every civil rights group in the country would pounce on her words without delay. Arguing against that fact is a waste of time. In fact, pretending to be shocked by the incident it pure denial...something that a psychologist should be able to recognize for what it is.
Not being an American and having never read the constitution, I can't comment on their argument. What cracks me up, however, is, as always, the feigned shock (or is it genuine?) of these people as they claim inability to fathom reasons for the public outcry against their actions or words.
"Why am I being attacked? Why is everyone making such a big deal of this?"
MEMO TO ALL CELEBRITIES/FAMOUS PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!!!!! READ AND LEARN!!!
There are people out there who don't like you. Whether its your morals or your politics or just you as a person (hey, we can't all smell like roses), there are people who do not like you. There are people who don't like ME, but I'm not famous. Heck, no one's even reading this paragraph. I'm not worth attacking.
You, on the other hand, are. The people who don't like you want to tear you down, get you off of television (or, for the older ones, radio), make you look foolish in the public eye. They will use any opportunity, large or small (incidentally, this particular incident qualifies as LARGE), to destroy you.
People who didn't like Bush latched onto every stutter, stumble and stupid remark; they played them over and over, even making full-fledged documentaries about it. On the other side, people who don't like Obama twist each of his words individually, in an effort to alter his intended meanings. Even in Hollywood...it's no coincidence that Mel Gibson's road rage is somehow more newsworthy than anyone else's (I, myself, say some rather unpleasant things when stuck in traffic...but nobody bothers to report that); the fact is, there are groups that don't like him and use every chance to make him look foolish.
So it may be unfair, but here's a little tip...DON'T GIVE THEM AMMO. If you're not totally stupid, then you know there are people out there who don't like you and will try anything they can to tear you down. They will not be fair. They will not be understanding. They will not look at 'your side of the story' or keep things in context. It may not be fair, but you must be extra careful not to do obvious things that these people can then turn against you.
I'm not saying that I support the abovementioned radio 'doctor'; personally, I was one of the group that was glad to see her go. But that is beside the point. The fact is, she should have realized that every civil rights group in the country would pounce on her words without delay. Arguing against that fact is a waste of time. In fact, pretending to be shocked by the incident it pure denial...something that a psychologist should be able to recognize for what it is.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
100 Year Life
Have you ever noticed how the twentieth century was similar to a human life?
It began with the hope and promise of prosperity. New life, new creation, new innovation...light bulbs and automobiles and luxurious ocean liners. A fresh start for humanity, a renewed childhood for Earth.
Then came the teens, and the conflict began. From age 14 to 18, the people of said Earth tore at one another with never-before-seen ferocity. The First World War was a mindless, meaningless slaughter of everyone and everything in sight...much like your average teenager's directionless crusade against life. We've all been through it; the world as a whole simply experienced it on a much vaster scale.
But war eventually came to an end and the twenties brought renewed vigour. We were well out of our angst-ridden youth and ready to enjoy all the good things that life had to offer. We danced and played and broke the rules; it was an age of music and art, riches and decadence...once again the promise of better things to come.
Until the responsibilities of adult life hit us like a slap in the face...or, more accurately, a stock market crash. Suddenly we had families to feed and children to raise while suddenly running short of money and food. It only got worse from there; before we knew it war had returned, and now our teenaged children (still hungry and poor from our lacklustre parenting phase) ended up getting into the exact same war that we had fought in our own youth. The century's forties were spent mourning the return of a violence it had thought to be at an end.
But again, the children grew up and war ended. The century entered its fifties in a more relaxed frame of mind, more optimistic than before. Babies were born and wholesome, family-friendly television flourished. But we were growing older and needed something to ease the growing pains. As we entered our sixties, we began to experiment with certain mind-altering substances that could take our minds off the fact that the so-called 'war to end all wars' had actually been three wars ago. It was the twentieth century's midlife crisis; after sixty years it really hadn't made much progress at all and was beginning to wonder whether its entire existence had, in fact, been a total waste of time.
So in the seventies, we became downright cranky. Recreational drug use had turned into virulent addiction. No one knew what was right anymore; all the 'moral perfection' of the fifties turned out to be rather more racist and prejudiced than we'd been willing to admit at the time. Our self-imposed censorship systems collapsed as young musicians and filmmakers broke the foul-language barrier into tiny pieces. Corrupt politicians made us cynical, a return of financial uncertainty made us resentful.
In our eighties we were so deaf that music had to be cranked to absurd levels. Fortunately, advances in technology helped us overcome our shortcomings. It was hard to walk, so there was more seated travel; hard to think for ourselves, so computers and TV pundits began to do so in our place. Of course, obesity and apathy and sheer laziness now began to become serious problems...but by this point we didn't really care anymore.
A final glimmer of hope came as the 1900s approached the end of its 'life'. Sure, it had left a legacy of violence, depression and poor decisions, but it was about to pass the torch to a new generation. Perhaps the new millenium would start the cycle again and actually do it better. New life, new promise, new beginnings...another fresh start.
But unfortunately, the twentieth century wouldn't go down without a fight. On its way out, the 1900s left us a healthy dose of its greatest diseases: war, poverty, injustice, intolerance and conservative governments (who, incidentally, are primarily responsible for all of the above). These things still exist, not as emergences of our new age, but as hangovers from the previous one...much like the inordinate financial duties imposed upon the family of a dead person.
The choice now lies with us. Do we just live this century the way our ancestors lived the previous one...or do we, perhaps, learn from their mistakes, shake off their legacy, and forge a new path for ourselves?
We're not living in our parents' basement anymore. We own the property now. I think it's time to clean house.
It began with the hope and promise of prosperity. New life, new creation, new innovation...light bulbs and automobiles and luxurious ocean liners. A fresh start for humanity, a renewed childhood for Earth.
Then came the teens, and the conflict began. From age 14 to 18, the people of said Earth tore at one another with never-before-seen ferocity. The First World War was a mindless, meaningless slaughter of everyone and everything in sight...much like your average teenager's directionless crusade against life. We've all been through it; the world as a whole simply experienced it on a much vaster scale.
But war eventually came to an end and the twenties brought renewed vigour. We were well out of our angst-ridden youth and ready to enjoy all the good things that life had to offer. We danced and played and broke the rules; it was an age of music and art, riches and decadence...once again the promise of better things to come.
Until the responsibilities of adult life hit us like a slap in the face...or, more accurately, a stock market crash. Suddenly we had families to feed and children to raise while suddenly running short of money and food. It only got worse from there; before we knew it war had returned, and now our teenaged children (still hungry and poor from our lacklustre parenting phase) ended up getting into the exact same war that we had fought in our own youth. The century's forties were spent mourning the return of a violence it had thought to be at an end.
But again, the children grew up and war ended. The century entered its fifties in a more relaxed frame of mind, more optimistic than before. Babies were born and wholesome, family-friendly television flourished. But we were growing older and needed something to ease the growing pains. As we entered our sixties, we began to experiment with certain mind-altering substances that could take our minds off the fact that the so-called 'war to end all wars' had actually been three wars ago. It was the twentieth century's midlife crisis; after sixty years it really hadn't made much progress at all and was beginning to wonder whether its entire existence had, in fact, been a total waste of time.
So in the seventies, we became downright cranky. Recreational drug use had turned into virulent addiction. No one knew what was right anymore; all the 'moral perfection' of the fifties turned out to be rather more racist and prejudiced than we'd been willing to admit at the time. Our self-imposed censorship systems collapsed as young musicians and filmmakers broke the foul-language barrier into tiny pieces. Corrupt politicians made us cynical, a return of financial uncertainty made us resentful.
In our eighties we were so deaf that music had to be cranked to absurd levels. Fortunately, advances in technology helped us overcome our shortcomings. It was hard to walk, so there was more seated travel; hard to think for ourselves, so computers and TV pundits began to do so in our place. Of course, obesity and apathy and sheer laziness now began to become serious problems...but by this point we didn't really care anymore.
A final glimmer of hope came as the 1900s approached the end of its 'life'. Sure, it had left a legacy of violence, depression and poor decisions, but it was about to pass the torch to a new generation. Perhaps the new millenium would start the cycle again and actually do it better. New life, new promise, new beginnings...another fresh start.
But unfortunately, the twentieth century wouldn't go down without a fight. On its way out, the 1900s left us a healthy dose of its greatest diseases: war, poverty, injustice, intolerance and conservative governments (who, incidentally, are primarily responsible for all of the above). These things still exist, not as emergences of our new age, but as hangovers from the previous one...much like the inordinate financial duties imposed upon the family of a dead person.
The choice now lies with us. Do we just live this century the way our ancestors lived the previous one...or do we, perhaps, learn from their mistakes, shake off their legacy, and forge a new path for ourselves?
We're not living in our parents' basement anymore. We own the property now. I think it's time to clean house.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Scientific Ego
Does anyone else ever get tired of things being indicated and/or revealed by studies. Seems that every time I open a newspaper or website, I find a published result of some 'recent experiments' or 'five-year study'. The sources of these range from universities to private institutions (read: lots of people with nothing better to do) and the ultimate purpose seems to be overturning things that generations of humanity have until now accepted as fact.
A lot of these are diet related. Depending on who you listen to, you could very well believe that green vegetables could be bad for you, while chocolate and alcohol might actually be beneficial. I know I'm generalizing here, but the fact is that the average person DOES generalize. If you start your report by saying: "Lettuce can give you cancer," I can't promise that I'm going to read every last page of it, but I guarantee I'll think twice before buying my next package of Romaine Hearts at the supermarket.
It was bad enough when Pluto was demoted from 'planet' status to...whatever the heck it's supposed to be. Now, I am the first to admit that I am no scientist; I don't know what their system of measurement is, or what the qualifying criteria for a planet might be, or especially why they think this sort of thing matters to the general public in the first place. I will say that I do feel bad for Pluto being summarily removed from its heretofore special status as the outer guardian of the solar system, particularly as it seems to have been denied one our society's fundamental rights, that of being able to face one's accuser in court.
Now, along the same lines, I hear that the Triceratops may not have actually existed. What, then, are these skeletons that have haunted museum hallways for the past century or more? It's not like they're debunking the Gorgonops or the Shuvuula (both actual dinosaur names, by the way); the Trikey is one of the most famous pre-historic creatures that I can name. Even before Jurassic Park brought names like "Velociraptor" and "Procompsognathus" and "Jeff Goldblum" into the popular lexicon, everyone knew what the three-horned one was called. Except now, some 'scientists' have announced that it's just a juvenile version of the Torosaurus. That's right, the famous Torosaurus...the one you'd never even heard of until you read that sentence.
Well I, for one, am not giving in to this anymore. The fact is, none of these people have ever visited Pluto, seen a living dinosaur, or gone on a diet. The fact is, their conclusions are based on hypothesis and experiment leading ultimately to a theory that is ONLY considered true if a substantial number of leading experts accept it...the same way that old atomic models and theories of the universe were just as 'true' as the ones today. When new facts emerge, new theories are required.
Thus the conclusion: no one actually knows what they're talking about. Science and religion, which many believe to be totally incompatible, actually converge at the point that SOME basic, un-provable premises must be accepted before anything can be definitively stated. Newton's three laws of motion, for instance, are the foundation of modern physics...but they are only 'LAWS' at all because they've yet to be disproved. As scientific history indicates, what is true today may be false tomorrow.
As for me, I will continue to admire the Triceratops skeleton in the museum and even hope to one day visit the planet Pluto. I may start avoiding lettuce, though. That stuff's nasty.
A lot of these are diet related. Depending on who you listen to, you could very well believe that green vegetables could be bad for you, while chocolate and alcohol might actually be beneficial. I know I'm generalizing here, but the fact is that the average person DOES generalize. If you start your report by saying: "Lettuce can give you cancer," I can't promise that I'm going to read every last page of it, but I guarantee I'll think twice before buying my next package of Romaine Hearts at the supermarket.
It was bad enough when Pluto was demoted from 'planet' status to...whatever the heck it's supposed to be. Now, I am the first to admit that I am no scientist; I don't know what their system of measurement is, or what the qualifying criteria for a planet might be, or especially why they think this sort of thing matters to the general public in the first place. I will say that I do feel bad for Pluto being summarily removed from its heretofore special status as the outer guardian of the solar system, particularly as it seems to have been denied one our society's fundamental rights, that of being able to face one's accuser in court.
Now, along the same lines, I hear that the Triceratops may not have actually existed. What, then, are these skeletons that have haunted museum hallways for the past century or more? It's not like they're debunking the Gorgonops or the Shuvuula (both actual dinosaur names, by the way); the Trikey is one of the most famous pre-historic creatures that I can name. Even before Jurassic Park brought names like "Velociraptor" and "Procompsognathus" and "Jeff Goldblum" into the popular lexicon, everyone knew what the three-horned one was called. Except now, some 'scientists' have announced that it's just a juvenile version of the Torosaurus. That's right, the famous Torosaurus...the one you'd never even heard of until you read that sentence.
Well I, for one, am not giving in to this anymore. The fact is, none of these people have ever visited Pluto, seen a living dinosaur, or gone on a diet. The fact is, their conclusions are based on hypothesis and experiment leading ultimately to a theory that is ONLY considered true if a substantial number of leading experts accept it...the same way that old atomic models and theories of the universe were just as 'true' as the ones today. When new facts emerge, new theories are required.
Thus the conclusion: no one actually knows what they're talking about. Science and religion, which many believe to be totally incompatible, actually converge at the point that SOME basic, un-provable premises must be accepted before anything can be definitively stated. Newton's three laws of motion, for instance, are the foundation of modern physics...but they are only 'LAWS' at all because they've yet to be disproved. As scientific history indicates, what is true today may be false tomorrow.
As for me, I will continue to admire the Triceratops skeleton in the museum and even hope to one day visit the planet Pluto. I may start avoiding lettuce, though. That stuff's nasty.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Dinner for Schmucks
ONE-LINE REVIEW: Avoid the box office and just stream Steve Carell's monologue on YouTube.
This film is based on a French movie with a similar plotline, much like 1996's 'The Birdcage'. In much the same way, the characters of 'Dinner for Schmucks' spend pretty much the entire film preparing for the eponymous meal that serves as the film's climax and best scene. Unlike 'Birdcage', however, very little of that build-up is actually funny. Overall, I had three major problems with this film...
#1: There is pretty much no back story given to Paul Rudd's character. We think we're seeing the same charming, lovesick, awkward but ultimately well-meaning hero from the much funnier 'I Love You Man'...but apparently that's not the case. Rudd's character claims to have a dark and ruthless corporate personality that forces him to make all of his immoral (and incidentally really stupid) decisions. However, since we never really see that side of him, we can't understand why his girlfriend is always furious with him. Why is she so unforgiving when he's just a nice guy who makes the occasional mistake?
He spends most of his time saying inappropriate things when the wrong people are standing right behind him. Cliche, you say? Apparently the director didn't think so...the gag is repeated FOUR TIMES over the course of the film. Plus, his character is so horrendously raked over the coals that one can't help but feel sorry for him. The restaurant scene in the middle of the movie actually had me closing my eyes and stopping my ears, wishing it would just end; no matter how awful a person is, NO ONE deserves that level of discomfort.
#2: Steve Carell's character is so unbelievably dumb that we can't really support him (after all, he does make a total train wreck of Rudd's life) and yet still so morbidly pathetic that we can't laugh at him. I was never sure what side I should be on; is he just a well-meaning fool, his traditional character from '40-Year-Old Virgin' and 'Get Smart', or an awkward cat-came-back-style leech in the vein of 'What About Bob?' Do we laugh with him or just at him? That being said, his scenes are easily the movie's funniest and I wonder how much of it was script versus improvisation.
#3: The dinner scene (the one the movie is named after, the source for 95% of the trailer and the whole reason anyone's going to SEE it) is about 15 minutes long. Potentially funny characters are introduced and then almost immediately ignored. Again, we are forced to pity both the incompetent Carell and the indecisive Rudd at the same time. This leaves little room for any solid laughter. I can imagine the pitch: "A comedy that makes you feel bad? What a great idea! Let's spend lots of money on it!"
That being said, the movie's saving grace is its supporting cast. "Flight of the Conchords"'s Jermaine Clement is totally unnecessary but utterly hysterical. He and Carell are together what make this movie a 'comedy' at all. Those who enjoy the one-note zaniness of Zack Galifianakis (I personally can't stand him) will love his small but pivotal role. "Office Space"'s Ron Livingston and "The Daily Show"'s Larry Wilmore don't have nearly enough screen time, but make the most of what they're in.
At the end of it all, the only memorable scene in the whole flick is Carell's 'Tower of Dreamers' monologue near the end. It is about five minutes long and is probably already available for internet piracy. Watch it. The man is a comic genius; I just hope he can find himself better movies that this...unless, of course, his goal is to be the sole centre of attention in what would otherwise be a total waste of time.
This film is based on a French movie with a similar plotline, much like 1996's 'The Birdcage'. In much the same way, the characters of 'Dinner for Schmucks' spend pretty much the entire film preparing for the eponymous meal that serves as the film's climax and best scene. Unlike 'Birdcage', however, very little of that build-up is actually funny. Overall, I had three major problems with this film...
#1: There is pretty much no back story given to Paul Rudd's character. We think we're seeing the same charming, lovesick, awkward but ultimately well-meaning hero from the much funnier 'I Love You Man'...but apparently that's not the case. Rudd's character claims to have a dark and ruthless corporate personality that forces him to make all of his immoral (and incidentally really stupid) decisions. However, since we never really see that side of him, we can't understand why his girlfriend is always furious with him. Why is she so unforgiving when he's just a nice guy who makes the occasional mistake?
He spends most of his time saying inappropriate things when the wrong people are standing right behind him. Cliche, you say? Apparently the director didn't think so...the gag is repeated FOUR TIMES over the course of the film. Plus, his character is so horrendously raked over the coals that one can't help but feel sorry for him. The restaurant scene in the middle of the movie actually had me closing my eyes and stopping my ears, wishing it would just end; no matter how awful a person is, NO ONE deserves that level of discomfort.
#2: Steve Carell's character is so unbelievably dumb that we can't really support him (after all, he does make a total train wreck of Rudd's life) and yet still so morbidly pathetic that we can't laugh at him. I was never sure what side I should be on; is he just a well-meaning fool, his traditional character from '40-Year-Old Virgin' and 'Get Smart', or an awkward cat-came-back-style leech in the vein of 'What About Bob?' Do we laugh with him or just at him? That being said, his scenes are easily the movie's funniest and I wonder how much of it was script versus improvisation.
#3: The dinner scene (the one the movie is named after, the source for 95% of the trailer and the whole reason anyone's going to SEE it) is about 15 minutes long. Potentially funny characters are introduced and then almost immediately ignored. Again, we are forced to pity both the incompetent Carell and the indecisive Rudd at the same time. This leaves little room for any solid laughter. I can imagine the pitch: "A comedy that makes you feel bad? What a great idea! Let's spend lots of money on it!"
That being said, the movie's saving grace is its supporting cast. "Flight of the Conchords"'s Jermaine Clement is totally unnecessary but utterly hysterical. He and Carell are together what make this movie a 'comedy' at all. Those who enjoy the one-note zaniness of Zack Galifianakis (I personally can't stand him) will love his small but pivotal role. "Office Space"'s Ron Livingston and "The Daily Show"'s Larry Wilmore don't have nearly enough screen time, but make the most of what they're in.
At the end of it all, the only memorable scene in the whole flick is Carell's 'Tower of Dreamers' monologue near the end. It is about five minutes long and is probably already available for internet piracy. Watch it. The man is a comic genius; I just hope he can find himself better movies that this...unless, of course, his goal is to be the sole centre of attention in what would otherwise be a total waste of time.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Attention, please?
There was a visiting archbishop at Mass today. He read the Gospel, where Jesus warned the crowd against "all forms of greed", telling the parable of a rich man who received an extremely bountiful crop, built massive barns in order to store all these goods and increase his considerable wealth...and promptly died the next day. The basic message, I suppose, is a re-iteration of the old adage "you can't take it with you".
That wasn't the focus of the sermon, however. Instead, the archbishop spoke about life in his home country of the Philippines. He comes from an area on the island's western coast located between the sea and the mountains. The people live primarily on fish and rice, often tithing these wares in lieu of money so the Church can sell them to finance community projects. The weather is unpredictable; due to the location it is almost always hot, rainstorms last a long time and flooding is common.
He talked about the people slogging through knee-level muddy water to get to mass on Sundays and about having to ride on horseback just to access his smaller parishes in the mountains. He described the government's persecution of priests who give aid to poor people that happen to have communist leanings, and how he would then work to get them out of jail. At last he touched on the day's Gospel, noting that the greatest Christian act is selfless generosity.
The second collection for the day was to raise funds for this area of the world. It was, all things considered, a good pitch; rather than trying to guilt the parishoners into opening up their wallets, he instead portrayed these people as fellow Christians and (more to the point) fellow human beings who do not share the privileges afforded by our land of plenty. We often forget that most of what we have is a result of where we were born, the one thing over which we had absolutely no control.
What really got me thinking, though, was his description of people slogging through mud and navigating mountain passages just to get to Church. It's particularly impressive when one considers that "I'm too tired" is actually considered a viable excuse for missing Mass in Canada.
In addition, a small child in the back wailed for most of the sermon and at least two cellphones rang. Even people who are there aren't totally "there"; we are still so inextricably linked to the outside world that we can't even manage thirty little minutes of undivided attention.
But then, the archbishop didn't lay on guilt, so I shouldn't either.
It just gives me something to think about the next time I walk through clear streets and eat something other than fish and rice.
That wasn't the focus of the sermon, however. Instead, the archbishop spoke about life in his home country of the Philippines. He comes from an area on the island's western coast located between the sea and the mountains. The people live primarily on fish and rice, often tithing these wares in lieu of money so the Church can sell them to finance community projects. The weather is unpredictable; due to the location it is almost always hot, rainstorms last a long time and flooding is common.
He talked about the people slogging through knee-level muddy water to get to mass on Sundays and about having to ride on horseback just to access his smaller parishes in the mountains. He described the government's persecution of priests who give aid to poor people that happen to have communist leanings, and how he would then work to get them out of jail. At last he touched on the day's Gospel, noting that the greatest Christian act is selfless generosity.
The second collection for the day was to raise funds for this area of the world. It was, all things considered, a good pitch; rather than trying to guilt the parishoners into opening up their wallets, he instead portrayed these people as fellow Christians and (more to the point) fellow human beings who do not share the privileges afforded by our land of plenty. We often forget that most of what we have is a result of where we were born, the one thing over which we had absolutely no control.
What really got me thinking, though, was his description of people slogging through mud and navigating mountain passages just to get to Church. It's particularly impressive when one considers that "I'm too tired" is actually considered a viable excuse for missing Mass in Canada.
In addition, a small child in the back wailed for most of the sermon and at least two cellphones rang. Even people who are there aren't totally "there"; we are still so inextricably linked to the outside world that we can't even manage thirty little minutes of undivided attention.
But then, the archbishop didn't lay on guilt, so I shouldn't either.
It just gives me something to think about the next time I walk through clear streets and eat something other than fish and rice.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Thoughts on thoughts
I've been told I think too much, which, like the vast majority of things that are said about me, is true. My brain does have a tendency to over-analyze a situation or an important choice, which in turn actually leads to me being more indecisive. Rather than acting on impulse, I see both sides to a story and come out the other end uncertain as to with which option I disagree more.
This blog, for example...less than a week in, and I'm already worrying about the kind of things that I post. I need to constantly remind myself of three crucial points: 1) Blogs are meant to be extemporaneous, showing the real you (more on that in a future post), 2) As long as I don't put too many inflammatory or offensive statements in here, I won't get in trouble for it, and 3) No one cares anyway, because no one probably reads it.
Still, the same mind that enhances my academic performance and verbal skills is also the one that keeps me up all night analyzing the events of the day and trying to figure out what I should have said/done/eaten in lieu of what actually happened. It is possible to shut our eyes and close our mouth; turning off the mind is a trickier task.
It's interesting to note that, just as human beings begin to reach the age of reason and interior thought (that is, as soon as we begin to discover the wonders of our own minds) we immediately start looking for ways to shut that mind off. The things people do to numb their own thought processes is, frankly, frightening. Be it the doping effects of narcotics or alcohol, the euphoria of sexual release, the slow decay of a video screen, or the testosterone-fuelled mob-mentality of professional wrestling matches, everyone is looking for that "perfect high"...that is, a way to stop their brains from thinking so much.
Is intellect a gift or a curse? If we weren't intelligent beings we couldn't have developed the wonders of the world, things like medicine, air travel, and slap-chops. On the other hand, as Neil Innes (composer for the Monty Python troupe) puts it, "How sweet to be an idiot...as harmless as a cloud." Time seems to go faster when you're not thinking about it, which is probably why more intelligent people tend to also be naturally more impatient; they feel the seconds tick past.
Tick, tick, tick...
Oh, well. Just something to think about, I guess.
This blog, for example...less than a week in, and I'm already worrying about the kind of things that I post. I need to constantly remind myself of three crucial points: 1) Blogs are meant to be extemporaneous, showing the real you (more on that in a future post), 2) As long as I don't put too many inflammatory or offensive statements in here, I won't get in trouble for it, and 3) No one cares anyway, because no one probably reads it.
Still, the same mind that enhances my academic performance and verbal skills is also the one that keeps me up all night analyzing the events of the day and trying to figure out what I should have said/done/eaten in lieu of what actually happened. It is possible to shut our eyes and close our mouth; turning off the mind is a trickier task.
It's interesting to note that, just as human beings begin to reach the age of reason and interior thought (that is, as soon as we begin to discover the wonders of our own minds) we immediately start looking for ways to shut that mind off. The things people do to numb their own thought processes is, frankly, frightening. Be it the doping effects of narcotics or alcohol, the euphoria of sexual release, the slow decay of a video screen, or the testosterone-fuelled mob-mentality of professional wrestling matches, everyone is looking for that "perfect high"...that is, a way to stop their brains from thinking so much.
Is intellect a gift or a curse? If we weren't intelligent beings we couldn't have developed the wonders of the world, things like medicine, air travel, and slap-chops. On the other hand, as Neil Innes (composer for the Monty Python troupe) puts it, "How sweet to be an idiot...as harmless as a cloud." Time seems to go faster when you're not thinking about it, which is probably why more intelligent people tend to also be naturally more impatient; they feel the seconds tick past.
Tick, tick, tick...
Oh, well. Just something to think about, I guess.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Shakespeare, Part I
There's an interesting segment in Act III, Scene 1 of one of the only Shakepeare plays that pretty much everybody is familiar with, A Midsummer Night's Dream. It reinforces the idea that Shakespeare's work is cross-generational, that his themes and concepts apply to humankind in general and not to any particular time.
A troupe of amateur dramatists are rehearsing a play they intend to perform at the Duke's wedding feast. It is a poorly-written rip-off of Romeo and Juliet, where the hero kills himself after mistakenly believing that his love has been eaten by a lion. Side note: Shakespeare wrote this one BEFORE the famous teen-romance tear-jerker.
The actors are concerned, however, that despite their cheap special effects (the 'moon' is a guy holding a lantern, the 'wall' another guy holding his hands out) and lack of performance skills (the star player, by trade a weaver, fancies himself the next Athenian Idol), the audience may still actually believe that what they are doing onstage is real. The performers fear they will be criticized for 'too realistic' a death scene, and that their 'lion' might scare some women.
The solution, then, is to write little prologues for the various characters to say before their parts begin. The hero will explain to the audience (in great Shakespearean detail) that he is only an actor playing a role, and not actually committing suicide, in case this didn't realize it. The man in the fake lion-head will remove said mantle and note to the ladies present that he is just a man, and not really a vicious beast.
The humour, of course, comes from the ridiculously low opinion that the actors have of their audience. They really believe that the people watching the show think it's real. Are people so dumb that they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, they don't know that these are only mimes and there is no real violence taking place?
All I can say is, thank goodness we live in the progressive modern age where people are far more educated and intelligent. Think what it would be like if, before a movie started, a prologue came up to say "This is only a movie; the events you see are put on by actors with special effects and are not really happening" It would be insulting and pointless. Modern audiences know the difference between violence in performance and violence in real life. Otherwise, movies would constantly be criticized for being "too violent", with encouraging "aggressive behaviour" and with "setting a bad example."
On the other hand, maybe Shakespeare was onto something after all...
A troupe of amateur dramatists are rehearsing a play they intend to perform at the Duke's wedding feast. It is a poorly-written rip-off of Romeo and Juliet, where the hero kills himself after mistakenly believing that his love has been eaten by a lion. Side note: Shakespeare wrote this one BEFORE the famous teen-romance tear-jerker.
The actors are concerned, however, that despite their cheap special effects (the 'moon' is a guy holding a lantern, the 'wall' another guy holding his hands out) and lack of performance skills (the star player, by trade a weaver, fancies himself the next Athenian Idol), the audience may still actually believe that what they are doing onstage is real. The performers fear they will be criticized for 'too realistic' a death scene, and that their 'lion' might scare some women.
The solution, then, is to write little prologues for the various characters to say before their parts begin. The hero will explain to the audience (in great Shakespearean detail) that he is only an actor playing a role, and not actually committing suicide, in case this didn't realize it. The man in the fake lion-head will remove said mantle and note to the ladies present that he is just a man, and not really a vicious beast.
The humour, of course, comes from the ridiculously low opinion that the actors have of their audience. They really believe that the people watching the show think it's real. Are people so dumb that they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, they don't know that these are only mimes and there is no real violence taking place?
All I can say is, thank goodness we live in the progressive modern age where people are far more educated and intelligent. Think what it would be like if, before a movie started, a prologue came up to say "This is only a movie; the events you see are put on by actors with special effects and are not really happening" It would be insulting and pointless. Modern audiences know the difference between violence in performance and violence in real life. Otherwise, movies would constantly be criticized for being "too violent", with encouraging "aggressive behaviour" and with "setting a bad example."
On the other hand, maybe Shakespeare was onto something after all...
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Simpsons: Season 4
Some of you may be wondering about the strangely misspelled title of my blog, though I'm betting that more than a few may catch it as an early Simpsons reference. Homer, listening to the radio one Sunday morning, enters a contest to name the right-wing Johnny Calhoun spoken-word album that killed said singer's career; for whatever reason, the Simpsons happen to own it. The actual title is "These Things I Believe". The partially-illiterate Homer misspeaks the first word, but wins the contest anyway.
Homer the Heretic: third episode, fourth season. I wonder, in fact, how long it will be before TV shows begin taking on a type of biblical (or at least classical-musical) numerology.
But Season 4 of the Simpsons is by far my favourite. Not only is it the series' finest, it is one of the best seasons of television ever to be released. Out of twenty-two episodes there is not one single weak link. The show had hit its stride by this point; the animation was cleaner and more visual gags were possible, while the writing team (including soon-to-be talk show host Conan O'Brian) was cranking out one classic after another.
Season 4 includes Bart's takeover of the sadistic Kamp Krusty and adoption by a Big Brother, Marge performing in the musical version of Streetcar Named Desire and going to prison, Homer heading the union and having a heart attack, Lisa running for beauty queen and misleading poor little Ralph Wiggum, Mr. Plow, Whacking Day, the Itchy & Scratchy Movie (over 63% new footage!) and of course the Monorail. This last contains one my all-time favourite exchanges:
"Homer, there's a man who thinks he can help you."
"Batman?"
"No, he's a scientist."
"Batman's a scientist."
"IT'S NOT BATMAN!"
The season closes with Krusty's famous Comeback Special, along with a host of guest stars. Another classic moment is the entrance of Red Hot Chili Peppers (in their underwear) into the bar, where Flea lets loose with a microphone-shattering "HEY, MOE!" The episode also includes the Eastern European cartoon "Worker and Parasite", one of the few times I have actually laughed until I made myself sick.
Seasons 5 and 6 are almost equally strong, making this period the real heyday of the show. I don't watch new episodes anymore (though to be fair I've also given up on Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and pretty much all TV in general) but I frequently pop my Season 4 DVDs into the player whenever I need a good laugh.
I started watching the show regularly when this Season was first aired, though I had to watch in secret as my father would not allow me (then aged 10) to see the show due to its violence and adult content. It's almost funny to see the show now aired on network channels in the early afternoon, and even funnier to see how much MORE inappropriate television in general has become. The Simpsons' early seasons seem almost conservative by today's standards.
Homer the Heretic: third episode, fourth season. I wonder, in fact, how long it will be before TV shows begin taking on a type of biblical (or at least classical-musical) numerology.
But Season 4 of the Simpsons is by far my favourite. Not only is it the series' finest, it is one of the best seasons of television ever to be released. Out of twenty-two episodes there is not one single weak link. The show had hit its stride by this point; the animation was cleaner and more visual gags were possible, while the writing team (including soon-to-be talk show host Conan O'Brian) was cranking out one classic after another.
Season 4 includes Bart's takeover of the sadistic Kamp Krusty and adoption by a Big Brother, Marge performing in the musical version of Streetcar Named Desire and going to prison, Homer heading the union and having a heart attack, Lisa running for beauty queen and misleading poor little Ralph Wiggum, Mr. Plow, Whacking Day, the Itchy & Scratchy Movie (over 63% new footage!) and of course the Monorail. This last contains one my all-time favourite exchanges:
"Homer, there's a man who thinks he can help you."
"Batman?"
"No, he's a scientist."
"Batman's a scientist."
"IT'S NOT BATMAN!"
The season closes with Krusty's famous Comeback Special, along with a host of guest stars. Another classic moment is the entrance of Red Hot Chili Peppers (in their underwear) into the bar, where Flea lets loose with a microphone-shattering "HEY, MOE!" The episode also includes the Eastern European cartoon "Worker and Parasite", one of the few times I have actually laughed until I made myself sick.
Seasons 5 and 6 are almost equally strong, making this period the real heyday of the show. I don't watch new episodes anymore (though to be fair I've also given up on Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and pretty much all TV in general) but I frequently pop my Season 4 DVDs into the player whenever I need a good laugh.
I started watching the show regularly when this Season was first aired, though I had to watch in secret as my father would not allow me (then aged 10) to see the show due to its violence and adult content. It's almost funny to see the show now aired on network channels in the early afternoon, and even funnier to see how much MORE inappropriate television in general has become. The Simpsons' early seasons seem almost conservative by today's standards.
Down the Rabbit Hole...of my MIND
Good day, all.
Yes, I have finally decided to get myself a blog.
Those of you who know me (and I'll be very surprised if anyone who DOESN'T know me is actually bothering to read this) will probably less amazed by this than by the fact that I didn't start one long ago.
I will freely admit that I have extensive opinions about things, often formulated over long walks through the ravine near my house or else while stuck in traffic leaving the grocery store out on Dufferin Street. Wherever they may spawn, whatever they may be, they all have one thing in common...up until now they've had no outlet.
So I am going to write things down. They may be opinions on life or love, drama or decor...they may be movie reviews or restaurant critiques, political leanings or (say it ain't so!) religious discourses. They will never be as clearly formulated as they are in my head when I'm nowhere near a computer, but I promise to do my best.
Who knows? Perhaps giving vent to my emotional outbursts digitally will act as a form of therapy, reducing the pent-up rage that otherwise governs many aspects of my life. And assuming someone on earth actually reads this (which, again, I would not consider likely), perhaps more than a few of you out there may turn out to agree with me.
Don't worry...you don't have to admit it. But please feel free to comment...or make rude jokes, whatever floats your boat. I have an awful lot of opinions, so there'll be a lot of room for posting underneath them.
Onward to diatribes!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)