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?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)