The News

Rumours of crop circles circulated 

Witches huddled in their apartments whispering about fire 

The boys wrote songs predicting the end of the world 

And chartered accountants reported seeing unidentified flying objects

I read the news today oh boy

I pored myself another drink while the large black bird behind me flapped her wings and made a sound from her throat that was comforting

I read the news today

Pored myself another drink and looked to the stars, they were there, real, at least it seemed to me that they burned their terrible light in through my eyes to my brain and scarred it forever

Rumours of crop circles, witches, the end of the world, UFO's,

I read the news today oh boy.

Stephen Harper is in favour of Murder

I know I have written a lot about abortion lately, but it seems to be a big issue in the American election, so it is hard to avoid thinking about it.  Just so there is no misunderstanding I have no conception of how anyone, especially men, but anyone, thinks they have the right to tell another person (in this case women in general) what to do with their bodies.  I can conceive of people having differing beliefs about many things and good on 'em, if we all thought the same it would be very boring, but more importantly, we need to have these discussions so that we can consider positions, arguments, religious dogma, philosophy, science and all of our own pre and mis conceptions so that after we have thought about all of these matters, we have some idea of what the right thing to do is in any situation.  "Do the right thing" (Spike Lee) has been the one and only important lesson I have tried to give to my children and they are, all six of them, people who do try to do that.

This post was inspired directly by the brilliant Rachel Maddow on her cable TV program this week.

So let me get this straight.  The so called pro-lifers are mostly alright with abortion in certain extreme cases. At least that is what I understand them to be saying. The foetus is a person from the moment of conception, but it is alright to "murder" (that is by necessity their characterization of the act) these persons if the mother was raped, it was incest, or the mother might be in danger of losing her life. Conclusion: anti-abortionists of this type are pro-murder.

This is nothing new and many people have pointed out the inconsistency in the pro-life argument. But as I have said before, this position requires conservatives to advocate controlling other peoples' lives and decisions, which is also a very inconsistent position, as they generally are supposedly opposed to government involvement in your life.  As in opposing universal health care on the grounds that it forces us to use certain providers of care, or as in the case of Obama-care, to buy insurance.  They rave about the death of freedom, blah, blah, blah.

But not many people have given much thought or consideration to the Soviet style system that will be needed to monitor and decide who will be entitled to an abortion.  We will have to have fucking commisars running around saying yes or no based on very little information or evidence.  This is because convictions for rape or incest will never happen until after the babies are already born and even though the pro-lifers are admitted murderers, I doubt if they will agree to offing live babies in their cribs.

And in the case of the mother's life, again they cannot wait until she is dead to agree to kill the "baby."

It is a ridiculous position to hold in the first place, but to actually consider legislating this kind of thing is only something the Canadian and American Taliban could come up with.  They are terrorists who should be feared.  Their religions give them carte blanche to advocate anything including genocide, murder, and totalitarianism.  Be afraid.  If you are, you will do everything possible to exclude them from positions of power.  Stephen Harper is the Canadian prime minister.  Be very afraid.

Catholic Conundrums

In the vice presidential debate last week the moderator asked Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan, who are both Catholics to state their views on abortion rights.


Ryan predictably said he agreed with his church's view that life begins at conception and that he supported the Romney position (at least his position as expressed this week) that if elected they would support legislation to outlaw abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. They would also like to see Roe v Wade overturned. (It should be pointed out that Ryan has previously stated his support of “personhood” legislation that would outlaw abortion in any circumstance.) 

Biden, as a Catholic, was also predictable in stating that he accepts the church's teaching that life begins at conception. He didn't say be believed that, he just said he accepts it. But then he went on to say that he did not have any intention, nor did he feel he had the right, to tell other people what to believe or how to act. He is happy with the status quo and supports Choice for women.


My intention here is not to be lengthy but to point out a couple of things that really irk me about these arguments.


First is the irony of the conservative position on abortion. The parties of the right who purport to be in favour of individual rights, the right to bear arms for instance, in both the US and in Canada, think that it is fair and reasonable to impose their views on abortion on women of all faiths or no particular faith. This position reinforces my argument in a previous post that they are the ultimate hypocrites when it comes to freedom.


Second, believing life begins at conception does not make it so. None of us, including scientists, know the secret of life. It remains to this day one of the mysteries of the universe. As Biden pointed out on several other issues, facts matter, but on this one issue there are no facts. Beliefs are leaps of faith, not facts. If I said that I believe life begins at birth that would not be a fact either. These are really irrelevant arguments and should not be taken into account in making public policy.


We should always side with the politician who is in favour of providing the greatest amount of freedom as well as preventing the greatest amount of suffering. At times these will conflict but not on the issue of abortion rights. Taking Choice away will clearly cause suffering both for women who do not want to be pregnant and for all of the unwanted children who will be brought into the world. And it will clearly take away the freedom of women to choose what to do with their own bodies.


Let's hope that the forces of freedom win out over the forces of fascism.

Red, a poem, or some not so serious prose?

Look at those red roses, don't you just love them?

 

That was her and me being me, I wasn't sure if that was a question mark or an exclamation point, replied in my customary way,. "I suppose they are quite nice," which of course was not the correct response and she looked disappointed or disgusted as if I had dissed the red Ferrari we had seen drive by us while entering the park.  I assure you she hadn't noticed it though so it couldn't be "as if" that, but I had, and of course there wasn't much point mentioning it.

 

Now you are just thinking that he likes cars and she flowers, pretty typical.  But you have to look deeper, bobo.  What about the redness?  That was what made us notice the thing.  A black car or black flowers would not have made us even notice.  Red stands out and is always, I think, something to comment on.  But, but...

 

What is red?  That is what bothers me.  Tell me about red I have said to her.  It is an unfair thing to ask as there is not a way to describe red.  The colour of blood I say, which makes her feel faint, just the thought, but is it the red?  I might comment on a beautiful fight I saw on television, where the winner, my favourite, with an elegant feint to the left and a gentle jab with his right then suddenly exploded with an unexpected left uppercut that jolted his poor opponent so violently that his head snapped back and blood flew from his nostrils and the sides of his mouth as he lay on the canvas and was counted out, a loser.  Beautifully done I would think, but not something to tell someone who likes flowers.  

 

But it was because of the red too somehow.  

 

Maybe when I see something described as red, it is what she sees as grey and visa versa.  Could be, you can't prove that wrong, bobo.   That could be the problem of men and women.  Colours, that's it bobo, colours.  What a discovery, eh?  

 

(question mark or exclamation point?)

 

Too simple, yes it is too simple, but I don't care that much for flowers and German or Italian cars, especially if they are red appeal to me.

 

I could feign excitement, pretend redness in all cases was orgasmic.  But then there would be some bright blue plant of some name which I would never be able to remember that would remind me of a mixture of the juxtaposition of a certain sea with a specific sky, and I would be just as annoying to her with some stupid response about the flowers.  Or maybe I wasn't reminded of anything, maybe I dislike blue, or maybe, just maybe, I dislike flowers.

 

 

A Poem (something different)

The men who like to dress like women  

The women who are somehow masculine 

The ones with burns or scars, the ugly, the too beautiful, the hairy and the hairless 

The old  

Why are we not seen? 

Why are we not heard? 

Or are we and it is just me and my unadjusted errors? 

Natural selection or over selectivity? 

We pick the young shapeless ones only

 

Their perfect salon hair, whitened teeth and gym sculpted bodies

Problem is that none of this is hereditary

 

They will have children as empty and full of nothingness as them 

Aren't I as worthy? 

Aren't you? 

Stupid question

 

I guess as we all will fuck anyway and our progeny will continue. Hopefully into a more tolerant world where beauty is real and the real is appreciated.

"That's just so gay."  

"She's a dyke, just look at her." 

"I know he's gay but does he have to be so flaming...?" 

"You are such a homo." 

There are worse but I think you get the general drift.  If you spend any time in a high school hallway, the first is ubiquitous.  The others are heard in general conversation anywhere, offices, restaurants and much worse can be heard in some places where most talk is pretty rough, like construction sites, etc.  But the question is: if a guy in a hard hat calls someone a fucking faggot, does that make him homophobic?  Or are those high school kids all making fun of gay people when they call something or someone "gay"?  I think the answer is no.

I use these words in general conversation and some of my best friends are gay. 

I know, I know, that sounds like a joke line, or Archie Bunker telling Meathead he isn't a racist. But most of us do it, and I bet that we don't give it a second thought.  While 99% of you would never even think of using the "N" word to describe a person of colour or as a slur against anyone else, we think nothing of using fag or homo as derogatory terms.  So all of us so-called liberals who profess to believe in gay marriage, who pretend to be libertarians, who think that we have come so far in our beliefs that we are willing to accept "the other" whoever it might be, better think again. 

Surely if you use these words, even in jest, there is a bit of a problem. 

Now if you are a bible thumper who thinks that homosexuality is an abomination, you are probably also someone who thinks that they get what they deserve, and that the kikes, wops, slanteyes, ragheads, etc. should go home to wherever they came from. You should also maybe stop reading this as you are the 1% who will never get it.   

While the women's liberation movement has had its stops and starts, we have, I think at least, stopped calling women "girls" in formal situations and only Rush Limbaugh thinks that single women who use birth control are "sluts."  Maybe it isn't 99%, but I truly believe that 75% of us think that women should do whatever the hell they want with their minds and bodies and that they should be the ones who determine how they want to be referenced.  I work with several 20-somethings and if I ever used the terms "honey" or "sweetheart" or said "you did a great job on this beautiful," I am sure that I would eventually be told to fuck off or eventually get a slap up the head.  But I have been brought up by my grandmother, my mother, my wife and my daughters not to talk like that. 

But with homosexuality we are very uncomfortable.  We profess to accept it, we have close gay friends, but we continue to make jokes that could be hurtful to those friends and we ignore the kind of dialogue that would be unacceptable if it were about any other segment of society.  Even guys and girls (sic) who work in construction or other "tough" jobs, the ones I know anyway, have nothing against gay people, but you certainly think they do if you listen to their conversations.  It's like gays have replaced the other people we used to like to make fun of and there is no one else left so let’s use homophobic slurs whenever we think we want to be funny or even jokingly put someone down. 

Fat is much the same but I’ll leave that topic to another day. 

So what to do?  Just say no!  Don't bloody well do it anymore.  Think before you speak. I am going to work on it for sure.  I am not a person who thinks we have to be politically correct all of the time but some things are just not acceptable.  I call my First Nations friends "Indians" and they don't mind, like it in fact.  And we joke amongst ourselves about scalping, but that is with them.  I know gays who I can joke with about being "homos" and lesbians "dykes."  We all need a sense of humour and if you don't, then poor you.  But I think it is odorous to pick a group of people who have traditionally been treated very poorly by society, who have been objects of ridicule, who have been burned at the stake (by pedophile priests in many cases), who are still in many quarters not accepted as "normal," and abuse them in this way by making these words part of our everyday conversation in a way that denigrates them. 

We don't accept it with women or men in general, people with a different skin colour, little people (well mostly we don't), people with accents, so we need to stop accepting it in the case of gays.  You cannot be a liberal and use these terms in the way many of us do.  And if you aren't a liberal then why are you here? 

National Coming Out Day: Count Me Out

I’m informed by a plethora of jubilant posts on my Facebook feed that today is “National Coming Out Day.” I’m less than enthused.

According to Wikipedia, National Coming Out Day is “an internationally observed civil awareness day celebrating individuals who publicly identify as bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender—coming out regarding one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity being akin to a cultural rite of passage for LGBT people.”

I wish someone would explain to me why this is something to celebrate. The fact that LGBT people have to “come out” at all is a testament to how far we still have to go in achieving equality and acceptance.

I certainly recognize the importance “coming out” can have, but part of the reason this event can be so significant in a person’s life is because of the ignorance and bigotry that’s still prevalent, and the strength it takes to overcome that and take pride in one’s identity. Straight people never have to “come out” because their sexuality is considered the “default.”

This is a problem, not cause for a national day of celebration.

I’ve never “come out” as gay or bisexual, and I’m thankful that I’ve never felt the need to. But just because I’ve never “come out,” why would anyone assume that I’m straight? Of course, people do. They see me in a relationship with a man and make all kinds of assumptions. They assume he’s my only partner. They assume that being with a man means I’m not attracted to women, or to hermaphrodites, or to ghosts or wizards.

Even in the few social circles where “straight” is not necessarily the default, monogamy and monosexuality still tend to be assumed.

This is stupid. Why make any assumptions about someone’s sexuality until that person chooses to tell you about it? You probably think that guy sitting in the cubicle next to you is straight, with a wife and kids at home. For all you know, he could be sexually attracted to lizards. If he hasn’t mentioned it, it’s probably none of your business. If he chooses to, it’ll probably make the work day a little more interesting.

My point is that if people didn’t assume everyone was straight until proven otherwise, no one would actually have to “come out.” People -- whether straight, gay, bi, trans, or other -- could merely decide to talk about their sexuality if and when they feel like it, without it being some big revelation. If there’s ever a national day to celebrate something like that, I’ll muster up some excitement.

"Canadians are more free than Americans"

This was originally posted by Brian on facebook, where it was quite popular. We decided to re-use it for the inagural post on this blog. Here are Brian's words of wisdom:

I don't normally post anything on Facebook. My main reason for having an account is so I can keep up with what my six children are doing.

But I have just had it with some of the things I have seen recently from American politicians running for office in that country. They are entitled to say what they want but I get angry when most of what they say is just lies and fabrications, especially when those lies relate to some of the amazing freedoms we have in our country.

Canadians are more free than Americans. Many Europeans are more free than Americans. The USA is not the greatest country in the world by a long shot. In fact, America is not much better than a third rate, third world country in many of its qualities. (I recently met a young man in Vancouver who grew up in Florida who told us that the only good thing he could think of to say about his homeland was that it had elected a minority president in the last election).

I must point out that I don`t dislike Americans in general. I think they are fine people, they are not much different from Canadians really, they care about their families and communities, they are kind to their pets and animals in general and they are concerned about the future of the planet.

But American politicians, especially those of the tea party variety, need to be feared by all of us. They are totalitarians, they are the American Taliban. They want the government to control your lives. They want to make you go to the church of their choice. They think that the rich are smarter than the rest of us and should therefore run our lives for us.

Why do I love Canada so much? Here are some of the reasons:

Freedom mixed with compassion is a good way to describe the essence of Canada.

While the vast majority of us spend our days working to provide homes, food and even luxuries to our families, we are also concerned about our fellow citizens who are disabled in some way or do not have the same tools as we do to earn enough to provide these things.

So we delegate our government through the payment of modest taxes, donate to our churches and other charitable organizations, and the best of us even volunteer at food banks and take part in similar activities so that as many people as possible can experience the freedom we ourselves have.

But some of the best examples of our freedom are in the institutions we have built through various organizations and government. Universal free medicare. Public education for all. Modestly priced post secondary education with help in the form of repayable loans to those students who cannot even afford the relatively low tuition fees.

We are free to work, to become educated, and to remain healthy through the institutions we have built without resorting to the fear of taboo words like "socialism". We know we are still a country that is as free as any in the world because we have always insisted that while we want our government to help with the things described above and including building highways, parks, policing, fire protection, and on and on, while we have asked for these things we have also insisted, indeed demanded, that government stay out of our personal lives as much as possible.

We don't care what others do in their bedrooms or churches. They are free persons without many constraints on their individual freedoms. We go about our business, express our opinions openly, vote in democratic elections, even elect conservatives who would never remove things like universal medicare or we would never vote for them again. The police and government are virtually invisible except when we need them. We are for sure, the most free people in the world.

We have agreed as a society in some cases to limit some behaviours such as using certain guns and are, as a result, more free of crime and violence, more free to go on with our everyday lives without the kinds of fears Americans have to put up with and which limit their freedoms immensely. There are not many places in Canada a person is not free to go and fear his or her fellow citizens. This is not something that can be said of most countries.

So when we see the kind of idiotic arguments that are currently going on in the US election campaign we scratch our collective heads and wonder what planet that is. Look at us you fools. Maybe it looks like something else to you but to us it looks like freedom.

Don't misunderstand though, we still have the poor and downtrodden. The most obvious being parts of our aboriginal populations, inequality for women and many other injustices, and we will continue to follow the dictates of our consciences, the teachings of our religions (I don't belong to one but all of them seem to encourage helping the poor, etc., except maybe Mormonism if Mitt Romney is anything to go by), and the lessons learned from past struggles for freedom to provide those same freedoms to everyone.

And maybe, just maybe, we can also extend some of those freedoms to the rest of the world, particularly the cold and hungry billions who cry out for freedom from suffering, something you won`t ever hear a politician talk about in any country.