Not usually one for this, today I found myself addicted to a rather lengthy online thread populated primarily by two repeated posters. One was a member of Occupy Canada, speaking out against fascism in all its forms. The other was an individual who disagreed with the first and his ideas, believing that Canada is nowhere near the level of a true fascist state and that the Occupy movement is an over-exaggerated waste of time.
The point, however, is not the arguments. The point is that the Occupy Canada representative made clear, well-reasoned arguments where premise led to conclusion, responded to each counter-argument succinctly and consecutively, and demonstrated a decent command of the English language. His opponent, on the other hand, peppered his comebacks with swear words, personal insults, and every fourth or fifth word of each paragraph was misspelled.
For Christmas, I received a book that transcribed the recent Toronto-based public debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion. I loved the present as it touched two of my deepest passions: 1. Theological Debate, and 2. Feeling smarter than people. This second one became more prevalent the further I read.
Granted, the time allotted for each argument was brief (first problem, right there...seriously, five thousand years of human development and we come to "tell me how religion has made the world better/worse in five minutes or less". You're basically inviting immature argument...or worse, snappy sound-bytes, but more on that later). Still, one would have hoped that two of the most advanced minds of our time could have come up with something even slightly orginal.
Blair: "Love"
Hitchens: "War"
Blair: "Aid in Africa"
Hitchens: "AIDS in Africa"
Blair: "Mother Teresa"
Hitchens: "Mother Teresa" (that one was at least slightly clever)
It went on as such for the duration. I lost count of how many times they brought up Israel and Ireland. It isn't that these aren't important points, to be sure, but they aren't particularly original. Worse, they aren't really points that can be argued with. No one is going to argue against Charity and in favour of Genocide. (Simpsons Season 4: "Amber, do you think the bill of rights is a good thing or a bad thing?" "Um......GOOD thing [bats eyelashes]"). The purpose of the debate was to argue the cause, not the effect. If they had really wanted to convince me, one or other of them should have been arguing that religion was what INSPIRED the things they were talking about (good or bad, depending on the viewpoint). But in the total of twenty minutes they each had, they barely even scratched the surface.
The fact is, argument is dead. It's been a moderately-paced process, confined largely to the latter half of the twentieth century. Can you imagine a time (and it did exist) when crowds gathered in town halls to watch a two-hour debate? In the nineteenth century, that was a "movie"! The advent of television brought the same info-tainment into the home, but the results were unexpected...suddenly the content of the argument mattered less than how the speaker looked on camera. 24-hour news reels (which I have previously lambasted) made it necessary to not only always have an off-the-cuff remark, but frequently to become mindlessly repetitive when original ideas ran dry. Human beings became broken records, even after they didn't use records anymore.
And now we have the internet. Unregulated, ungoverned. There are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). This is a wonderful thing; it means that debate is no longer confined to people with political power or money. If you have a good idea, there is an inexpensive way to make it public (i.e. beyond your drinking buddies). This is what enables the so-called 99% to be heard.
But there's a problem...there are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). And if you make an argument that I don't like, no matter how well-thought out or reasoned, I can come back with "Ya well u r a idiott" and post it at the same level, in the same font and style as whatever you have written. And if you're pure of heart, you will dismiss it and continue with your intellectual defence. Then again, after 1785 posts of the same derogatory slur (oh, forgot to mention, there are no time limits; you can post as often as you want, all that matters is your upload speed) you, too, might become worn out and drop down to my level.
Suddenly, "x+y=z" becomes "Your a f***ING idiot" (try getting away with that in a math class). It's retroactive, too...look at the Republican debates on television these days. What had once been a forum for educated discussion has degenerated to the same cynical mudslinging one would expect on a Facebook wall. Who can say the most pithy, memorable thing in the least amount of time? It's one of the worst fallacies in debate: attacking the debater instead of their argument. And it seems to be the order of the day.
There are reasons for this, of course, many reasons. It easier to curse at someone than to actually sit down and think out a reasonable statement. There are so many public forums nowadays that you almost HAVE to reduce your arguments to a single sentence; otherwise people will scroll down to the next item. No one bothers to read anything of length (frankly, I'm very impressed that you've gotten this far! Good for you, mate!). And, of course, the real bugbear of society...lack of proper education. No one argues properly because no one is taught how, and the standard is not maintained in the world at large.
Please, please, PLEASE make a counter-argument to anything I've said that you disagree with. And PLEASE make it even more long-winded than I am, full of big words that I need to look up in a dictionary...because debate is, at the end of the day, about learning things beyond what is contained in your own mind. You don't have to agree with your opponent...but just maybe the process will open you to new ideas that you otherwise would never have had.
And please, everybody, use the damn apostrophe key. It's getting lonely.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Real Live Monster
What's new with you? Nothing much? And me? Well, turns out I was traumatized as a kid and didn't even realize it!
I suppose some backstory is required. During one of my more recent bouts of nostalgia, I mentioned that I missed listening to some of the cassettes (anyone remember that great technology?) that I possessed as a child...in particular, Sesame Street's brilliant 'Born to Add' compilation. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular piece of genius, the album was an early-80s release combining parodies and sound-alikes of classic rock groups, songs and styles. Bruce Stringbean told his baby that they were 'Born to Add', Mick Swagger moaned that he could get no 'Co-operation', and so forth. The cleverly-altered lyrics were further complimented by fully mature instrumentals, as opposed to the pleasantly synthesized tones commonly associated with children's music.
Of course, it being the heyday of the show, the songs were also secretly educational. The Count and his bats helped us 'Count up to Nine', we learned about the circulatory system in 'Every Beat of My Heart', incredibly concise rules for healthy living are outlined in 'The Ten Commandments of Health' (too bad more kids didn't listen to that one; we may not have had all the problems we have today), and 'The Opposite Song' was about...well, you get the idea. Educational AND entertaining? What a concept!
So my wife, loving lady that she is, tracked down the most current CD release of this album and I found it neatly wrapped in my Christmas stocking. I promptly listened to the first track twice, admitting that this (in addition to the universally acclaimed 'Put Down the Duckie') was what first sparked my interest in the saxophone...there is a dynamite solo between the second and third verses. It was at track 2, however, that the surprises started.
The current cut contains fourteen tracks (the original had only thirteen) and four of them are new songs, written for the show after the original album had been released in 1983. Conversely, three of the originals had been removed. Two of them, I realized right away, were "Letter B" and "Hey Food", both Beatles parodies. While irritating, this isn't particularly surprising...given the legal controversies around anything Beatles-related, it only makes sense that the company would want to avoid unnecessary challenges by removing said sound-alikes (apparently there was some kerfuffle when the album was originally released, settled peaceably after MJ picked up the rights).
The third deletion, I admit, I honestly could not remember. It required judicious use of Google, at which point it all came back clear as day...second song from the end, where 'A Little Girl' (such creative nomenclature!) belts out Janis-Joplin style that "I Want a Monster to be my Friend". This isn't a particular parody of any song that I've ever heard, so why remove it? Again, thanks to Google and Wikipedia, the answer was quickly found:
If I make friends with a friendly monster
I'll let him bounce me on his knee
I'll let him do whatever he wants to
Especially if he's bigger than me!
In 1984, one year after the album's release, a protest was lodged with the producer's that this song, and these four lyrics in particular, encouraged child molestation. Yes, you read that correctly. A Sesame Street song about playing with a fictional friend might actually encourage children to (as the protest worded it) "give in to the inappropriate advances of adults".
As I mentioned, I grew up listening to this album. Throughout my childhood I was at no point placed in the above-mentioned scenario and I am thankful for that. Likewise, my heart goes out to any victims of abuse...it is absolutely unacceptable and I do not want to give the impression of downplaying in any way what a serious problem it is in our society. THAT BEING SAID, I really DO NOT THINK that (had the situation arisen for me) my first thought would have been "The puppet girl on Sesame Street said it was okay to play with big hairy monsters, so I guess I'll let this guy bounce me on his knee if he really wants to..."
This is always a difficult argument and it must be made carefully, not only because it involves such strong emotions but because there is such a delicate line to walk between over- and under-reacting. It goes without saying that the writers of this song never had this thought cross their minds for a moment (at least, I fervently hope not), and that as a result the song is innately harmless and should be left alone. That is followed by the rebuttal that, meant or not, it is better to be safe than sorry and as no one is really getting hurt by the deletion (except my aforementioned nostalgia) there is no reason NOT to remove it.
What it boils down to, for me, is the simple question: "Where does it end?" Anyone my age or older has seen the tepid pablum that passes for children's entertainment nowadays, Sesame Street included. That isn't even nostalgia talking; the 1980s featured Jim Henson, Fred Rogers, Fred Penner, Bob Homme (the Friendly Giant), Ernie Coombs (Mr. Dressup), to name a few...I could probably go on for paragraphs. The fundamental difference I see between then and now is the quantity of condescension, that is, the way that shows nowadays treat kids quite literally with 'kid-gloves', while the entertainers of the past spoke to kids on a simple yet respectful level. To quote Robin Williams, "You don't play DOWN to them, you just play TO them"
The sadly humorous part (and I know you're all thinking it on some level) is that a lot of the names I have mentioned or COULD mention would probably be accused of having similar tendencies to the monster song. Whether seriously or as a source of cynical comedy, our currently revisionist mindset is unforgivably harsh towards children's entertainment. Which, in turn, causes further restrictions on the part of producers and broadcasters, eventually reaching a point where every frame and every word is examined under a microscope for even the slightest hint of controversy. There are people out there with telephones and far too much time on their hands...that's all it really takes.
As I have said, this is a difficult and emotional debate and I do not claim to be absolutely right one way or the other. Yes, there are certain things that children should not see. But that is the responsibility of parents, not television screens. Do our children know the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality? If they don't, it isn't Cookie Monster's fault. Concerns about programming content should not be cause for complaint; rather, they should be looked at as "teachable moments", a chance to educate and inform rather than blindfold and shield. To tell the honest truth, I'm rather looking forward to having my own opportunity in years to come...
By the way, another track on the 'Born to Add' album is about a party where a group of monsters "Honk around the Clock". What do you think THAT encourages?
I suppose some backstory is required. During one of my more recent bouts of nostalgia, I mentioned that I missed listening to some of the cassettes (anyone remember that great technology?) that I possessed as a child...in particular, Sesame Street's brilliant 'Born to Add' compilation. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular piece of genius, the album was an early-80s release combining parodies and sound-alikes of classic rock groups, songs and styles. Bruce Stringbean told his baby that they were 'Born to Add', Mick Swagger moaned that he could get no 'Co-operation', and so forth. The cleverly-altered lyrics were further complimented by fully mature instrumentals, as opposed to the pleasantly synthesized tones commonly associated with children's music.
Of course, it being the heyday of the show, the songs were also secretly educational. The Count and his bats helped us 'Count up to Nine', we learned about the circulatory system in 'Every Beat of My Heart', incredibly concise rules for healthy living are outlined in 'The Ten Commandments of Health' (too bad more kids didn't listen to that one; we may not have had all the problems we have today), and 'The Opposite Song' was about...well, you get the idea. Educational AND entertaining? What a concept!
So my wife, loving lady that she is, tracked down the most current CD release of this album and I found it neatly wrapped in my Christmas stocking. I promptly listened to the first track twice, admitting that this (in addition to the universally acclaimed 'Put Down the Duckie') was what first sparked my interest in the saxophone...there is a dynamite solo between the second and third verses. It was at track 2, however, that the surprises started.
The current cut contains fourteen tracks (the original had only thirteen) and four of them are new songs, written for the show after the original album had been released in 1983. Conversely, three of the originals had been removed. Two of them, I realized right away, were "Letter B" and "Hey Food", both Beatles parodies. While irritating, this isn't particularly surprising...given the legal controversies around anything Beatles-related, it only makes sense that the company would want to avoid unnecessary challenges by removing said sound-alikes (apparently there was some kerfuffle when the album was originally released, settled peaceably after MJ picked up the rights).
The third deletion, I admit, I honestly could not remember. It required judicious use of Google, at which point it all came back clear as day...second song from the end, where 'A Little Girl' (such creative nomenclature!) belts out Janis-Joplin style that "I Want a Monster to be my Friend". This isn't a particular parody of any song that I've ever heard, so why remove it? Again, thanks to Google and Wikipedia, the answer was quickly found:
If I make friends with a friendly monster
I'll let him bounce me on his knee
I'll let him do whatever he wants to
Especially if he's bigger than me!
In 1984, one year after the album's release, a protest was lodged with the producer's that this song, and these four lyrics in particular, encouraged child molestation. Yes, you read that correctly. A Sesame Street song about playing with a fictional friend might actually encourage children to (as the protest worded it) "give in to the inappropriate advances of adults".
As I mentioned, I grew up listening to this album. Throughout my childhood I was at no point placed in the above-mentioned scenario and I am thankful for that. Likewise, my heart goes out to any victims of abuse...it is absolutely unacceptable and I do not want to give the impression of downplaying in any way what a serious problem it is in our society. THAT BEING SAID, I really DO NOT THINK that (had the situation arisen for me) my first thought would have been "The puppet girl on Sesame Street said it was okay to play with big hairy monsters, so I guess I'll let this guy bounce me on his knee if he really wants to..."
This is always a difficult argument and it must be made carefully, not only because it involves such strong emotions but because there is such a delicate line to walk between over- and under-reacting. It goes without saying that the writers of this song never had this thought cross their minds for a moment (at least, I fervently hope not), and that as a result the song is innately harmless and should be left alone. That is followed by the rebuttal that, meant or not, it is better to be safe than sorry and as no one is really getting hurt by the deletion (except my aforementioned nostalgia) there is no reason NOT to remove it.
What it boils down to, for me, is the simple question: "Where does it end?" Anyone my age or older has seen the tepid pablum that passes for children's entertainment nowadays, Sesame Street included. That isn't even nostalgia talking; the 1980s featured Jim Henson, Fred Rogers, Fred Penner, Bob Homme (the Friendly Giant), Ernie Coombs (Mr. Dressup), to name a few...I could probably go on for paragraphs. The fundamental difference I see between then and now is the quantity of condescension, that is, the way that shows nowadays treat kids quite literally with 'kid-gloves', while the entertainers of the past spoke to kids on a simple yet respectful level. To quote Robin Williams, "You don't play DOWN to them, you just play TO them"
The sadly humorous part (and I know you're all thinking it on some level) is that a lot of the names I have mentioned or COULD mention would probably be accused of having similar tendencies to the monster song. Whether seriously or as a source of cynical comedy, our currently revisionist mindset is unforgivably harsh towards children's entertainment. Which, in turn, causes further restrictions on the part of producers and broadcasters, eventually reaching a point where every frame and every word is examined under a microscope for even the slightest hint of controversy. There are people out there with telephones and far too much time on their hands...that's all it really takes.
As I have said, this is a difficult and emotional debate and I do not claim to be absolutely right one way or the other. Yes, there are certain things that children should not see. But that is the responsibility of parents, not television screens. Do our children know the difference between right and wrong, fantasy and reality? If they don't, it isn't Cookie Monster's fault. Concerns about programming content should not be cause for complaint; rather, they should be looked at as "teachable moments", a chance to educate and inform rather than blindfold and shield. To tell the honest truth, I'm rather looking forward to having my own opportunity in years to come...
By the way, another track on the 'Born to Add' album is about a party where a group of monsters "Honk around the Clock". What do you think THAT encourages?
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Function Malfunction
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)