The biggest problem with 24-hour news stations is finding enough "news" to fill 24 hours. The major problems of the world, at least as far as those of us not directly involved are concerned, can be adequately summarized in a one-hour space each day. In fact, that's exactly what media has done for decades. It was only comparatively recently that someone thought it a good idea to summarize the same items again and again ad nauseum.
Funny thing, I didn't even notice Ms. Aguilera's lyric flub on Sunday Night's Superbowl. But turning on the radio the next morning, I actually began to wonder whether a football game had been played at all. As far as the news outlets were concerned, anything and everything of interest that evening ended with a "rocket's red glare."
Yes, I actually heard the term "lyric malfunction". Which reminded me that this wasn't the first time the sport (the whole point of the event) was pre-empted by the lacklustre, overblown musical performance meant to keep the drunks amused during breaks in play. Apparently, "the Twitter feeds were abuzz" all night with talk about the mistaken words.
And yet, with all of this coverage, comment, and conversation, not ONE news outlet addressed what I believe to be the most important question stemming from this event...
"WHO CARES?!?!"
I love silly stunts and YouTube, don't get me wrong. Watching some numbnuts try to snowboard off his roof and ending up ass-over-tip in a tree is a great way to get a laugh. But it would be a lot less funny if, after said idiocy, the hosts spent the next 48 hours or so discussing its implications.
"Did you see when he went in the tree?"
"Yes, I was thinking...how could you be so dumb as to snowboard off your roof?"
"Right, and then he ended up IN the tree."
"I wonder if he realized he'd made a mistake."
"Yeah, I could see his face, I think he realized. But by then, of course, it was too late."
"So what do you think will happen now?"
"Well, I think he'll keep snowboarding, but maybe not off anymore roofs.
"Yeah, or at least if he does, he'll make sure there aren't any trees around!"
"Ha ha ha! Too right. Well, to discuss the whole 'moron-in-a-tree' aspect of American life, let me introduce our panel..."
And so on. That would be the worst episode of AFV ever, because they'd only show one clip and spend the rest of the time reviewing it. That's not comedy. That's not even news. It's what twenty-four-hour-a-day news is...a waste of time.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Mass of Contradictions
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)