All my life I've felt that I had too few friends. Sometimes that was based in perception and sometimes that was based in reality. Lately, it has been based more in realism than perception.
I just this very moment found out that I have one friend fewer.
I met Winsome Wright when we both worked for the North York Public Library system (now Toronto Public Libraries) at the Don Mills Regional Branch. Winsome was a funny woman in every sense of the word. She had a great sense of humour and more than anyone I've ever known didn't care what other people thought (of her). She could be outrageous, irreverent and flamboyant (etc.) as well as confrontational, stubborn and reactionary (etc.). Winsome held some strong opinions: she knew what she knew and was unabashed at telling everybody what she knew. She was also fiercely independent. Winsome lived life as though her personal philosophy required that anything worth doing was worth doing loudly and demonstratively. That's not a bad way to look at life or live it, but it certainly raises a lot of eyebrows along the way.
I was young, naive, eager and ambitious and appreciated her colourful manner. (She was several years my senior.) We became friends. We spent countless hours on the phone, lunched frequently and attended many Toronto Blue Jay baseball games together, maybe a movie or two as well. (Winsome was one of the Jays biggest fans, and almost assuredly Cito Gaston's number one fan!) She often invited me over for dinner or to watch games on television, but I always demurred. (While I can be passionate and can become quite animated, primarily I am shy -- intimidated even.) More than ever I wish I had said 'yes' at least once.
Winsome had friends, some whom she thought of as family, but I wasn't aware of her having any blood relatives. I'm sure she had family but I don't know if she was in contact with any of them anymore. Certainly, if she was in contact with even one of them it was a long distance relationship either to England or Jamaica, where she had previously lived. You don't get many hugs out of long distance relationships. It also seemed to me that Winsome kept her friends, or at least groups of friends, separate. She was comfortable talking about one group friends while with another group but I'm not aware of her allowing 'foreign' friends from meeting one another.
I had expressed an interest in meeting what I considered her 'family'. Before working at the library, Winsome had worked as a housekeeper/nanny (or something similar) for a (Jewish) family of four. It has been so long since she's discussed them with me that I only recall the names David (father/husband) and Shaina (one of 2 daughters). Their last name is lost to me (at least at the moment) as are the names of the other two family members. In any case, Winsome spoke of them as though they were her flesh and blood.
My health suffered for a protracted period not long ago and during this time I became estranged from nearly all my friends, Winsome included. I bumped into her on the bus a couple of years ago and got her new contact information. I very frequently thought about calling her but only actually tried a couple of times and that was after a long delay. Unfortunately, the number didn't work. I had written it on a moving bus onto a matchbook and my handwriting is arcane at the best of times -- I couldn't read my own writing. I tried every combination of numbers that I could envision the scrawl translating into, but none of them worked.
I could have gone to her place of work and gotten the correct info, but I was incredibly reluctant to do so, and ultimately, I didn't. Winsome worked in public/customer service and had far too strong a sense of self for the demands of this type of work. This work requires that you temporarily divorce yourself from your ego and your temper and basically take whatever the customer is dishing out. Your one saving grace is that you can opt to bring in your supervisor/manager and hope that they can resolve the matter in a more satisfactory manner. Winsome had a hard time taking abuse without reacting so she was seldom, if ever, popular with her bosses. A personal visitation would have exacerbated this strained relationship and the last thing I wanted to do was make her professional life worse. I should have done it anyway, but I tend to think in terms of what is best for all rather than just what is best for me, so it didn't happen.
Fast forward to today. Winsome apparently contracted cancer. We don't even know what kind (I mean other than terminal). She never told her employer or coworkers of her plight. Instead, she ended up getting in trouble for excessive requests for time off work. She didn't reach out to me at any point -- ever -- including after she found out she was sick. (I can easily see this being a symptom of old school upbringing; women simply don't call up men for any reason.) I can't even find anyone who knows how long she was sick or whether or not she had been undergoing any kind of treatment.
I'm confused by this. The Winsome I knew was (best guess) 80+% likely to fight tooth and nail to survive. She might have tried to recruit as many allies as possible or she might have tried to handle it on her own without bothering anyone else. On the other hand, she was probably 20% (max) likely to just accept her diagnosis as fate and do nothing if only to not inconvenience anyone. My sincerest hope is that she didn't go through this on her own, that she contacted either her family or 'family' for support. I also hope that she fought the cancer like a wild-woman. (And I wish she had told me.) Those are my hopes, but I don't have the slightest idea what to believe.
This news is so fresh that I don't even know if there has already been a funeral/burial or not. I haven't found an obituary yet and there's no guarantee I ever will -- if she did in fact go this alone there may not have been anyone to write and/or submit one to the local newspaper(s). It has not been posted online, either.
I'm sad. How could I not be?
I'm shocked. There were no warning signs given the way that Winsome handled the matter.
I'm angry. I'm not sure I like or respect Winsome's decisions (though I can understand them) but I'm quite certain that I don't like or respect my own decisions/procrastinations where Winsome is concerned.
All I have left is the hope that Winsome can continue to be outrageous, flamboyant and irreverent to her heart's content and not have to deal with confrontation forever more.
Goodbye Winsome. You are and will continue to be missed.
A self-derisive title. We're off to a good start. Image source: @johnlund.com (who is not affiliated with this blog)
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Yankees Clinch Twice
Today was the last day of the Major League Baseball regular season and boy was it eventful.
The St. Louis Cardinals shutout Houston while the Atlanta Braves lost in extra innings to Philadelphia giving St. Louis the come-from-behind capture of the National League Wildcard playoff berth. When Milwaukee surged past St. Louis in the standings two months ago it appeared as though the Cardinals season was over, but miracles happen. Atlanta really swooned in September to enable St. Louis' comeback. Surprisingly, this collapse paled in comparison to what occurred in the American League.
In the American League, the Boston Red Sox gave up a 9th inning lead against Baltimore, losing for the first time in 78 such situations. Meanwhile, the Tampa Bay (I still want to call them Devil) Rays knocked off the Yankees 8-7 in 12 innings after having trailed the Yankees 7-0. Boston's collapse was epic -- the worst in Major League Baseball history -- giving up a 9 1/2 game lead they held as late as September 2nd. Relatively, New York's collapse today was nothing!
But there's more to the story. The New York Yankees had clinched the American League East Division title earlier in the week, and had no motivation to beat the Rays. Their primary motivation was to rest their stars for the playoffs which is pretty much the opposite of wanting to win. So no one was surprised when the Yankees fielded a lineup featuring many prospects and back-up players.
But hold on...there's an unwritten rule in Baseball that when the game has playoff implications for the other team you don't mail it in. And that's exactly what New York did. In fact, the winning run in the Ray's clinching game was scored against a tired pitcher, some would even say spent pitcher, that wasn't even on the Yankees' playoff roster. Win or lose, his season was over.
Was this fair? Was this right? Who was hurt -- only the Boston Red Sox and their fans, who just happen to be the nemeses of the Yankees. I'm certain that the Yankees and their die-hard fans are taking particular delight in the fact that Boston was kept from the playoffs. The fact that this was in part orchestrated by the play of the Yankees made the outcome even sweeter.
In the previous series, the Yankees and Red Sox played each other with New York taking two of the three games. New York managed to field semi-competitive teams against Boston -- they played them tough...and then they went through the motions against Tamps Bay.
This was wrong. Plain and simple. The Yankees had a responsibility to make as honest an effort against Tampa as they had against Boston, and they chose to ignore this responsibility out of self-interest. The Yankees are Major League Baseball's juggernauts, nothing they do is really criticized because their success is good for Baseball as a whole, so don't expect to see many headlines or stories like this one. Maybe there won't be any others!
Was this outcome in the best interests of Baseball? Well, it depends who you ask. Boston is a close second to New York in popularity and in garnering high television ratings. Having them miss the playoffs will hurt the networks in that the audiences will be smaller than they could have been. On the other hand, having any team other than New York or Boston in the playoffs helps those that argue that the 'status quo' is good for Baseball; anyone can make the playoffs at any time, not just the big, BIG spenders. By 'status quo' I mean 1) having no salary cap, resulting in a $150,000,000 disparity between the highest and lowest payrolls; 2) having playoff spots determined mainly by divisions; 3) having unbalanced schedules; 4) having inter-league play which no one has ever tried to make balanced.
From where I'm standing, the first position is a matter of fact not opinion so pulling strings to keep Boston out of the playoffs is not in the best interests of Baseball. From where I'm standing, one more season where Boston misses the playoffs changes nothing and does not add weight to the argument in support off the status quo, so again, this was not in the best interests of Baseball. After all, the Yankees have made the playoffs 16 of the last 17 years (winning the World Series 5* times), and Boston has made the playoffs 9 of the last 17 years (winning the World Series 2 times). This data does not make for a significantly better argument than had it been 10 of the last 17 years for Boston.
So, now that we've exposed the wrong doing, what can we do about it. Nothing. Should we? In this case, probably not. The unwritten rules of baseball are never officially enforced -- if they were, they wouldn't be 'unwritten' rules. The closest we get to enforcement is how teams treat each other after a perceived violation. Things like pitchers throwing 98 mph fastballs at or behind your slugger's (or the offending player's) head/shoulder tend to happen in these situations. It really isn't news that the Yankees are a monolithic juggernaut that is completely out of control to the detriment of many cities and many fans -- they've only failed to buy their way into the playoffs once in 17 years! (Of course, they do still have to play their way in each year, but all-star teams are expected to beat normal/traditional teams.) And, while it is true that New York didn't lift a finger to meet their competitive responsibility you can't escape the fact that Boston's record in September was absolutely terrible! More than anything or anyone else, they have to own this failure. Even a sub-mediocre, possibly even bad, performance would have been enough to hold off the Rays and they just couldn't manage to adequately represent themselves. (I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Boston had the worst September record of all 30 teams! That's just not how you shepherd a team into the playoffs, regardless of how big a lead you've amassed!) Further, if Boston had limped into the playoffs, there's no reason to believe that they would have been able to capitalize on the opportunity since so many players played so poorly, particularly the pitching staff. It was so bad that they really didn't have anyone to put on the mound tomorrow had there been a need for a one-game-playoff to decide the Wildcard.
If you're looking for justice, perhaps you can find it in this: the Yankees first playoff appointment is with the Detroit Tigers, the club with the guaranteed Cy Young Award, and possibly MVP Award winner, Justin Verlander. Oh, and if Verlander doesn't win the MVP, first baseman Miguel Cabrera will garner plenty of votes, too. (Yeah, New York's outfielder Curtis Granderson is probably the odds-on favorite for the MVP, but it's no slam dunk.)
So, enjoy the Red Sox-less playoffs, folks. It only happens about every other year.
* Only 16 of the 17 World Series have been decided, New York could conceivably make it 6 of 17.
The St. Louis Cardinals shutout Houston while the Atlanta Braves lost in extra innings to Philadelphia giving St. Louis the come-from-behind capture of the National League Wildcard playoff berth. When Milwaukee surged past St. Louis in the standings two months ago it appeared as though the Cardinals season was over, but miracles happen. Atlanta really swooned in September to enable St. Louis' comeback. Surprisingly, this collapse paled in comparison to what occurred in the American League.
In the American League, the Boston Red Sox gave up a 9th inning lead against Baltimore, losing for the first time in 78 such situations. Meanwhile, the Tampa Bay (I still want to call them Devil) Rays knocked off the Yankees 8-7 in 12 innings after having trailed the Yankees 7-0. Boston's collapse was epic -- the worst in Major League Baseball history -- giving up a 9 1/2 game lead they held as late as September 2nd. Relatively, New York's collapse today was nothing!
But there's more to the story. The New York Yankees had clinched the American League East Division title earlier in the week, and had no motivation to beat the Rays. Their primary motivation was to rest their stars for the playoffs which is pretty much the opposite of wanting to win. So no one was surprised when the Yankees fielded a lineup featuring many prospects and back-up players.
But hold on...there's an unwritten rule in Baseball that when the game has playoff implications for the other team you don't mail it in. And that's exactly what New York did. In fact, the winning run in the Ray's clinching game was scored against a tired pitcher, some would even say spent pitcher, that wasn't even on the Yankees' playoff roster. Win or lose, his season was over.
Was this fair? Was this right? Who was hurt -- only the Boston Red Sox and their fans, who just happen to be the nemeses of the Yankees. I'm certain that the Yankees and their die-hard fans are taking particular delight in the fact that Boston was kept from the playoffs. The fact that this was in part orchestrated by the play of the Yankees made the outcome even sweeter.
In the previous series, the Yankees and Red Sox played each other with New York taking two of the three games. New York managed to field semi-competitive teams against Boston -- they played them tough...and then they went through the motions against Tamps Bay.
This was wrong. Plain and simple. The Yankees had a responsibility to make as honest an effort against Tampa as they had against Boston, and they chose to ignore this responsibility out of self-interest. The Yankees are Major League Baseball's juggernauts, nothing they do is really criticized because their success is good for Baseball as a whole, so don't expect to see many headlines or stories like this one. Maybe there won't be any others!
Was this outcome in the best interests of Baseball? Well, it depends who you ask. Boston is a close second to New York in popularity and in garnering high television ratings. Having them miss the playoffs will hurt the networks in that the audiences will be smaller than they could have been. On the other hand, having any team other than New York or Boston in the playoffs helps those that argue that the 'status quo' is good for Baseball; anyone can make the playoffs at any time, not just the big, BIG spenders. By 'status quo' I mean 1) having no salary cap, resulting in a $150,000,000 disparity between the highest and lowest payrolls; 2) having playoff spots determined mainly by divisions; 3) having unbalanced schedules; 4) having inter-league play which no one has ever tried to make balanced.
From where I'm standing, the first position is a matter of fact not opinion so pulling strings to keep Boston out of the playoffs is not in the best interests of Baseball. From where I'm standing, one more season where Boston misses the playoffs changes nothing and does not add weight to the argument in support off the status quo, so again, this was not in the best interests of Baseball. After all, the Yankees have made the playoffs 16 of the last 17 years (winning the World Series 5* times), and Boston has made the playoffs 9 of the last 17 years (winning the World Series 2 times). This data does not make for a significantly better argument than had it been 10 of the last 17 years for Boston.
So, now that we've exposed the wrong doing, what can we do about it. Nothing. Should we? In this case, probably not. The unwritten rules of baseball are never officially enforced -- if they were, they wouldn't be 'unwritten' rules. The closest we get to enforcement is how teams treat each other after a perceived violation. Things like pitchers throwing 98 mph fastballs at or behind your slugger's (or the offending player's) head/shoulder tend to happen in these situations. It really isn't news that the Yankees are a monolithic juggernaut that is completely out of control to the detriment of many cities and many fans -- they've only failed to buy their way into the playoffs once in 17 years! (Of course, they do still have to play their way in each year, but all-star teams are expected to beat normal/traditional teams.) And, while it is true that New York didn't lift a finger to meet their competitive responsibility you can't escape the fact that Boston's record in September was absolutely terrible! More than anything or anyone else, they have to own this failure. Even a sub-mediocre, possibly even bad, performance would have been enough to hold off the Rays and they just couldn't manage to adequately represent themselves. (I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Boston had the worst September record of all 30 teams! That's just not how you shepherd a team into the playoffs, regardless of how big a lead you've amassed!) Further, if Boston had limped into the playoffs, there's no reason to believe that they would have been able to capitalize on the opportunity since so many players played so poorly, particularly the pitching staff. It was so bad that they really didn't have anyone to put on the mound tomorrow had there been a need for a one-game-playoff to decide the Wildcard.
If you're looking for justice, perhaps you can find it in this: the Yankees first playoff appointment is with the Detroit Tigers, the club with the guaranteed Cy Young Award, and possibly MVP Award winner, Justin Verlander. Oh, and if Verlander doesn't win the MVP, first baseman Miguel Cabrera will garner plenty of votes, too. (Yeah, New York's outfielder Curtis Granderson is probably the odds-on favorite for the MVP, but it's no slam dunk.)
So, enjoy the Red Sox-less playoffs, folks. It only happens about every other year.
* Only 16 of the 17 World Series have been decided, New York could conceivably make it 6 of 17.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Handsome As Hudak
Apparently someone is running a 'beauty contest' for our Ontario politicians. Ontarians are asked to pick the more attractive candidates as they square off in pairs. When asked about what his chances of winning might be, Tim Hudak said [paraphrasing]... there aren't enough Michael Keaton fans left for me to win.
Interesting...Michael Keaton, eh? Tim Hudak looks like Michael Keaton?
I just don't see it. Well, maybe. But only Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice. And he’s just as scary.
What do you think?\
Interesting...Michael Keaton, eh? Tim Hudak looks like Michael Keaton?
I just don't see it. Well, maybe. But only Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice. And he’s just as scary.
What do you think?\
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Conflict in the Classroom: Two Hot Issues
There are two issues related to public education that are hot right now. One is about the appropriateness of allowing prayer in the school. The other is about just how gay-friendly Separate (Catholic) schools should be. I'd like to address these for a moment.
I understand that we live in a mainly secular society and should therefore strive for a secular public school system. My question is how much effort we should put in to discourage students from engaging in prayer. Is that unconstitutional? Let's face it. The reason this is a hot button topic is that it mainly concerns the right of Muslim students to pray in the school. Islam, as a local minority religion, has always been controversial but it is even more so post 9/11, whether that's justified or not. So, what to do?
The school system's mandate is to educate the students, to prepare them for life as productive and informed adult citizens. (Whether we are fully achieving this goal is irrelevant right now.) The school boards would additionally like to not offend anyone along the way. Let's examine the possible solutions.
1) Force non-Christians to become Christians and be part of the majority. If this is your goal, you officially qualify as a nut. Or at the very least a fervid Evangelical. This is never going to happen, so stop pushing for it -- don't even wait or hope for it.
2) Force non-Christians to choose secularism over piety. This is as unlikely to happen as option #1. I might point out that both are unconstitutional.
3) Force non-Christians into private, religion-based schools. This is at least feasible, but I don't think it is desirable. It's a workable solution. John Tory's Progressive Conservatives ran on a platform of funding for private schools which would be more egalitarian than the current model. (Yes, I just agreed with John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives. Mark it on your calendar, it's likely to be that rare.) Nominally, each cultural group will have their own self-regulated school boards funded by public money. They will have control over how much religious/cultural content will be compulsory and what will be ignored. They will have control over which days the schools are open and which days they are closed -- a scheme that will match their own holy days. Everyone should be happy, right? Cultural leaders almost certainly will be.
However, some of the greatest sources of global concern are ignorance, intolerance and tribalism. If we force our children into environments where they never encounter anyone who is remotely different from them then we are promoting all three of those problems when we should be trying to eliminate them. Promoting these three root causes leads to burgeoning hate, something I believe we can all agree is to be avoided. So instead of helping society, we've hurt it. We need a better solution.
4) Let children leave the schools in order to pray during school hours. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam's holy day falls during what we call the work week. That makes Islam stick out like a sore thumb and makes religious comparisons unfair if not impossible. So, everyday Muslim students leave the school in order to worship, but mostly on Fridays when the duration and importance of prayer is enhanced.
What does this really mean? It means that the Muslim students not only lose class time for the time the pray, but also for the time they travel to a house of worship. Depending on the school that can be a very significant amount of time, or even untenable. Are we serving the Muslim students by forcing them out of the classroom even more than they need to be? Are we serving the students that remain in class by maximizing the duration of their friends' absences? Further, in most cases, the students don't bother returning to school on Fridays after prayer. By the Ministry's own rules, this solution fails to serve Muslim students' right to an education as they miss too much time to technically and officially qualify for accreditation. Bureaucracy aside, what do they really learn!? Remember, school is about learning, not collecting marks or even credits. Those are merely our best tools for tracking and measuring learning.
5) What if we do it the other way. What if we allow the Muslim students to worship onsite? Travel time is nearly eliminated, reducing the disruption in their education. It sends a message to the Muslim community -- and for that matter all communities -- that they are valued and that their needs can be accommodated. I don't know how open the Muslim community is to this suggestion, but it wouldn't hurt for the other students to experience Muslim prayer once or twice in their lifetimes. (Gasp!) What better opportunity than when the prayer is happening in their own schools. Besides, who and how does it hurt to allow them to worship on site? Rationally, there is no harm whatsoever. The 'problem' is that it may currently be interpreted as being in violation of some board or Ministry policies. Why have a rule that causes more trouble than it solves? If there is in fact a conflict in rules, and I'm not sure there is, then change them!
Yes, I understand that people want to point to the segregation within the Muslim prayer community, namely separating the boys from the girls from the girls who happen to be menstruating, and call it discriminatory. Conservadox & Orthodox Jewish women worship separated from the men and that hasn't caused the ire of the general public. Why is that? Is it that the women are subdivided? The Bible itself calls women who are menstruating "unholy" -- it is questionable as to whether in ancient times they were permitted in temple at all. Is it the fact that the subdivisions are made from front to back instead of side-to-side? Are we really going to get up in arms over semantics? Seriously!
When people start trying to protect their ideals without really knowing why, you pretty much know they are in the wrong.
I was going to move on to topic two, but there were demonstrations on Saturday addressing this issue.
I'm fairly confident in saying that all in attendance did a good job of emulating nine-year-olds in trying to argue their positions. They were there for many reasons. Some were there due to very real and very current cultural and/or religious hatred. (The status of the Kashmir comes to mind.) Some were there due to fear, humanity's default reaction to things it doesn't understand. Some were there to complain that 'they' got a bigger scoop of ice cream than 'we' did. Some were there because they habitually have knee-jerk reactions that border on complete paranoia. I wonder, how many were there because they thought that children were being harmed in some way by the current policy? almost assuredly not that many since it really isn't happening. Why does the lunatic fringe get so much attention (i.e. press) and the wise and sensible that propose actual workable solutions get ignored and lost in history?
I particularly enjoyed one sign: "Today Muslims want prayer in our schools: what will they ask for tomorrow?" Good show! I like the choice of "our" to describe Ontario schools, like somehow they aren't "their" schools too. With an attitude like that you must really want 'them' ejected from 'your' country, isn't that right? There is nothing so rational as to punish people for what they haven't done, or in this case, deny people for what they might do at some point in the future. What might they ask for tomorrow? Peace? Harmony? A thriving multicultural community? How dare they!? Oh, I forgot. "Multicultural" is an increasingly dirty word as the world rebels against 'the Global Village'. There was a time when we looked to Europe and thought "how backwards, how intolerant", but now we want to emulate them and stir up a backlash against minorities. Is it the minorities that are 'ruining' Canada (or America) or is it established Canadians (Americans) that are inventing the problem? It's pretty clear to any objective viewer that it is the latter.
What did I mean by the 'ice cream' reference above? I mean that Jews and Christians are trying to make accommodating Muslim prayer on Friday somehow an issue of 'inequality'. Why can't our children pray in schools, too? Well, the last time there was prayer in schools it was in the classroom, and catered to Christendom only. That was an inequality issue. Fortunately, that's not what's happening now. Last time I checked, schools in Ontario were closed on Saturday and Sunday, the holy days of the Jewish and Christian weeks. Schools aren't accommodating these religions because there is no need for it! Jewish and Christian children are free to worship all day long without fear of missing any school.
Do we really want to make it an equality issue? Let's throw schools open seven days a week! Then everyone can be excused to pray to their definition of God on the day of their choosing, right there in the school auditoria. I'm sure that teachers will be only too willing to work seven days a week -- for no increase in pay, of course, since we simply have no money for that and can't increase taxes for fear of public lynching, completely forgetting that the Government is just doing what they demanded! Better yet, let's completely undermine the entire teaching profession! Make all teachers part time! Full-time jobs are disappearing everywhere, why not in education, too? Each teacher works 3.5 days a week and students will just have to learn from two people instead of one. Sure, communication between the two 'partners' will be difficult, particularly since they are never in the office at the same time, but they'll work it out and our kids won't suffer at all. For an added benefit, teachers will lose all their benefits, as is the norm for part-time workers. They won't receive a pay increase to offset the fact that they'll now be on their own covering those lost benefits so it's a net savings for the province (hey! they can reduce taxes!), and all it cost us was the integrity of the system and the quality of education for our kids!
Teachers aren't going to work continuously, nor part-time. Taxes aren't going to get raised, or lowered for that matter. Schools aren't going to be open on Saturday and Sunday, and Jews and Christians should stop whining and realize that there is no equality issue here. There's plenty of real inequality for them to concentrate on without inventing new problems.
What about tolerance of gay students? Students in the Separate School System want to be able to form clubs that are supportive and inclusive of gay people. This panics and angers far too many parents. The Bible says! The Bible says! We know what the Bible says, thank you very much. However, 2000 years have passed since these words of 'wisdom' were written. Attitudes have changed. Our understanding of the world around us has grown enormously. Tolerance of intolerance has greatly declined. More and more, people are being awarded full and equal rights regardless of any perceived differences they may have compared to the majority.
For those who believe that every word of the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other holy texts for that matter, is/was the direct word of God, here's what I think. (I fully expect you to differ.) Language and culture was much, much more limited, primitive even, when the Word was received. God could only tell us what we could be made to understand. Then there is also the possibility that a prophet heard the Word of God and misinterpreted it with his fallible, less than godlike brain. But we take everything as gospel without considering any of these possibilities. Even if you dismiss the possibilities because you conclude that God wouldn't allow these things to happen, that conclusion came from you and your fallible human brain, and not from God -- your judgement is neither perfect nor above criticism. You could easily be wrong which brings us back to the possibility that God's Word did not come to us complete, intact and without error.
If God had dropped a bomb like "everyone, without exception, is equal" the limited, tribal, competitive, even vicious, human minds that received this Word would have rebelled, downright refusing the Word. They might have struck down the offensive prophet rather than accept his message. The prophets themselves might have even come to believe that it was not God that spoke to them, but some malign spirit, maybe even that one, you know his name. It is also possible that they may have henceforth doubted their own sanity. In any of these situations, God's intent is undermined -- the Word fails to be disseminated among the people which was the entire purpose of revealing it to a prophet in the first place.
Don't buy that? What if God had provided specific medical detail regarding the technical and absolute point that life begins? He couldn't, all-powerful though he is, because man had no words for these concepts, nor the ability to measure or determine when this time might occur for any one life. What about the ethics of utilizing nuclear bombs, or nuclear power plants, or computers, or airplanes, or armoured tanks? Should we have ever begun burning coal and petroleum? Should we even be trying to explore space? That information would be extremely helpful to us today. We've had to guess because it was not included in the Word.
But that couldn't happen. We weren't ready. We weren't even remotely equipped. We didn't even know the world was round, let alone have knowledge of all seven continents. What's gravity? What's an atom? I know the periodic table! I know all FIVE elements! They are Fire, Air, Earth, Water and Quintessence. What does this mean? It means that we have to consider the fact the Word makes some approximations and compromises that we may finally be able to address after 1500-2000 (or more) years of linguistic and technological development. How? Through reinterpretation. (For some, this is surely blasphemy!) In this specific case, perhaps the complete disdain for homosexuality was an approximation which needs to be addressed today now that we are more enlightened. Here's a theory. In classical times it was common for important people to have protégés and it was also common for the two to engage in homosexual sex. Perhaps the ban on homosexual sex was primarily, maybe even exclusively, to prevent what amounted to same-sex statutory rape / pedophilia. Perhaps the crime being proscribed was child abuse rather than consensual sex between adults, regardless of gender. This is the kind of 'approximation' I'm talking about. Why didn't God say "no more statutory rape"? There was no such concept. Enforcement would be tricky in any case. When does one's childhood end? Most people at the time didn't track time so had only a rough idea of their age. Would it be based on puberty? How do you know when puberty starts or ends? Better to just ban homosexual sex and with a broad stroke end what was really bothersome. It's just a theory.
Or, we can look at it like this. For a people that is passionate about "Judge not lest ye be judged," we do an awful lot of judging and worse, condemning!
When God said "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore," (Genesis 22:17) did he really mean that we should reproduce at the maximum biological rate until our burgeoning masses utterly crushed the biosphere? That's where we're headed with the world's major religions' positions on birth control. Might it be time to reinterpret that? Do we have to drive the train off the edge of the cliff just because that's where the tracks lead? Because of a steadfast refusal to think? Can't we reexamine, reinterpret, turn around or stop?
When we were few, and being eaten by lions and wolves was a constant threat -- not to mention the prevalence of disease, parasites, stillbirth and famine -- having as many children as possible made sense. What a great way to glorify God, by giving him more worshipers! Today, lion and wolf attacks are almost unheard of, medicine is winning the battle against disease and parasites, birth defects are no longer the death sentence they once were and, most people have enough to eat. We're seriously straining the planet's ability to feed and shelter us, but for now we have enough. Explosive population growth no longer glorifies God because it conflicts with man's stewardship of Earth in God's name. In fact, there are more starving people today than there were people then! But the world's religions unilaterally refuse to change their views on birth control. The only rational reason for this is that religious leaders are choosing to use population as the primary weapon in the next war, a war of religious ideology where every birth represents a new soldier, a war that will completely change the planet if not render it as sterile as the Moon. To some degree, it's already happening. Is this really where we want to go? Is it so important to cling to the perceived and accepted Word of God that we are willing to leave God with no worshipers whatsoever?
I doubt anyone that reads this will be swayed from their position in the slightest. Today, rational thought is considered fairly toxic. The five things (why five? for fingers of course) that man fights most viciously to protect are: family, property, country/tribe, ideals, and ignorance. True wisdom lies in knowing whether you are fighting for ideals or for ignorance. If any society has figured that out, and moved to cast off ignorance, I haven't seen it. But, we have the capacity to change, to better ourselves, to improve our lot in life without it being at the expense of the quality of life of others. I dream of such a time and place. That might be the closest I ever get to it. I hope not.
So, how does that relate to the school problem? People need to get over themselves. Let the kids choose tolerance over ignorance. You don't have to agree with something/someone in order to tolerate it/them. Homosexuality isn't an infectious disease; so your kids aren't going to 'turn gay' because they refused to discriminate against gays. In fact, their lives may be richer for their openness. Any time you can replace hate in your heart with acceptance, you have both improved yourself and the world you live in. If parents must impose their ignorance upon their children, then by all means, remove your children from school and start your own school. Ruin their lives or at the very least their life chances. Take a giant step backwards. Your kids will hate you, but that's your prerogative. Take care that you don't back yourselves off the aforementioned cliff, taking your children with you.
Tangent: I believe that when the next prophet comes (or the return of Jesus, whichever comes first) 'he' will arrive in the form of a physically handicapped or deformed, gay, black woman. God loves to do things like this, meaning to challenge our beliefs, to test our faith and judgement! It will be interesting to see whether she winds up in an institution, incarcerated, killed or merely relegated to obscurity by a disinterested and unbelieving media, or whether she is accepted for what she is. It will be interesting...
I understand that we live in a mainly secular society and should therefore strive for a secular public school system. My question is how much effort we should put in to discourage students from engaging in prayer. Is that unconstitutional? Let's face it. The reason this is a hot button topic is that it mainly concerns the right of Muslim students to pray in the school. Islam, as a local minority religion, has always been controversial but it is even more so post 9/11, whether that's justified or not. So, what to do?
The school system's mandate is to educate the students, to prepare them for life as productive and informed adult citizens. (Whether we are fully achieving this goal is irrelevant right now.) The school boards would additionally like to not offend anyone along the way. Let's examine the possible solutions.
1) Force non-Christians to become Christians and be part of the majority. If this is your goal, you officially qualify as a nut. Or at the very least a fervid Evangelical. This is never going to happen, so stop pushing for it -- don't even wait or hope for it.
2) Force non-Christians to choose secularism over piety. This is as unlikely to happen as option #1. I might point out that both are unconstitutional.
3) Force non-Christians into private, religion-based schools. This is at least feasible, but I don't think it is desirable. It's a workable solution. John Tory's Progressive Conservatives ran on a platform of funding for private schools which would be more egalitarian than the current model. (Yes, I just agreed with John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives. Mark it on your calendar, it's likely to be that rare.) Nominally, each cultural group will have their own self-regulated school boards funded by public money. They will have control over how much religious/cultural content will be compulsory and what will be ignored. They will have control over which days the schools are open and which days they are closed -- a scheme that will match their own holy days. Everyone should be happy, right? Cultural leaders almost certainly will be.
However, some of the greatest sources of global concern are ignorance, intolerance and tribalism. If we force our children into environments where they never encounter anyone who is remotely different from them then we are promoting all three of those problems when we should be trying to eliminate them. Promoting these three root causes leads to burgeoning hate, something I believe we can all agree is to be avoided. So instead of helping society, we've hurt it. We need a better solution.
4) Let children leave the schools in order to pray during school hours. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam's holy day falls during what we call the work week. That makes Islam stick out like a sore thumb and makes religious comparisons unfair if not impossible. So, everyday Muslim students leave the school in order to worship, but mostly on Fridays when the duration and importance of prayer is enhanced.
What does this really mean? It means that the Muslim students not only lose class time for the time the pray, but also for the time they travel to a house of worship. Depending on the school that can be a very significant amount of time, or even untenable. Are we serving the Muslim students by forcing them out of the classroom even more than they need to be? Are we serving the students that remain in class by maximizing the duration of their friends' absences? Further, in most cases, the students don't bother returning to school on Fridays after prayer. By the Ministry's own rules, this solution fails to serve Muslim students' right to an education as they miss too much time to technically and officially qualify for accreditation. Bureaucracy aside, what do they really learn!? Remember, school is about learning, not collecting marks or even credits. Those are merely our best tools for tracking and measuring learning.
5) What if we do it the other way. What if we allow the Muslim students to worship onsite? Travel time is nearly eliminated, reducing the disruption in their education. It sends a message to the Muslim community -- and for that matter all communities -- that they are valued and that their needs can be accommodated. I don't know how open the Muslim community is to this suggestion, but it wouldn't hurt for the other students to experience Muslim prayer once or twice in their lifetimes. (Gasp!) What better opportunity than when the prayer is happening in their own schools. Besides, who and how does it hurt to allow them to worship on site? Rationally, there is no harm whatsoever. The 'problem' is that it may currently be interpreted as being in violation of some board or Ministry policies. Why have a rule that causes more trouble than it solves? If there is in fact a conflict in rules, and I'm not sure there is, then change them!
Yes, I understand that people want to point to the segregation within the Muslim prayer community, namely separating the boys from the girls from the girls who happen to be menstruating, and call it discriminatory. Conservadox & Orthodox Jewish women worship separated from the men and that hasn't caused the ire of the general public. Why is that? Is it that the women are subdivided? The Bible itself calls women who are menstruating "unholy" -- it is questionable as to whether in ancient times they were permitted in temple at all. Is it the fact that the subdivisions are made from front to back instead of side-to-side? Are we really going to get up in arms over semantics? Seriously!
When people start trying to protect their ideals without really knowing why, you pretty much know they are in the wrong.
I was going to move on to topic two, but there were demonstrations on Saturday addressing this issue.
I'm fairly confident in saying that all in attendance did a good job of emulating nine-year-olds in trying to argue their positions. They were there for many reasons. Some were there due to very real and very current cultural and/or religious hatred. (The status of the Kashmir comes to mind.) Some were there due to fear, humanity's default reaction to things it doesn't understand. Some were there to complain that 'they' got a bigger scoop of ice cream than 'we' did. Some were there because they habitually have knee-jerk reactions that border on complete paranoia. I wonder, how many were there because they thought that children were being harmed in some way by the current policy? almost assuredly not that many since it really isn't happening. Why does the lunatic fringe get so much attention (i.e. press) and the wise and sensible that propose actual workable solutions get ignored and lost in history?
I particularly enjoyed one sign: "Today Muslims want prayer in our schools: what will they ask for tomorrow?" Good show! I like the choice of "our" to describe Ontario schools, like somehow they aren't "their" schools too. With an attitude like that you must really want 'them' ejected from 'your' country, isn't that right? There is nothing so rational as to punish people for what they haven't done, or in this case, deny people for what they might do at some point in the future. What might they ask for tomorrow? Peace? Harmony? A thriving multicultural community? How dare they!? Oh, I forgot. "Multicultural" is an increasingly dirty word as the world rebels against 'the Global Village'. There was a time when we looked to Europe and thought "how backwards, how intolerant", but now we want to emulate them and stir up a backlash against minorities. Is it the minorities that are 'ruining' Canada (or America) or is it established Canadians (Americans) that are inventing the problem? It's pretty clear to any objective viewer that it is the latter.
What did I mean by the 'ice cream' reference above? I mean that Jews and Christians are trying to make accommodating Muslim prayer on Friday somehow an issue of 'inequality'. Why can't our children pray in schools, too? Well, the last time there was prayer in schools it was in the classroom, and catered to Christendom only. That was an inequality issue. Fortunately, that's not what's happening now. Last time I checked, schools in Ontario were closed on Saturday and Sunday, the holy days of the Jewish and Christian weeks. Schools aren't accommodating these religions because there is no need for it! Jewish and Christian children are free to worship all day long without fear of missing any school.
Do we really want to make it an equality issue? Let's throw schools open seven days a week! Then everyone can be excused to pray to their definition of God on the day of their choosing, right there in the school auditoria. I'm sure that teachers will be only too willing to work seven days a week -- for no increase in pay, of course, since we simply have no money for that and can't increase taxes for fear of public lynching, completely forgetting that the Government is just doing what they demanded! Better yet, let's completely undermine the entire teaching profession! Make all teachers part time! Full-time jobs are disappearing everywhere, why not in education, too? Each teacher works 3.5 days a week and students will just have to learn from two people instead of one. Sure, communication between the two 'partners' will be difficult, particularly since they are never in the office at the same time, but they'll work it out and our kids won't suffer at all. For an added benefit, teachers will lose all their benefits, as is the norm for part-time workers. They won't receive a pay increase to offset the fact that they'll now be on their own covering those lost benefits so it's a net savings for the province (hey! they can reduce taxes!), and all it cost us was the integrity of the system and the quality of education for our kids!
Teachers aren't going to work continuously, nor part-time. Taxes aren't going to get raised, or lowered for that matter. Schools aren't going to be open on Saturday and Sunday, and Jews and Christians should stop whining and realize that there is no equality issue here. There's plenty of real inequality for them to concentrate on without inventing new problems.
What about tolerance of gay students? Students in the Separate School System want to be able to form clubs that are supportive and inclusive of gay people. This panics and angers far too many parents. The Bible says! The Bible says! We know what the Bible says, thank you very much. However, 2000 years have passed since these words of 'wisdom' were written. Attitudes have changed. Our understanding of the world around us has grown enormously. Tolerance of intolerance has greatly declined. More and more, people are being awarded full and equal rights regardless of any perceived differences they may have compared to the majority.
For those who believe that every word of the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other holy texts for that matter, is/was the direct word of God, here's what I think. (I fully expect you to differ.) Language and culture was much, much more limited, primitive even, when the Word was received. God could only tell us what we could be made to understand. Then there is also the possibility that a prophet heard the Word of God and misinterpreted it with his fallible, less than godlike brain. But we take everything as gospel without considering any of these possibilities. Even if you dismiss the possibilities because you conclude that God wouldn't allow these things to happen, that conclusion came from you and your fallible human brain, and not from God -- your judgement is neither perfect nor above criticism. You could easily be wrong which brings us back to the possibility that God's Word did not come to us complete, intact and without error.
If God had dropped a bomb like "everyone, without exception, is equal" the limited, tribal, competitive, even vicious, human minds that received this Word would have rebelled, downright refusing the Word. They might have struck down the offensive prophet rather than accept his message. The prophets themselves might have even come to believe that it was not God that spoke to them, but some malign spirit, maybe even that one, you know his name. It is also possible that they may have henceforth doubted their own sanity. In any of these situations, God's intent is undermined -- the Word fails to be disseminated among the people which was the entire purpose of revealing it to a prophet in the first place.
Don't buy that? What if God had provided specific medical detail regarding the technical and absolute point that life begins? He couldn't, all-powerful though he is, because man had no words for these concepts, nor the ability to measure or determine when this time might occur for any one life. What about the ethics of utilizing nuclear bombs, or nuclear power plants, or computers, or airplanes, or armoured tanks? Should we have ever begun burning coal and petroleum? Should we even be trying to explore space? That information would be extremely helpful to us today. We've had to guess because it was not included in the Word.
But that couldn't happen. We weren't ready. We weren't even remotely equipped. We didn't even know the world was round, let alone have knowledge of all seven continents. What's gravity? What's an atom? I know the periodic table! I know all FIVE elements! They are Fire, Air, Earth, Water and Quintessence. What does this mean? It means that we have to consider the fact the Word makes some approximations and compromises that we may finally be able to address after 1500-2000 (or more) years of linguistic and technological development. How? Through reinterpretation. (For some, this is surely blasphemy!) In this specific case, perhaps the complete disdain for homosexuality was an approximation which needs to be addressed today now that we are more enlightened. Here's a theory. In classical times it was common for important people to have protégés and it was also common for the two to engage in homosexual sex. Perhaps the ban on homosexual sex was primarily, maybe even exclusively, to prevent what amounted to same-sex statutory rape / pedophilia. Perhaps the crime being proscribed was child abuse rather than consensual sex between adults, regardless of gender. This is the kind of 'approximation' I'm talking about. Why didn't God say "no more statutory rape"? There was no such concept. Enforcement would be tricky in any case. When does one's childhood end? Most people at the time didn't track time so had only a rough idea of their age. Would it be based on puberty? How do you know when puberty starts or ends? Better to just ban homosexual sex and with a broad stroke end what was really bothersome. It's just a theory.
Or, we can look at it like this. For a people that is passionate about "Judge not lest ye be judged," we do an awful lot of judging and worse, condemning!
When God said "I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore," (Genesis 22:17) did he really mean that we should reproduce at the maximum biological rate until our burgeoning masses utterly crushed the biosphere? That's where we're headed with the world's major religions' positions on birth control. Might it be time to reinterpret that? Do we have to drive the train off the edge of the cliff just because that's where the tracks lead? Because of a steadfast refusal to think? Can't we reexamine, reinterpret, turn around or stop?
When we were few, and being eaten by lions and wolves was a constant threat -- not to mention the prevalence of disease, parasites, stillbirth and famine -- having as many children as possible made sense. What a great way to glorify God, by giving him more worshipers! Today, lion and wolf attacks are almost unheard of, medicine is winning the battle against disease and parasites, birth defects are no longer the death sentence they once were and, most people have enough to eat. We're seriously straining the planet's ability to feed and shelter us, but for now we have enough. Explosive population growth no longer glorifies God because it conflicts with man's stewardship of Earth in God's name. In fact, there are more starving people today than there were people then! But the world's religions unilaterally refuse to change their views on birth control. The only rational reason for this is that religious leaders are choosing to use population as the primary weapon in the next war, a war of religious ideology where every birth represents a new soldier, a war that will completely change the planet if not render it as sterile as the Moon. To some degree, it's already happening. Is this really where we want to go? Is it so important to cling to the perceived and accepted Word of God that we are willing to leave God with no worshipers whatsoever?
I doubt anyone that reads this will be swayed from their position in the slightest. Today, rational thought is considered fairly toxic. The five things (why five? for fingers of course) that man fights most viciously to protect are: family, property, country/tribe, ideals, and ignorance. True wisdom lies in knowing whether you are fighting for ideals or for ignorance. If any society has figured that out, and moved to cast off ignorance, I haven't seen it. But, we have the capacity to change, to better ourselves, to improve our lot in life without it being at the expense of the quality of life of others. I dream of such a time and place. That might be the closest I ever get to it. I hope not.
So, how does that relate to the school problem? People need to get over themselves. Let the kids choose tolerance over ignorance. You don't have to agree with something/someone in order to tolerate it/them. Homosexuality isn't an infectious disease; so your kids aren't going to 'turn gay' because they refused to discriminate against gays. In fact, their lives may be richer for their openness. Any time you can replace hate in your heart with acceptance, you have both improved yourself and the world you live in. If parents must impose their ignorance upon their children, then by all means, remove your children from school and start your own school. Ruin their lives or at the very least their life chances. Take a giant step backwards. Your kids will hate you, but that's your prerogative. Take care that you don't back yourselves off the aforementioned cliff, taking your children with you.
Tangent: I believe that when the next prophet comes (or the return of Jesus, whichever comes first) 'he' will arrive in the form of a physically handicapped or deformed, gay, black woman. God loves to do things like this, meaning to challenge our beliefs, to test our faith and judgement! It will be interesting to see whether she winds up in an institution, incarcerated, killed or merely relegated to obscurity by a disinterested and unbelieving media, or whether she is accepted for what she is. It will be interesting...
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, scene 2
Toronto Triumph: Titillation, Truth or Tragedy? Trivial!
The Toronto Triumph are the most recent addition to Toronto's list of professional sports franchises. They are receiving a lot of attention but they are also receiving a lot of hate. Why?
Well, the Triumph are members of the Lingerie Football League, that's why. Guaranteed controversial, and for almost no reason.
First of all, the ladies of the LFL don't wear lingerie. Lingerie doesn't belong in the same sentence as football, does it? Their uniforms are skimpy to be sure but they're not lingerie. Is that still too scandalous? What are you afraid of? That someone might be exposed to a bare...abdomen? Is the midriff taboo now? Women have been extremely candid about their appreciation of professional (men's) football players' uniforms, specifically because they are stretchy and clingy and show the definition of the, well, not the abdomen and it rhymes with 'glasses'. Besides, lingerie has never been known to adequately cover football pads, and is too frilly and delicate to use in a game that involves tackling. (That's right, they tackle, just like the NFL & CFL.) Why? Frilly makes it too easy to get a hold of your opponent in order to tie them up and ultimately to tackle them. Delicate means that it would not remain clothing for very long. While this might meet with approval from the audience, it is inconsistent with the reputation the league is seeking, namely that of a legitimate sport and not orchestrated burlesque. Also, uniforms cost much less than lingerie, especially when you need multiple changes per game as you would with tearing, stretching and exploding lingerie.
Second, these ladies play football. Do you suggest that perhaps they are not worthy athletes? These women are packing more muscle than most men. They are certainly athletes. I daresay they are more athletic than some (perhaps many) Major League Baseball players. They play it hard and fast just like the men that play professional football. The men deal with the constant threat of breaks & bruises, strains & separations, detachments and dislocations, not to mention tears, twists and other trauma. All this without so much as a peep from the public. I suppose this argument can go both ways: either we should increase our concern for the men to match our concern for the women, or we should give the women the same break we give the men. However, either way should you agree that our concern should be equal for both sexes. The women have just as much right to a low-quality of life post-retirement as the men do.
I haven't even touched on the most severe type of injury that is common to football -- the brain injury. The men's pro leagues have been tweaking the rules regularly to help minimize the threat of brain injury, but it still happens. With the increasing frequency with which we receive data about retired players who suffered from dementia and depression (including suicides) as well as balance, coordination and memory issues perhaps we should get them all off the field until we can improve the safety of the game. Sounds good, but it's never going to happen, not even if there was a 100% likelihood of these symptoms occurring later in life. So I guess we'll have to console ourselves with the fact that these women will be tackled by 200 lbs of hurtling bone and pads instead of the 400 lbs with which the men have to cope.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, what difference does it make? If the purpose of the LFL is to titillate then that makes the players entertainers. If the LFL is a purely athletic endeavour that makes the players entertainers. Are we discriminating between forms of entertainment now? The closest thing we have to that is the rating systems used for television shows, movies and video games, and these are merely guidelines for parents to act upon as they see fit. Can you remember when there was this much hullabaloo about the existence of R-rated movies? How about X-rated movies? Video games marked 'M' for 'mature' end up in the hands of teens and preteens all the time. Where's the big stink for that?
The reasons that the LFL is getting more attention than the others are simple and quite poor in quality. 1. Sexism. We've discussed that already and exposed an unfair double-standard. It's time we gave women the same opportunities that we allow men. The real controversy here is how little the women will make when compared to the men playing the same game. 2. Puritanism. It's the 21st century but there are still plenty of people stuck somewhere between the 15th and the 19th centuries. Wake up and smell the coffee, people! The world isn't run by the Church nor by petty monarchs anymore; now democracy reigns and you are in the tiny but self-righteously loud minority. If you disagree with the ethics, values, morals and mores of the place where you live, you are free to move elsewhere. I hear Antarctica is uninhabited, so you would automatically become the majority. When you get there you can have all the witch hunts you want. The short, rude and violent native men in tuxedos (known as penguins to the sane) will just swim away and mock you from the water instead of drown. While you're at it, since you love history so much, go ahead and genocide the penguins for having the audacity of being there before you but possessing 'inferior' culture & technology. That's really what you're about isn't it? See it my way or be destroyed? (Alternately, 'or God will destroy you', which is really the same thing since the destruction will come at the hand of 'God's instrument', man.)
So, lets give an open arms welcome to Toronto's latest professional team, the Triumph! May they live long and prosper. God help us if they pattern themselves after the Maple Leafs, or for that matter any MLS&E franchise.
Well, the Triumph are members of the Lingerie Football League, that's why. Guaranteed controversial, and for almost no reason.
First of all, the ladies of the LFL don't wear lingerie. Lingerie doesn't belong in the same sentence as football, does it? Their uniforms are skimpy to be sure but they're not lingerie. Is that still too scandalous? What are you afraid of? That someone might be exposed to a bare...abdomen? Is the midriff taboo now? Women have been extremely candid about their appreciation of professional (men's) football players' uniforms, specifically because they are stretchy and clingy and show the definition of the, well, not the abdomen and it rhymes with 'glasses'. Besides, lingerie has never been known to adequately cover football pads, and is too frilly and delicate to use in a game that involves tackling. (That's right, they tackle, just like the NFL & CFL.) Why? Frilly makes it too easy to get a hold of your opponent in order to tie them up and ultimately to tackle them. Delicate means that it would not remain clothing for very long. While this might meet with approval from the audience, it is inconsistent with the reputation the league is seeking, namely that of a legitimate sport and not orchestrated burlesque. Also, uniforms cost much less than lingerie, especially when you need multiple changes per game as you would with tearing, stretching and exploding lingerie.
Second, these ladies play football. Do you suggest that perhaps they are not worthy athletes? These women are packing more muscle than most men. They are certainly athletes. I daresay they are more athletic than some (perhaps many) Major League Baseball players. They play it hard and fast just like the men that play professional football. The men deal with the constant threat of breaks & bruises, strains & separations, detachments and dislocations, not to mention tears, twists and other trauma. All this without so much as a peep from the public. I suppose this argument can go both ways: either we should increase our concern for the men to match our concern for the women, or we should give the women the same break we give the men. However, either way should you agree that our concern should be equal for both sexes. The women have just as much right to a low-quality of life post-retirement as the men do.
I haven't even touched on the most severe type of injury that is common to football -- the brain injury. The men's pro leagues have been tweaking the rules regularly to help minimize the threat of brain injury, but it still happens. With the increasing frequency with which we receive data about retired players who suffered from dementia and depression (including suicides) as well as balance, coordination and memory issues perhaps we should get them all off the field until we can improve the safety of the game. Sounds good, but it's never going to happen, not even if there was a 100% likelihood of these symptoms occurring later in life. So I guess we'll have to console ourselves with the fact that these women will be tackled by 200 lbs of hurtling bone and pads instead of the 400 lbs with which the men have to cope.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, what difference does it make? If the purpose of the LFL is to titillate then that makes the players entertainers. If the LFL is a purely athletic endeavour that makes the players entertainers. Are we discriminating between forms of entertainment now? The closest thing we have to that is the rating systems used for television shows, movies and video games, and these are merely guidelines for parents to act upon as they see fit. Can you remember when there was this much hullabaloo about the existence of R-rated movies? How about X-rated movies? Video games marked 'M' for 'mature' end up in the hands of teens and preteens all the time. Where's the big stink for that?
The reasons that the LFL is getting more attention than the others are simple and quite poor in quality. 1. Sexism. We've discussed that already and exposed an unfair double-standard. It's time we gave women the same opportunities that we allow men. The real controversy here is how little the women will make when compared to the men playing the same game. 2. Puritanism. It's the 21st century but there are still plenty of people stuck somewhere between the 15th and the 19th centuries. Wake up and smell the coffee, people! The world isn't run by the Church nor by petty monarchs anymore; now democracy reigns and you are in the tiny but self-righteously loud minority. If you disagree with the ethics, values, morals and mores of the place where you live, you are free to move elsewhere. I hear Antarctica is uninhabited, so you would automatically become the majority. When you get there you can have all the witch hunts you want. The short, rude and violent native men in tuxedos (known as penguins to the sane) will just swim away and mock you from the water instead of drown. While you're at it, since you love history so much, go ahead and genocide the penguins for having the audacity of being there before you but possessing 'inferior' culture & technology. That's really what you're about isn't it? See it my way or be destroyed? (Alternately, 'or God will destroy you', which is really the same thing since the destruction will come at the hand of 'God's instrument', man.)
So, lets give an open arms welcome to Toronto's latest professional team, the Triumph! May they live long and prosper. God help us if they pattern themselves after the Maple Leafs, or for that matter any MLS&E franchise.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
CRC Guaranteed To Pass: 2 Good 2 B True?
For years now, CRC has advertised their product Guaranteed To Pass.(G2P) as a method of passing 'pesky' (vehicular) emissions tests. They also go so as to say that G2P doesn't "cheat or fool" emissions tests. Well, if it isn't cheating or fooling the emissions test, what does it do?
Their words are that G2P will "superclean the entire fuel system." I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect that a better description would be that it coats and conditions your fuel system. By either description, it temporarily reduces your vehicle's emissions and they are confident enough to guarantee that this boost in performance will be enough to pass the test.
In the event that it doesn't work, and any Internet search will reveal enough anecdotes and self-reports to show that this happens, there are conditions to the guarantee. You need your G2P receipt. That's completely standard, so no problem here. You need documentation of "before and after" emissions tests. In other words, you can't use G2P in a preventive fashion and have any hope of receiving your money back. You must document that your vehicle failed the test and then failed the test again after using their product. Finally, you need to produce either a Provincial Waiver or a bill for repairs that did allow the vehicle to pass the emissions test. Whoops! That's a third emissions test required to get your money back. I'm not sure if this is just typical legal rigmarole or if this is the sign of a company that isn't all that confident in its product.
But that's not really the point.
So, back to the whole 'what does it do?' issue. I think the scenario is very much like the following example:
A teacher takes pity on one of his/her students and lets them retake a failed test, this time with complete access to their textbook and notes. The test wasn't designed for students to have access to these materials. And the student passes, but is that really a surprise? A short time after writing the test the student could be tested again, without aids, and is more likely to fail than pass. The test, which is supposed to measure what they have learned ended up testing something else, something less rigorous. When we look at the piece of paper that says the student passed the course, what does it really mean? Is it any indicator of future success?
How is this any different than G2P being used for emissions tests? Annual emissions tests are supposed to measure the likely amount of pollution your car will produce for the year (or more) until your next test. It is administered in order to assure that the vehicles on the road meet a minimum emission standard. Use of G2P makes the test become an estimate for the pollution emissions expected for the first 3,000 miles driven after the product is applied. If you use an additive that has a temporary effect, like G2P, what is it really testing? The G2P label and literature state that you should "use every 3,000 miles to improve fuel economy, acceleration and reduce emissions." This amounts to a legal disclaimer limiting the company's legal responsibility for people 'misuse' of their product. What kind of misuse? The kind that almost assuredly occurs in 95% (or more) of all usage -- using the product to pass the mandatory test and forgetting all about it until the next emissions test. So, in effect, the product as it is being used is cheating and fooling the test. What about the remaining 7,000, 22,000, or 72,000 miles that the vehicle travels before the next emissions test? The test has no idea what will happen then, but, if the vehicle failed the test before applying G2P it is almost certainly going to be falling short of these standards after it wears off.
So, people use G2P to cheat the testing/monitoring system put in place by the government, whether or not it was designed for this purpose. Who cares? I do, and you should, too. Looking at things from one perspective, if you allow people to blatantly cheat the system and their sponsor to flaunt their cheating product by advertising on your open airwaves, why bother testing at all? Let's keep every junk-bucket on the road until it won't move anymore. Air quality is overrated and has very little to do with automobile emissions anyway, and automobile emissions have little if anything to do with respiratory health. Right?
If you believe this, then you are almost assuredly one of the following (pick one): idiot, jerk. Actually, describing what I think of you requires stronger language than I want to use in this blog. Suffice it to say that I think you place the value of your self, life, needs and convenience above those of the other 7 billion people on Earth combined. If God made the decision of whether a soul went to Heaven or Hell on the fly instead of at the natural end of life your fate would already be decided and you'd be taking an elevator ride down. There's a reason that the term 'shortcut' is often used with implicit negativity, i.e. there is cost built into shortcuts that makes us think twice before using them. I guess in your mind if the cost is paid by someone else then that makes it okay. I call that "the right to make it someone else's responsibility." That's a rough definition of (lesser) evil, hence the 'going down' prediction above.
If it is not okay for people to cheat the system by taking shortcuts at the expense of others then why don't governments take action? Shouldn't this product be outlawed? Why hasn't it been? I've felt this way for years and naïvely thought that the government would eventually get around to it. That clearly isn't happening. I guess the only answers come come from this list: too expensive, impractical and apathy. To these I reply:
And to the people at CRC, if you want to continue selling and marketing G2P and do so ethically and morally, either improve the product to last at least a full year or stop pretending you don't know how nearly all your customers use your product. You obviously know or you would have called the product something less leading like "CRC Emission Reducer", or "CRC Air B Clean", which implies a generic year-round usage as opposed to "G2P" which basically tells the customers to cheat, and how to cheat. A legal disclaimer is just that, it absolves the issuing entity of legal responsibility but does nothing about waiving moral or ethical responsibility. I like to call this "Avoid jail, enjoy Hell."
Enjoy Hell, cheaters. Hope the bucks were worth it.
Their words are that G2P will "superclean the entire fuel system." I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect that a better description would be that it coats and conditions your fuel system. By either description, it temporarily reduces your vehicle's emissions and they are confident enough to guarantee that this boost in performance will be enough to pass the test.
In the event that it doesn't work, and any Internet search will reveal enough anecdotes and self-reports to show that this happens, there are conditions to the guarantee. You need your G2P receipt. That's completely standard, so no problem here. You need documentation of "before and after" emissions tests. In other words, you can't use G2P in a preventive fashion and have any hope of receiving your money back. You must document that your vehicle failed the test and then failed the test again after using their product. Finally, you need to produce either a Provincial Waiver or a bill for repairs that did allow the vehicle to pass the emissions test. Whoops! That's a third emissions test required to get your money back. I'm not sure if this is just typical legal rigmarole or if this is the sign of a company that isn't all that confident in its product.
But that's not really the point.
So, back to the whole 'what does it do?' issue. I think the scenario is very much like the following example:
A teacher takes pity on one of his/her students and lets them retake a failed test, this time with complete access to their textbook and notes. The test wasn't designed for students to have access to these materials. And the student passes, but is that really a surprise? A short time after writing the test the student could be tested again, without aids, and is more likely to fail than pass. The test, which is supposed to measure what they have learned ended up testing something else, something less rigorous. When we look at the piece of paper that says the student passed the course, what does it really mean? Is it any indicator of future success?
How is this any different than G2P being used for emissions tests? Annual emissions tests are supposed to measure the likely amount of pollution your car will produce for the year (or more) until your next test. It is administered in order to assure that the vehicles on the road meet a minimum emission standard. Use of G2P makes the test become an estimate for the pollution emissions expected for the first 3,000 miles driven after the product is applied. If you use an additive that has a temporary effect, like G2P, what is it really testing? The G2P label and literature state that you should "use every 3,000 miles to improve fuel economy, acceleration and reduce emissions." This amounts to a legal disclaimer limiting the company's legal responsibility for people 'misuse' of their product. What kind of misuse? The kind that almost assuredly occurs in 95% (or more) of all usage -- using the product to pass the mandatory test and forgetting all about it until the next emissions test. So, in effect, the product as it is being used is cheating and fooling the test. What about the remaining 7,000, 22,000, or 72,000 miles that the vehicle travels before the next emissions test? The test has no idea what will happen then, but, if the vehicle failed the test before applying G2P it is almost certainly going to be falling short of these standards after it wears off.
So, people use G2P to cheat the testing/monitoring system put in place by the government, whether or not it was designed for this purpose. Who cares? I do, and you should, too. Looking at things from one perspective, if you allow people to blatantly cheat the system and their sponsor to flaunt their cheating product by advertising on your open airwaves, why bother testing at all? Let's keep every junk-bucket on the road until it won't move anymore. Air quality is overrated and has very little to do with automobile emissions anyway, and automobile emissions have little if anything to do with respiratory health. Right?
If you believe this, then you are almost assuredly one of the following (pick one): idiot, jerk. Actually, describing what I think of you requires stronger language than I want to use in this blog. Suffice it to say that I think you place the value of your self, life, needs and convenience above those of the other 7 billion people on Earth combined. If God made the decision of whether a soul went to Heaven or Hell on the fly instead of at the natural end of life your fate would already be decided and you'd be taking an elevator ride down. There's a reason that the term 'shortcut' is often used with implicit negativity, i.e. there is cost built into shortcuts that makes us think twice before using them. I guess in your mind if the cost is paid by someone else then that makes it okay. I call that "the right to make it someone else's responsibility." That's a rough definition of (lesser) evil, hence the 'going down' prediction above.
If it is not okay for people to cheat the system by taking shortcuts at the expense of others then why don't governments take action? Shouldn't this product be outlawed? Why hasn't it been? I've felt this way for years and naïvely thought that the government would eventually get around to it. That clearly isn't happening. I guess the only answers come come from this list: too expensive, impractical and apathy. To these I reply:
- How can it be too expensive to outlaw/enforce and yet not too expensive to maintain a now flawed testing system? (I guess they need the sales tax dollars?)
- If it is impractical to outlaw/enforce against the use of this product then why are coloured license plate covers illegal? You know, the ones that make it harder to impossible for cameras to read the license plates of red-light-runners and toll-road-abusers, not to mention difficult for citizens to be able to identify license plates of vehicles being used in the commission of a crime. They're against the law, though I see so many of them I wonder how much, or even if, the law is being enforced. Still, the law discourages at least some people from using them. The same should be true for G2P, banning it should make it hard enough for people to get it (because retailers are generally law abiding people, or at the very least, afraid of prosecution) that enforcement should be relatively trivial.
- If the government is apathetic toward situations like these, why did they run for office in the first place, and more importantly, why did we vote for them?
And to the people at CRC, if you want to continue selling and marketing G2P and do so ethically and morally, either improve the product to last at least a full year or stop pretending you don't know how nearly all your customers use your product. You obviously know or you would have called the product something less leading like "CRC Emission Reducer", or "CRC Air B Clean", which implies a generic year-round usage as opposed to "G2P" which basically tells the customers to cheat, and how to cheat. A legal disclaimer is just that, it absolves the issuing entity of legal responsibility but does nothing about waiving moral or ethical responsibility. I like to call this "Avoid jail, enjoy Hell."
Enjoy Hell, cheaters. Hope the bucks were worth it.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Are You Serious? Bad Advertisement #1
One of the things I like to talk about is bad advertising. Not 'bad' as in failing to entertain or persuade, but bad as in misleading, ridiculous, offensive or worse.
Also, every election, attack ads get more and more outrageous, exploding past the limits of good taste and into the realms of fantasy and insanity. One of these ads is in rotation now and is from the CFO of the Ontario PC Party. Interestingly enough, the only spots I've heard/seen this election have been from the PCs. I assume that the other parties are in fact promoting themselves, but they aren't doing good enough a job to reach me. Is this coincidence (am I tuned in to the wrong broadcasters), an indication of injustice or an indication of the size of each party's war chest?
Apparently, PC stands for Progressive Conservative but it just as easily could stand for Probably Confrontational, Parliamentary Contempt, Possibly Corrupt, Pro-Corporation, Pot & Cannabis, Potentially Clueless, Prevaricating Crook(s), Plotting Conspirators, Pathetic Clown(s), Polluting Carbon, Political Cheaters, Perverting Capitalism, Perpetrators Club, Peter Cottontails, Petulant Children, Pickled Cucumbers, Philistine Cads, Plodding Cavemen, Preserved Cadavers, Peppercorns, Peppermint Candy, Postal Couriers, Paternal Custody, Perplexed & Confused, Pet Cause, Public Crib, Psychoactive Chemicals, Punish Canadians, Prison Crew, Paper Cup or a virtually limitless number of other combinations. To be fair, most of these apply equally to politicians of all stripes.
I'll take you directly to the offensive language and let you decide. The PCs would like to paint the Liberal Party as epic tax-raisers and in their effort to do so present the following words to be admitted into evidence:
"...not to mention all his future taxes."
In other words, we, the voting public, should indite "him", meaning Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals, not only for their track record, which may or may not resemble the picture the PCs try to paint, and of which you may or may not approve, but for things that haven't happened yet. There are words for things that haven't happened yet. "Fiction" is one of them. I suppose we could technically justify this as a "Future forecast" if we check the Liberal election platform and find that they have announced tax raises slated for the immediate future. Sadly for this advertised argument, they haven't. So what gives?
Making (or trying to make) people responsible for things that they haven't done or things that haven't happened yet is patently ridiculous! It is the realm of dystopian science fiction. (That's never good.) Popular movie examples, which are probably more widely recognized than literary examples, include:
For more examples of dystopian fiction, see:
AccreditedOnlineColleges.com's 20 Greatest Works Of Dystopian Literature
Snarkerati's Top 50 Dystopian Movies Of All Time
Popcrunch.com's 15 Greatest Dystopian Films Of All Time
Listverse.com's Top 10 Dystopian Films You Haven't Seen
Wikipedia's (extensive) List Of Dystopian Films
(Will October 7th's newspapers be another indicator of a dystopian future?)
Disturbingly, this ad isn't being promoted as fiction. You're supposed to treat it as 'fact'. So, the Ontario PCs ask you to vote PC in the upcoming election in order to punish the Liberals for the crime of levying or increasing unspecified and uncertain taxes at some vague point in the future. In this case, they don't even provide any evidence (other than the weak suggestion of past tax increases) that this future 'fiscal crime' is going to happen; they simply ask you to trust them that they can predict the future -- without the benefit of psychics or mysterious inventions I may add -- from their oh, so unbiased position as a self-interested, opposing political party. Not much of an engaging plot really; I expect the movie to have a high splat/rotten factor over at Rotten Tomatoes. It might even win a Razzie! Not only is this the worst kind of dystopian science fiction, it is blatantly undemocratic.
So, what does this advertisement tell me? It tells me that there is an equation in Ontario politics, possibly with an even broader truth, namely "Conservatives = dystopia". Come October 6th, try to remember that before you cast your ballot -- the Thoughtpolice are monitoring you!
Also, every election, attack ads get more and more outrageous, exploding past the limits of good taste and into the realms of fantasy and insanity. One of these ads is in rotation now and is from the CFO of the Ontario PC Party. Interestingly enough, the only spots I've heard/seen this election have been from the PCs. I assume that the other parties are in fact promoting themselves, but they aren't doing good enough a job to reach me. Is this coincidence (am I tuned in to the wrong broadcasters), an indication of injustice or an indication of the size of each party's war chest?
Apparently, PC stands for Progressive Conservative but it just as easily could stand for Probably Confrontational, Parliamentary Contempt, Possibly Corrupt, Pro-Corporation, Pot & Cannabis, Potentially Clueless, Prevaricating Crook(s), Plotting Conspirators, Pathetic Clown(s), Polluting Carbon, Political Cheaters, Perverting Capitalism, Perpetrators Club, Peter Cottontails, Petulant Children, Pickled Cucumbers, Philistine Cads, Plodding Cavemen, Preserved Cadavers, Peppercorns, Peppermint Candy, Postal Couriers, Paternal Custody, Perplexed & Confused, Pet Cause, Public Crib, Psychoactive Chemicals, Punish Canadians, Prison Crew, Paper Cup or a virtually limitless number of other combinations. To be fair, most of these apply equally to politicians of all stripes.
I'll take you directly to the offensive language and let you decide. The PCs would like to paint the Liberal Party as epic tax-raisers and in their effort to do so present the following words to be admitted into evidence:
"...not to mention all his future taxes."
In other words, we, the voting public, should indite "him", meaning Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals, not only for their track record, which may or may not resemble the picture the PCs try to paint, and of which you may or may not approve, but for things that haven't happened yet. There are words for things that haven't happened yet. "Fiction" is one of them. I suppose we could technically justify this as a "Future forecast" if we check the Liberal election platform and find that they have announced tax raises slated for the immediate future. Sadly for this advertised argument, they haven't. So what gives?
Making (or trying to make) people responsible for things that they haven't done or things that haven't happened yet is patently ridiculous! It is the realm of dystopian science fiction. (That's never good.) Popular movie examples, which are probably more widely recognized than literary examples, include:
- Michael Radford's (adaptation of George Orwell's novel) - 1984 (released, not surprisingly, in 1984)
Sure, you haven't done anything offensive but your thinking has fallen out of step with the party line. Expect to feel the wrath of the Thoughtpolice!
- Steven Spielberg's (adaptation of the Philip K. Dick short story) (with Tom Cruise)- Minority Report (released in 2002)
Why wait for criminals to actually commit crimes when you can have (powerful?) psychics predict the crimes before they happen? After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, isn't it? The 'victims' certainly seem happier this way. Do we question the validity of the psychics' predictions? Should we? I mean, this is all established science and "I saw it in my dreams" is all the hard evidence a jury needs to convict, right?
- J.J. Abrams' - Person of Interest (forthcoming TV series, scheduled to premiere this month)
A scientist invents a machine presumably capable of seeing into the future and asks an ex-CIA hit-man for help eliminating people that presumably will be responsible for great tragedies and crimes against humanity. Minor problem -- the machine isn't so good at differentiating between perpetrators and victims. All are just 'persons of interest'. So who do we kill? Maybe it's spree time?
For more examples of dystopian fiction, see:
AccreditedOnlineColleges.com's 20 Greatest Works Of Dystopian Literature
Snarkerati's Top 50 Dystopian Movies Of All Time
Popcrunch.com's 15 Greatest Dystopian Films Of All Time
Listverse.com's Top 10 Dystopian Films You Haven't Seen
Wikipedia's (extensive) List Of Dystopian Films
(Will October 7th's newspapers be another indicator of a dystopian future?)
Disturbingly, this ad isn't being promoted as fiction. You're supposed to treat it as 'fact'. So, the Ontario PCs ask you to vote PC in the upcoming election in order to punish the Liberals for the crime of levying or increasing unspecified and uncertain taxes at some vague point in the future. In this case, they don't even provide any evidence (other than the weak suggestion of past tax increases) that this future 'fiscal crime' is going to happen; they simply ask you to trust them that they can predict the future -- without the benefit of psychics or mysterious inventions I may add -- from their oh, so unbiased position as a self-interested, opposing political party. Not much of an engaging plot really; I expect the movie to have a high splat/rotten factor over at Rotten Tomatoes. It might even win a Razzie! Not only is this the worst kind of dystopian science fiction, it is blatantly undemocratic.
So, what does this advertisement tell me? It tells me that there is an equation in Ontario politics, possibly with an even broader truth, namely "Conservatives = dystopia". Come October 6th, try to remember that before you cast your ballot -- the Thoughtpolice are monitoring you!
If I Were A Character From Pop Culture...
...who would I be?
I'm a science/math nerd who is constantly struggling with issues of ethics and morals, rights and responsibilities and guilty feelings whether they're earned or not. I tend to be more satisfied when I solve a problem with wit or creativity than with brawn or elbow grease. I'm pretty much always having girl trouble. I'm often a wise cracking big mouth who doesn't know when to shut up (is now a good time?), especially during times of stress. I'm forever misunderstood with people assigning foul motives to the most innocently intended thoughts, words & deeds.
Who am I?
I'm a science/math nerd who is constantly struggling with issues of ethics and morals, rights and responsibilities and guilty feelings whether they're earned or not. I tend to be more satisfied when I solve a problem with wit or creativity than with brawn or elbow grease. I'm pretty much always having girl trouble. I'm often a wise cracking big mouth who doesn't know when to shut up (is now a good time?), especially during times of stress. I'm forever misunderstood with people assigning foul motives to the most innocently intended thoughts, words & deeds.
Who am I?
Monday, September 12, 2011
Unhappy Feet: Penguin Goes Poof
[Author's note: Those that know me will immediately know and understand how difficult it was for me to write this blog. For those that don't yet know me, I have had an affinity for penguins since before I could walk. My first penguin was probably a floaty soap dish named "Perry the Penguin", I think it was also a squeak toy, (kitsch from the late 1960s) and they have populated my life ever since; from plush toys to key chains to shower curtains to swizzle sticks and all points between. I guess the technical term is having a penguin fetish.]
Happy Feet, the wayward emperor penguin, has disappeared from satellite tracking.
Happy Feet was discovered June 21st on Peka Peka Beach in New Zealand. It was only the second sighting of an emperor penguin in New Zealand, the last sighting having been in 1967, but not nearly as far north. I've been monitoring his progress ever since. It has been easy as the authorities in the area have kept the Internet informed.
At first he didn't seem to be in distress, but neither did he return to the sea to go home to Antarctica. He began eating sand, which seems to have been displaced behaviour -- penguins eat snow in order to cool off. Four days after he beached, this errant behaviour resulted in New Zealand zoo authorities taking the penguin into custody/care and ultimately to performing 3 surgeries to remove the glut of sand and stones from his digestive tract. He pulled through this difficult time and began to thrive in captivity.
But captivity was never in the cards for Happy Feet. The plan all along was to release him back into the wild so he could return to his natural habitat, Antarctica and the Southern Sea. To that end, Happy Feet was fitted with a very small satellite transmitter. It represented less than 1% of his body mass. It was affixed with glue on feathers that would be shed in moulting in the summer (Northern Hemisphere's winter). Further, it was attached in a fashion so as to minimize the impact on his swimming.
On September 4th, after 72 days in Kiwi care, Happy Feet was released into the sea about 80km north of Campbell Island, which is the southernmost New Zealand territory. To get home in an ideal fashion, he would have to get around Campbell Island, preferably going around the western coast, and travel roughly SSW to Antarctica.
Things went wrong almost from the get go. (You could say that things went wrong before the get go -- Happy Feet's launch was delayed two days due to inclement weather.) Happy Feet seemed to be on a fairly consistent SE track. If you factor in the effort fighting strong eastbound ocean currents, Happy Feet was trying to swim SSE. So his sense of direction didn't seem to be as bad as it had been when he found himself at Peka Peka in the first place. While he would still reach Antarctica this way -- you cannot have a southerly component to your travel and not eventually reach Antarctica -- but it would be on a coastline possibly as far as 180° removed from where he originated. This isn't tragic. As long as there are emperor penguin rookeries where he alights he'll be fine and while the trajectory was not the most direct, Happy Feet had plenty of time to get where he was going.
Four days after his return journey started Happy Feet disappeared from satellite imagery. All this technically means is that the transmitter hasn't stayed above the ocean surface for at least 3 consecutive minutes during the 7-hour window that it is powered daily. (Another very unlikely possibility is that the battery or transmitter itself was damaged and has ceased functioning.) Emperor penguins are thought to dive for no more than 20 minutes before surfacing to breathe, so that can't explain the 7-hour absence. It takes at least 4 'pings' to the satellite for the tracking software to acknowledge a location. Is it possible that between hyperactive solar flares and equipment on the fritz that a 3-ping (or less) presence has been registered, but been discarded as unreliable noise? Could the super-glue and cabling used to affix the transmitter to Happy Feet's back have failed and he is presently continuing his journey home free of prying eyes? Does it have to be the most tragic of circumstances, namely that Happy Feet has been eaten or drowned due to injury?
We may never know.
If this is a worst case scenario, it is one of those ironic, cartoon moments that flash through our heads from time to time. Scenario 1: A boy catches a fish and is lectured by his father about nature conservancy in sport fishing and is encouraged to unhook the fish and return it to the water. He does so, feeling proud for having learned to respect God's creatures. The 'camera' follows the arc of the fish as it returns to the water, and captures the image of a predator leaping from the water to gobble up the fish before it even hits the drink. Scenario 2: A fawn is collected after its mother was killed by a hunter. It is sent to an animal rescue centre to be raised and prepared for a return to the wild. Fast forward to 'graduation' day when the fawn, now a buck, is released into the wild...and, courtesy of a head-bobbing driver of an 18-wheeler, dies less than an hour later crossing a highway, possibly trying to make his way back to the animal rescue centre. We can also try to help settle our nerves by cracking wise that this is what happens to 'pets' when you name them "Happy"-anything. In any case, back to the real world...
Critics can point to the fact that Happy Feet was given a very long journey to complete on his own when he could have been given a shorter, more direct route home, for example, in deeper waters SW of Campbell Island. I was certainly one of those that was alarmed when I heard where he was being released. I wish my alarm had been misguided. Still, no matter where he was released, Happy Feet would have had to deal with predators, elusive food supplies, strong ocean currents and his own wonky sense of direction. There are no guarantees in life, but it is also natural to question "what if?", especially when things go awry.
At this point what we have left is mystery and hope.
It is remotely possible that rapid, staccato diving kept Happy Feet's transmitter from sending 4 consecutive signals to the satellite, and he is totally fine.
It is also possible that we may encounter Happy Feet again, if and only if he arrives at a monitored emperor penguin rookery. You see, he had more than a transmitter on board. He also had a sub-dermal microchip inserted in his thigh and will be recognized if encountered again.
Also, just because no one is there to tell of the happy ending doesn't mean there won't be one. Happy Feet could return to the life he had before he washed up at Peka Peka, namely being just one of a quarter-million emperor penguins living in the wild. He could end up at an unmonitored emperor penguin rookery and live a long life producing many offspring and we'll never know.
So, in the absence of further specific information, it comes down to a matter of choice.
You can despair and choose to believe that Happy Feet succumbed to Nature, and found his place in the Circle of Life (prey/food). One might say it is the karmic end to a bird with such a poor sense of direction.
Or, you can hope and choose to have faith or believe that he is alive and well, living the life of an emperor penguin without the taint of human influence or observation, perhaps as God intended -- a true return to Nature.
What will your choice be?
I'm fairly certain that Happy Feet's story will be made into a children's book. I hope I'm the one they tap on the shoulder for that task.
For additional information...
Colin Miskelly's blog
Satellite updates of Happy Feet (hopefully)
Wellington (NZ) Zoo (the people that took care of Happy Feet)
Happy Feet, the wayward emperor penguin, has disappeared from satellite tracking.
Happy Feet was discovered June 21st on Peka Peka Beach in New Zealand. It was only the second sighting of an emperor penguin in New Zealand, the last sighting having been in 1967, but not nearly as far north. I've been monitoring his progress ever since. It has been easy as the authorities in the area have kept the Internet informed.
At first he didn't seem to be in distress, but neither did he return to the sea to go home to Antarctica. He began eating sand, which seems to have been displaced behaviour -- penguins eat snow in order to cool off. Four days after he beached, this errant behaviour resulted in New Zealand zoo authorities taking the penguin into custody/care and ultimately to performing 3 surgeries to remove the glut of sand and stones from his digestive tract. He pulled through this difficult time and began to thrive in captivity.
But captivity was never in the cards for Happy Feet. The plan all along was to release him back into the wild so he could return to his natural habitat, Antarctica and the Southern Sea. To that end, Happy Feet was fitted with a very small satellite transmitter. It represented less than 1% of his body mass. It was affixed with glue on feathers that would be shed in moulting in the summer (Northern Hemisphere's winter). Further, it was attached in a fashion so as to minimize the impact on his swimming.
On September 4th, after 72 days in Kiwi care, Happy Feet was released into the sea about 80km north of Campbell Island, which is the southernmost New Zealand territory. To get home in an ideal fashion, he would have to get around Campbell Island, preferably going around the western coast, and travel roughly SSW to Antarctica.
Things went wrong almost from the get go. (You could say that things went wrong before the get go -- Happy Feet's launch was delayed two days due to inclement weather.) Happy Feet seemed to be on a fairly consistent SE track. If you factor in the effort fighting strong eastbound ocean currents, Happy Feet was trying to swim SSE. So his sense of direction didn't seem to be as bad as it had been when he found himself at Peka Peka in the first place. While he would still reach Antarctica this way -- you cannot have a southerly component to your travel and not eventually reach Antarctica -- but it would be on a coastline possibly as far as 180° removed from where he originated. This isn't tragic. As long as there are emperor penguin rookeries where he alights he'll be fine and while the trajectory was not the most direct, Happy Feet had plenty of time to get where he was going.
Four days after his return journey started Happy Feet disappeared from satellite imagery. All this technically means is that the transmitter hasn't stayed above the ocean surface for at least 3 consecutive minutes during the 7-hour window that it is powered daily. (Another very unlikely possibility is that the battery or transmitter itself was damaged and has ceased functioning.) Emperor penguins are thought to dive for no more than 20 minutes before surfacing to breathe, so that can't explain the 7-hour absence. It takes at least 4 'pings' to the satellite for the tracking software to acknowledge a location. Is it possible that between hyperactive solar flares and equipment on the fritz that a 3-ping (or less) presence has been registered, but been discarded as unreliable noise? Could the super-glue and cabling used to affix the transmitter to Happy Feet's back have failed and he is presently continuing his journey home free of prying eyes? Does it have to be the most tragic of circumstances, namely that Happy Feet has been eaten or drowned due to injury?
We may never know.
If this is a worst case scenario, it is one of those ironic, cartoon moments that flash through our heads from time to time. Scenario 1: A boy catches a fish and is lectured by his father about nature conservancy in sport fishing and is encouraged to unhook the fish and return it to the water. He does so, feeling proud for having learned to respect God's creatures. The 'camera' follows the arc of the fish as it returns to the water, and captures the image of a predator leaping from the water to gobble up the fish before it even hits the drink. Scenario 2: A fawn is collected after its mother was killed by a hunter. It is sent to an animal rescue centre to be raised and prepared for a return to the wild. Fast forward to 'graduation' day when the fawn, now a buck, is released into the wild...and, courtesy of a head-bobbing driver of an 18-wheeler, dies less than an hour later crossing a highway, possibly trying to make his way back to the animal rescue centre. We can also try to help settle our nerves by cracking wise that this is what happens to 'pets' when you name them "Happy"-anything. In any case, back to the real world...
Critics can point to the fact that Happy Feet was given a very long journey to complete on his own when he could have been given a shorter, more direct route home, for example, in deeper waters SW of Campbell Island. I was certainly one of those that was alarmed when I heard where he was being released. I wish my alarm had been misguided. Still, no matter where he was released, Happy Feet would have had to deal with predators, elusive food supplies, strong ocean currents and his own wonky sense of direction. There are no guarantees in life, but it is also natural to question "what if?", especially when things go awry.
At this point what we have left is mystery and hope.
It is remotely possible that rapid, staccato diving kept Happy Feet's transmitter from sending 4 consecutive signals to the satellite, and he is totally fine.
It is also possible that we may encounter Happy Feet again, if and only if he arrives at a monitored emperor penguin rookery. You see, he had more than a transmitter on board. He also had a sub-dermal microchip inserted in his thigh and will be recognized if encountered again.
Also, just because no one is there to tell of the happy ending doesn't mean there won't be one. Happy Feet could return to the life he had before he washed up at Peka Peka, namely being just one of a quarter-million emperor penguins living in the wild. He could end up at an unmonitored emperor penguin rookery and live a long life producing many offspring and we'll never know.
So, in the absence of further specific information, it comes down to a matter of choice.
You can despair and choose to believe that Happy Feet succumbed to Nature, and found his place in the Circle of Life (prey/food). One might say it is the karmic end to a bird with such a poor sense of direction.
Or, you can hope and choose to have faith or believe that he is alive and well, living the life of an emperor penguin without the taint of human influence or observation, perhaps as God intended -- a true return to Nature.
What will your choice be?
I'm fairly certain that Happy Feet's story will be made into a children's book. I hope I'm the one they tap on the shoulder for that task.
For additional information...
Colin Miskelly's blog
Satellite updates of Happy Feet (hopefully)
Wellington (NZ) Zoo (the people that took care of Happy Feet)
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Doug Ford's Secret Monorail Research Revealed
Maybe we can steal the ferris wheel from Chicago's Navy Pier. That'll save money, for more monorail!
The Fords Are Picture Prefect
For the past year, the chief darlings and demons of Toronto politics have to be the Ford brothers, Rob and Doug. The best part about them is that they seem to lampoon themselves. The worst part about them is that they have been granted the authority of office. How the heck did that happen?
Anyway, I expect I'll be talking about them a whole lot these next few years. I foresee a problem with that. "The Fords" and "The Ford brothers" are just too boring as far as appellations for colourful people go. There has to be something more, interesting, more sardonic, funnier... Well, I've got some suggestions. I'm not sure how I feel about each of them, so I'm going to have to rely on you to tell which ones work and which ones don't.
Anyway, I expect I'll be talking about them a whole lot these next few years. I foresee a problem with that. "The Fords" and "The Ford brothers" are just too boring as far as appellations for colourful people go. There has to be something more, interesting, more sardonic, funnier... Well, I've got some suggestions. I'm not sure how I feel about each of them, so I'm going to have to rely on you to tell which ones work and which ones don't.
- Bob and Doug, or Bob and Doug McKenzie. There's nothing like invoking pop culture and classic Canadiana when being silly. And judging from history they love to be silly.
- Blob and Slug Ford. Come on! Fat jokes are the last socially acceptable form of discrimination! For a little while longer at least. Then we'll remember that we are Canadian and above such baseness.
- Rube and Dung Ford. Earthy names for salt of the earth personalities.
- Rob & Doug Fjord. Given the recent focus on creating islands for football stadia and remaking the waterfront in their image, a waterway-related name could be appropriate. (Of course, 'ford' is itself kind of a waterway term.) Besides, with their fair complexion they could be mistaken for Norwegian/Nordic.
- The F5 Fords. This one is a little more abstract. If you asked them, they would probably say it referred to the 1940s - 1950s era model of flatbed truck. The previously alluded to Ford Prefect was contemporaneous to the F5. Is that it then? Is that the joke? Why would we want to compare them to an ancient motor vehicle?
Nope, that's not it. I'm referring to the Fujita scale of tornado intensity. Tornadoes are very unpredictable storms. F5's blow the hardest and are the most destructive, damaging even the sturdiest infrastructure, and are known for consuming nearly everything in their path. Yeah, I like this one. It's a literal and alliterative.
- Mayor McCheese and Hamburglar. Is this too old school? Too trademarked by McDonalds?
- Tweedledee & Tweedledum. If Tweedledum wouldn't recognize Margaret Atwood should she walk by him on the street, neither of them should recognize Lewis Carroll no matter where they encounter him. They might react, though. They might scream, "Zombie!" or, if they had just watched the right movie, "Hey look, it's Bernie!" I wonder if they would recognize the Jabberwocky, Cheshire Cat, March Hare, Mad Hatter, etc., etc. Oh right! It was a Disney film! Of course they'll recognize the characters! But who the hell is Lewis Carroll? The director? Cinematographer? Lead animator? Did he write the Narnia books? Are you making fun of us? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
- Thing 1 & Thing 2. With apologies to the great Theodor S. Giesel, the incomparable Dr. Seuss! Hopefully, he, his estate and its litany of lawyers won't mind if I both quote him and channel his voice for a moment. (Saying what you want to say, while sticking to a mostly monosyllabic lexicon, and keeping to anapestic tetrameter is HARD! No wonder it took Dr. Seuss 9 months to write The Cat In The Hat! Sometimes, though, I wonder if this is the only way to reach the dull, the distant, the dreamy and the disinterested.)
("¬" denotes an unstressed/unused beat -- or pause -- in the meter. Also, I've stressed the beats to make it easier to read in the sing-song meter.)
"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
¬ nothing is going to get better. It’s not."
(Dr. Seuss, from The Lorax)
"If you lend us your ears, you will see we're not quacks,"
"We know what we must do in pursuit of No-Tax."
¬ "What we know is business," said One to Thing Two
"And you must run your city as business men do."
¬ "So what of the poor?" asked a Who from the back.
"Well the poor just don't matter, we must stay on track."
"We're concerned with the health of the economy."
"And the poor only want what they can get for free."
"We should only keep doing that which we do best."
¬ "We must be ef-fic-ient -- forget all the rest."
"So we'll cut out on buses and library books."
¬ "Now why are you giving us those dirty looks?"
{ Time out. I just answered the phone and it was an automated poll seeking opinions regarding the Mayor's general approval rating one year after the election... Rolling on the floor, pissing myself, laughing my a** off. Delicious irony! Life is too funny. And now back to the Seussisms. }
"And our lake shore is lacking, but don't think it through"
¬ "We'll fix it by building a big wheel or two."
"Man-made islands are needed where we'll build a park."
"And to get people to it we'll build a new ark."
""Stop right there", said a Who, "Is this some kind of stunt?"
"Sit back down and be silent you miserable runt!"
"You elected me mayor, with Thing Two, can't you see?"
"We are try'n to establish our own legacy!"
¬ "Then why not commission a statue of you?"
"Give the seagulls and pigeons a new place to poo."
"You may laugh, you may joke, but we're the ones in charge."
"So expect we'll embrace it and keep living large."
"In this time of restraint I've one more thing to say,"
"We will pay to kill bike lanes, make them go away."
¬ From reading this poem, you should take away,
¬ A moral that's simple, and as plain as day,
¬ Be careful to whom you give your right of voice,
Lots of time and much thought should go into that choice.
If it's done, and it's gone to a Dimwit or Sot,
¬ Well, don't be surprised when things all go to pot.
- Who knows, maybe I'll come up with more soon. Maybe you'll suggest your own. I'm sure the words and actions of the Fords will suggest -- nay, inspire -- more material in due time.
MLS Is Unwatchable
Date of composition: Saturday, September 10th, 2011
I've had enough. I can't take any more -- not a match, not a half, not even a moment of extra time. MSL soccer is absolutely unwatchable, or in my case, as a radio listener, unlistenable. (Why isn't there a sound-based word analogous to the sight-based word 'unwatchable'?)
The players are as much actors as athletes, flopping around like fish out of water, hoping to draw a Yellow, or better yet a Red, against the opponent. I am philosophically opposed to the concept of 'gamesmanship'. In my view, gamesmanship is the polar opposite of sportsmanship, which is a quality to which we all aspire and attempt to instill in our children. Gamesmanship is bending the rules of conduct and play as far as they can be bent without breaking completely and being unilaterally labelled as cheating. Even as it is, there are those that label gamesmanship as cheating, at least in spirit.
As bad as the gamesmanship is the quality of officiating. Referees and linesmen routinely make calls that defy the rules, show obvious biases, make calls that can best be described as imaginary and ignore calls that are flagrant, obvious and right in front of their noses. Are blindness and bias prerequisites for employment? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a player somehow produced a sword from his uniform, beheaded an opponent, fell down holding his own head as though it were about to explode and successfully induced the referee to give a red card to the completely innocent and now lifeless corpse while the equally lifeless head rolls slowly offside. Whatever. You're a man down in every sense of the word now.
The league nominally admits that there are deficiencies in officiating but doesn't seem especially motivated to do anything about it. They are a relatively minor league regardless of the fact that the 'M' in MLS stands for "Major". When they look to hire officials they have two constraints. First, they can only hire whomever is left after the real major soccer -- I mean football -- leagues have hired their officials. Second, they can only hire whomever they can afford, which seems to indicate scraping the bottom of the barrel. Financially, they may not be in a position to address the issue at all.
Some would say that the problem is bigger than MLS, and they are probably right. Officials in FIFA matches frequently manage to look remarkably amateurish and occasionally quite one-sided. Bias is rampant in soccer/football and for lots of reasons.
So, I'm out. I never turn off my radio and seldom change the station, but I'll be doing so every single time they try to ram an MLS game down my throat.
While I'm here, I'll take a tangent and criticize the world, especially the United States, for what amounts to a dispute over terminology.
"Football A" is a game played with a round ball by two teams of eleven players a side. The ball is advanced almost exclusively with the feet (hence the name football) with rare aerial contact permitted with the head and torso. The point is to advance the ball into the opponents goal. The sport has existed in some form for thousands of years but was only officially codified in 1863. It is played by an estimated 250 million people in 200 countries making it the world's most popular sport.
"Football B" is a game played with an oblong ball by two teams of eleven players a side. The ball is advanced by carrying it manually or throwing it to another player. Again, the point is to advance the ball into the opponent's goal. If progress is halted by the opposing defense the team on offense may kick the ball for points, or kick the ball for field position. There is even a special version of kick that can result in maintaining possession of the ball. Football B was first played in 1869 and is generally accepted to be derivative of football A (see above) and rugby. The sport is played almost exclusively in the United States and (in slightly altered form) in Canada.
So, what do we have here? Quite a predicament. Two sports that want to be known by the same name, without qualifiers. How do we decide which one gets to determine its own name and which must choose another name?
Let us compare...
Played most widely: Football A.
Most players: Football A. There are probably more children playing Football A than people playing that other game.
Older: Football A.
Actually uses the foot as the primary instrument of play: Football A.
Okay, it seems quite clear: Football A gets to call itself "Football" and Football B has to choose something else. American Rules Football, American Rules Rugby and Gridiron seem like good choices.
Somebody please explain to me why the f**k it doesn't work this way!!!!!!
Obviously, Football A has been relegated to being known as "soccer" (an 1880 Oxford-er abbreviation of "association", i.e."soc-er") in the one part of the world where Football B is played, and Football B is globally known as Football. Well, it's "American Football" in some circles, but the international branding is simply as "Football".
Americans generally don't understand why their great country is maligned and poo-pooed by foreigners, even allies, in spite of its greatness. Frankly, it's totally trivial s**t like this that prompts the 'outside' world to have a distasteful opinion of America. Always 'having things their way' even when it isn't 'right'. Feels like bullying, smells like bullying. And everybody loves a bully. The little things add up and matter.
I've had enough. I can't take any more -- not a match, not a half, not even a moment of extra time. MSL soccer is absolutely unwatchable, or in my case, as a radio listener, unlistenable. (Why isn't there a sound-based word analogous to the sight-based word 'unwatchable'?)
The players are as much actors as athletes, flopping around like fish out of water, hoping to draw a Yellow, or better yet a Red, against the opponent. I am philosophically opposed to the concept of 'gamesmanship'. In my view, gamesmanship is the polar opposite of sportsmanship, which is a quality to which we all aspire and attempt to instill in our children. Gamesmanship is bending the rules of conduct and play as far as they can be bent without breaking completely and being unilaterally labelled as cheating. Even as it is, there are those that label gamesmanship as cheating, at least in spirit.
As bad as the gamesmanship is the quality of officiating. Referees and linesmen routinely make calls that defy the rules, show obvious biases, make calls that can best be described as imaginary and ignore calls that are flagrant, obvious and right in front of their noses. Are blindness and bias prerequisites for employment? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a player somehow produced a sword from his uniform, beheaded an opponent, fell down holding his own head as though it were about to explode and successfully induced the referee to give a red card to the completely innocent and now lifeless corpse while the equally lifeless head rolls slowly offside. Whatever. You're a man down in every sense of the word now.
The league nominally admits that there are deficiencies in officiating but doesn't seem especially motivated to do anything about it. They are a relatively minor league regardless of the fact that the 'M' in MLS stands for "Major". When they look to hire officials they have two constraints. First, they can only hire whomever is left after the real major soccer -- I mean football -- leagues have hired their officials. Second, they can only hire whomever they can afford, which seems to indicate scraping the bottom of the barrel. Financially, they may not be in a position to address the issue at all.
Some would say that the problem is bigger than MLS, and they are probably right. Officials in FIFA matches frequently manage to look remarkably amateurish and occasionally quite one-sided. Bias is rampant in soccer/football and for lots of reasons.
- In some cases, the officials have an interest in who wins the game through their own national allegiances and who plays whom when to qualify for what.
- In others, it is in the best interests of the officials to rule in favor of the local team, some times for fear of personal safety from the hands of the fans. (To a degree this seems to happen in New Yankee Stadium during baseball games, so the problem is not limited to European and Latin American football teams.)
- The third reason is the most controversial of all -- officials get bribed. Some countries are worse than others but it has been proven to happen. With the stink of corruption going all the way up to the highest positions in FIFA -- some would say that's where it starts -- it is not surprising that the allegations keep coming yet the problem is allowed to persist.
So, I'm out. I never turn off my radio and seldom change the station, but I'll be doing so every single time they try to ram an MLS game down my throat.
While I'm here, I'll take a tangent and criticize the world, especially the United States, for what amounts to a dispute over terminology.
"Football A" is a game played with a round ball by two teams of eleven players a side. The ball is advanced almost exclusively with the feet (hence the name football) with rare aerial contact permitted with the head and torso. The point is to advance the ball into the opponents goal. The sport has existed in some form for thousands of years but was only officially codified in 1863. It is played by an estimated 250 million people in 200 countries making it the world's most popular sport.
"Football B" is a game played with an oblong ball by two teams of eleven players a side. The ball is advanced by carrying it manually or throwing it to another player. Again, the point is to advance the ball into the opponent's goal. If progress is halted by the opposing defense the team on offense may kick the ball for points, or kick the ball for field position. There is even a special version of kick that can result in maintaining possession of the ball. Football B was first played in 1869 and is generally accepted to be derivative of football A (see above) and rugby. The sport is played almost exclusively in the United States and (in slightly altered form) in Canada.
So, what do we have here? Quite a predicament. Two sports that want to be known by the same name, without qualifiers. How do we decide which one gets to determine its own name and which must choose another name?
Let us compare...
Played most widely: Football A.
Most players: Football A. There are probably more children playing Football A than people playing that other game.
Older: Football A.
Actually uses the foot as the primary instrument of play: Football A.
Okay, it seems quite clear: Football A gets to call itself "Football" and Football B has to choose something else. American Rules Football, American Rules Rugby and Gridiron seem like good choices.
Somebody please explain to me why the f**k it doesn't work this way!!!!!!
Obviously, Football A has been relegated to being known as "soccer" (an 1880 Oxford-er abbreviation of "association", i.e."soc-er") in the one part of the world where Football B is played, and Football B is globally known as Football. Well, it's "American Football" in some circles, but the international branding is simply as "Football".
Americans generally don't understand why their great country is maligned and poo-pooed by foreigners, even allies, in spite of its greatness. Frankly, it's totally trivial s**t like this that prompts the 'outside' world to have a distasteful opinion of America. Always 'having things their way' even when it isn't 'right'. Feels like bullying, smells like bullying. And everybody loves a bully. The little things add up and matter.
Yaroslavl Lokomotiv Disaster & the KHL
Date of composition: Friday September 9th, 2011
A tragedy that some say was inevitable happened two days ago when a chartered Russian jet crashed shortly after take-off. The plane was transporting the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl KHL hockey team to play the first game of the season. All but 2 of the passengers and crew perished in the crash, 1 passenger and 1 crew member, There is little to any chance that the athlete survivor will ever play competitive hockey again given third-degree burns over the majority of his body, including internal respiratory damage.
It is widely known that the jets chartered by the various KHL franchises are of insufficient quality to be permitted to fly European Union air space, so they can only be used for flights within Russia. Current and former KHL players and coaches have spoken out about their concern for the safety of these vehicles. But one can only charter whatever planes are available, and the fleet available is lacking. Hence the view that this was inevitable. But it is what it is. It will be interesting to see if authorities move to remedy the situation. Finding newer, safer planes is not cheap nor is it easy, and most unfortunately is an awfully time-dependent process.
Lokomotiv Yaroslavl, for intents and purposes, lost their entire team. The fans and citizens of Yaroslavl have lost their heroes and role models.
The president of the KHL announced that the remaining franchises will be encouraged to give two to three players to Lokomotiv in order for them to field a team. This offer wasn't nearly good enough. The proposed player exchange would likely have given Yaroslavl twelve 4th-line forwards, seven 3rd-pair defencemen and a couple of strictly back-up goalies. (It is also possible that one or more of the franchises would offer more highly skilled but grossly overpaid players, which doesn't help a team in crisis either.) There was no chance of them competing favorably, and the people of Yaroslavl don't need the burden of a loser for an entire season. They've been through enough. All this would really do is allow the KHL to maintain the integrity of its schedule and fulfill obligations to Russian television and radio networks. In other words, it wasn't a charitable or generous offer, if was a act of self-interest.
I don't think anyone will be surprised when Yaroslavl turns down this 'generous' offer. The fans would be getting sub-standard levels of play, played by athletes with whom they have no emotional or civic relationships. The games wouldn't be celebrations of hockey and wouldn't provide any consolation to a grieving city. Yaroslavl needs time to mourn, to accept and to move on and the only way they will achieve this is with a year off from competition. After all, professional hockey is a form of entertainment, a distraction, and ultimately a game played by grownups. It just does not compare in any way to the tragic loss of life that occurred nor could hockey ever compensate for the aftermath of the disaster.
Give them love, give them support, and give them understanding, but give them time to be alone in their grief and decide where and/or how they will proceed for next year. It wouldn't hurt if the KHL made a better offer, either.
[Editors note, Sept. 10th, 2011: Yaroslavl did in fact reject the offer of replacement players and opted out of the 2011-2012 KHL season.]
[Editors note, Sept. 12th, 2011: The one player who survived the initial trauma of the plane crash, Alexander Galimov, succumbed to his injuries today in hospital. Unfortunately, given the severity of his wounds this was the expected outcome. Galimov was a Yaroslavl native son and his passing may hurt the troubled city more than that of any of the others. Our continued sympathy to the families of the deceased, the people of Yaroslavl, and the Lokomotiv organization.]
[Editors note, Sept. 12th, 2011: In my humble opinion another blow was struck today against the grieving people of Yaroslavl. The president of the KHL today announced that Lokomotiv Yaroslavl will be relegated to a lower league to allow them to 'grow' from scratch. There was no guarantee made that the team will be reinstated to the KHL by some future date. In fact, there were no guarantees at all. So, on top of all the trauma received by Yaroslavl they now have insult to add to the injury -- they will not have a major league franchise to look forward to...indefinitely. Is this really the best that the KHL could do? If it really is I believe there are only two possible conclusions to be made. 1. The owners of the other franchises are greedy, unsympathetic machines for rejecting or possibly never even suggesting a better solution. 2. The KHL is only a self-described major league; in other words, it is not a major league in any real sense of the word. The word "bush" comes to mind. Shame, shame.]
A tragedy that some say was inevitable happened two days ago when a chartered Russian jet crashed shortly after take-off. The plane was transporting the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl KHL hockey team to play the first game of the season. All but 2 of the passengers and crew perished in the crash, 1 passenger and 1 crew member, There is little to any chance that the athlete survivor will ever play competitive hockey again given third-degree burns over the majority of his body, including internal respiratory damage.
It is widely known that the jets chartered by the various KHL franchises are of insufficient quality to be permitted to fly European Union air space, so they can only be used for flights within Russia. Current and former KHL players and coaches have spoken out about their concern for the safety of these vehicles. But one can only charter whatever planes are available, and the fleet available is lacking. Hence the view that this was inevitable. But it is what it is. It will be interesting to see if authorities move to remedy the situation. Finding newer, safer planes is not cheap nor is it easy, and most unfortunately is an awfully time-dependent process.
Lokomotiv Yaroslavl, for intents and purposes, lost their entire team. The fans and citizens of Yaroslavl have lost their heroes and role models.
The president of the KHL announced that the remaining franchises will be encouraged to give two to three players to Lokomotiv in order for them to field a team. This offer wasn't nearly good enough. The proposed player exchange would likely have given Yaroslavl twelve 4th-line forwards, seven 3rd-pair defencemen and a couple of strictly back-up goalies. (It is also possible that one or more of the franchises would offer more highly skilled but grossly overpaid players, which doesn't help a team in crisis either.) There was no chance of them competing favorably, and the people of Yaroslavl don't need the burden of a loser for an entire season. They've been through enough. All this would really do is allow the KHL to maintain the integrity of its schedule and fulfill obligations to Russian television and radio networks. In other words, it wasn't a charitable or generous offer, if was a act of self-interest.
I don't think anyone will be surprised when Yaroslavl turns down this 'generous' offer. The fans would be getting sub-standard levels of play, played by athletes with whom they have no emotional or civic relationships. The games wouldn't be celebrations of hockey and wouldn't provide any consolation to a grieving city. Yaroslavl needs time to mourn, to accept and to move on and the only way they will achieve this is with a year off from competition. After all, professional hockey is a form of entertainment, a distraction, and ultimately a game played by grownups. It just does not compare in any way to the tragic loss of life that occurred nor could hockey ever compensate for the aftermath of the disaster.
Give them love, give them support, and give them understanding, but give them time to be alone in their grief and decide where and/or how they will proceed for next year. It wouldn't hurt if the KHL made a better offer, either.
[Editors note, Sept. 10th, 2011: Yaroslavl did in fact reject the offer of replacement players and opted out of the 2011-2012 KHL season.]
[Editors note, Sept. 12th, 2011: The one player who survived the initial trauma of the plane crash, Alexander Galimov, succumbed to his injuries today in hospital. Unfortunately, given the severity of his wounds this was the expected outcome. Galimov was a Yaroslavl native son and his passing may hurt the troubled city more than that of any of the others. Our continued sympathy to the families of the deceased, the people of Yaroslavl, and the Lokomotiv organization.]
[Editors note, Sept. 12th, 2011: In my humble opinion another blow was struck today against the grieving people of Yaroslavl. The president of the KHL today announced that Lokomotiv Yaroslavl will be relegated to a lower league to allow them to 'grow' from scratch. There was no guarantee made that the team will be reinstated to the KHL by some future date. In fact, there were no guarantees at all. So, on top of all the trauma received by Yaroslavl they now have insult to add to the injury -- they will not have a major league franchise to look forward to...indefinitely. Is this really the best that the KHL could do? If it really is I believe there are only two possible conclusions to be made. 1. The owners of the other franchises are greedy, unsympathetic machines for rejecting or possibly never even suggesting a better solution. 2. The KHL is only a self-described major league; in other words, it is not a major league in any real sense of the word. The word "bush" comes to mind. Shame, shame.]
9/11: Ten Years After
Wow. What a conspicuous day to start submitting blogs.
I've made my decision. I've decided I'm not going to opine at length or in detail on 9/11, its 10th anniversary. or any of the events that resulted from, or are rooted in, the tragedy ten years ago. (After reading this, you may ask yourself, "This is what he calls not opining at length?" My response: yes, for a topic this enormous I've barely scratched the surface!) I will ask questions; I think we should all be asking questions.
Why? Good question! We're off to a good start! The 9/11 10th anniversary would seem to be exactly the kind of topic to be given serious and detailed attention in this forum.
But it isn't. Not even close.
It's too big. The forces behind it are perhaps still the greatest threats to our way of life.
It's too current, and it always will be.
It's too controversial -- on all sides. Believe it or not, in some parts of the world the 19 men -- call them men, demons, devils, killers, murderers, deranged, deluded or misguided souls, hate mongers, war criminals, martyrs, zealots, soldiers, patriots, or whatever else you want to call them, and please do feel free to use profanity here -- who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are heroes. Thank God -- the very same God that some believe authorized and condoned these attacks -- that the majority of humanity deems the emergency responders -- those that survived and those that did not -- the citizens aboard American Airlines Flight 93 and all the other innocent victims of the attacks the true heroes. It's worth noting here that to those most sympathetic to the terrorists' cause, we don't worship the same god. In their view, 'they' worship God, 'we' (the Judeo-Christian West) worship Satan. If there is anything more frightening and dangerous than a Fundamentalist religion, it's a revisionist-history religion -- once that line is crossed they can, and apparently will, justify anything!
It touches too many raw nerves -- nerves that may never heal. There are widows, widowers, orphans, parents, siblings and friends that will never be the same. There are zealots still that wish the worst forms of harm to come to all the infidel Westerners of the world, even if the cost is the destruction of the planet*; their cause is unfulfilled. There are too many open, ongoing questions and, really, nothing has been resolved.
* This is in direct conflict with the tenets of Islam which is actually the most ecologically harmonious of Western religions.
Was the act reprehensible? Absolutely! It compares fiendishly with the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" of the past century, in Europe (including the systematic and cruel extermination of Jews, Roma and Catholics during WWII), Africa (disturbingly ongoing and uncurbed) and Armenia, and the deployment of nuclear weapons upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Yes, it can be argued that the bombing of Japan's cities ultimately saved lives by ending the the Pacific Theater of WWII sooner, but this kind of argument requires guesswork as to when the war would have ended without the atrocities. The real truth here is that American (Allied) lives were saved, and that is all that a nation needs to know in order to act in its own best, self-interest. Overall, we don't know that lives were saved, we just reassure ourselves that they were in order to sleep better at night in a very scary and complicated world.) At times, thinking about any of these events brings me to tears, as well as to the brink of rage and breakdown. How are we as a species capable of such evil, and how do people commit such acts so cavalierly, even righteously!?
Was the reaction to 9/11 any better than the action? I'm not sure. I daresay most who think about it rather than merely feel about it aren't sure. Were there any other reasonable courses of action? Maybe. It might be more accurate to say "probably." Would we be better off had we followed another path? Maybe, but we'll never know. We don't get to explore that branch of history or probability.
I'm fairly certain that at least one reader will take a dive off the deep end, and read between lines that simply aren't there and will take my words as a sign that I do not support our troops. To them I say, "Poppycock!" I support our troops. They are people that put their lives on the line in hope of promoting and protecting their, and our, ideals! I support the cause. I even support the main intentions behind their deployment. But ten years later it is clearer than ever that the issues were too complex, too multinational, too multicultural and too socio-economical to rationally think that a military solution existed. To those that point at the state of the world today and say the troops failed, I say, "How?" There was nothing for them to fail at! They succeeded at doing all the things that soldiers are reasonably capable of doing and should never have been asked to do things that they weren't suited to do. (If you force your gardener to remove your cancerous tumour and you die on the table it's not your gardener's fault!) You say they failed, I say they tried to exceed themselves and in some small ways, did.
Well, if not the troops, then who the heck else? Another good question!
The decision to militarize the fight against terror was an executive decision of the US Government. If it was made in concert with any other world powers, no record has been made public to show it. Everyone recalls who the primary players were, so there's no need to rehash that here -- doing so just glorifies them by giving them a place in history. Most of the world, including many Americans, believe that the US-Gov. manufactured evidence to give itself the 'moral imperative' to take the 'war on terror' on the road. This in spite of the fact that it was done with plausible deniability in ind from the start. Is there hard and fast proof that they did so? Is a smoking gun proof? (Actually no, it isn't, since, in and of itself, it doesn't indicate who fired it -- that takes fingerprints and/or gunpowder trace to establish -- and a ballistics match is required to connect the firing of the gun to the victim.) I think that since November 1963, it is naïve to think that a complex juggernaut like the US-Gov. could ever leave behind any evidence of wrongdoing unless it wanted that evidence to be found.
The most likely reasoning behind the military solution was twofold:
3? To appear to be doing something in order to placate a very agitated, afraid & angry American people?
If you want to, you can believe that the war on terror was a front for the acquisition of oil interests in the Middle East and the export of American-style democracy. There is certainly enough (circumstantial) evidence to support that opinion. If it is true, then the parallel with the actions of the terrorists (co-opting Islam to further a tribal agenda of rectifying economic inequality) is ironic. My belief is that these were just convenient bonuses.
Are we better off now than we thought we were on September 10th, 2001? How? Are we better off now than on September 12, 2001? Probably not.
There was a lot of death and there continues to be lots of death. It was polarizing then and it continues to be polarizing now. Are there more Muslim extremists/terrorists today than there were on September 11, 2001? Almost certainly, and their numbers likely swell daily. (Please note that I'm intentionally using the word "swell" and not the word "grow." Growth is a natural and healthy process integral to life itself. Swelling is associated with anger and pain, and is a sign of disharmony, infection or trauma, processes that are inimical to life and congruent with corruption, morbidity and death. It's pretty clear to me which word is the appropriate choice.)
The big questions that bother me most are these two doozies.
Please, allow me to design a metaphor.
In other words, you can scramble to fight the symptoms or you can prevent the problem at the root. This is an example of "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Is Solution A worth doing? I guess if Solution B was impossible, but then, Solution A doesn't even address hail, lightning or excessive cold & heat. In this case a better question might be, "How do you make Solution B possible?"
That is the question that keeps me awake at night. How do you impress upon a community to police its own? When that community has a religious/cultural belief that it is wrong to criticize let alone censure other members of the community is there any hope for improvement? (This is actually an incorrect interpretation of Islam. In Islam, it is only 'wrong' for non-Muslims (A.K.A. ignorant societies) to criticize Muslims. Since they are ignorant, their motives can only be negative, thus Muslims should pay no attention to the non-Muslims' complaints -- they simply aren't looking out for Muslims' best interests. On the other hand, Muslims are expected to criticize Muslims: since they are Muslims, it is assumed that their motivations are pure, specifically to help the criticized become closer to Allah. Criticism is done in a respectful, giving and educational manner, never in anger or frustration. In practice, however, this seldom occurs. At best, it is seen as 'selling out.' At worst, it can be considered tantamount to heresy. So, Muslims are reluctant to criticize one another, especially if the criticized is of higher station in the (religious) community. Needless to say, Islam has no compunctions about criticizing the ignorant societies. (I have issues with any society that can't seem to follow the Golden Rule or see 'what's good for the gander...' In practice, given the choice of solidarity or choosing right from wrong, solidarity is almost always chosen. Why rock the boat? The youngest generations do seem willing to be more internally critical, so the future does bring hope for change...if humanity can last that long.) If you aren't part of that community, what, if anything, can you do to help? Clearly, according to popular/religious custom, we of the ignorant societies can do nothing. Any efforts to help will be seen as meddling, or attempts to corrupt, and will have negative repercussions. Oh, no one doubts that there are millions of -- maybe more than a billion -- Muslims that are pulling their hair out asking the same questions, but what are they doing? Sadly, even if the entire 'lay' population of Islam were united in their desire to criticize, to end extremism, or at the very least, to end terrorism, they basically have no say in the matter. The people in charge -- the Imams, the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs (etc.), the tribal chieftains, and many of the governments and wealthiest citizens -- are intent on promoting further terrorism, intent on spreading more hate, handing out more fatwas, (and seeking glory and profit opportunities) and not in quelling violence or seeking peaceful solutions to disputes. Apparently, anything is permitted if it rights a perceived wrong committed by an infidel against a Muslim, or, even if it doesn't right the wrong, as long as it 'makes them pay.' (For what it's worth, Islam does not have the same laity/clergy dynamic that is present in Judaism and Christianity.)
And in order to bring things full circle, who, in political power plays, put many if not most of those governments in power? In that sense at least, it seems the chicken has come home to roost. That having been said, given prevailing custom it is unlikely that any organically grown governments would be or would have been any more inclined to do anything, so the damage we've done is probably minimal. However, this relative innocuousness in outcome does not absolve our responsibility to be regretful and/or ashamed for what the world's Superpowers did to manipulate local politics in the Muslim world.
In summary: 10 years later; no answers; lots of questions; 1 dead Osama; 1 dead Saddam; an Iraqi government just waiting to be crushed by an irate Iran the moment the last Allied soldier leaves; a fragile, ineffectual Afghani government (nominally controlled by both US interests AND Taliban interests) just waiting to be overwhelmed by the Taliban as soon as the last Allied soldier leaves; ephemeral changes; boosts in overall terrorist population; a perhaps-weakened, relocated Al Qaeda; an Al Qaeda with its hand in genocide in Africa...at least we have hope that some of the 'Arab Springs' will bring the world some democracy and humanitarianism if not peace and prosperity.
That's pretty much what it boils down to. We have hope and good intentions -- one of the hopes is that the good intentions aren't paving the way to, well, you know...
I've made my decision. I've decided I'm not going to opine at length or in detail on 9/11, its 10th anniversary. or any of the events that resulted from, or are rooted in, the tragedy ten years ago. (After reading this, you may ask yourself, "This is what he calls not opining at length?" My response: yes, for a topic this enormous I've barely scratched the surface!) I will ask questions; I think we should all be asking questions.
Why? Good question! We're off to a good start! The 9/11 10th anniversary would seem to be exactly the kind of topic to be given serious and detailed attention in this forum.
But it isn't. Not even close.
It's too big. The forces behind it are perhaps still the greatest threats to our way of life.
It's too current, and it always will be.
It's too controversial -- on all sides. Believe it or not, in some parts of the world the 19 men -- call them men, demons, devils, killers, murderers, deranged, deluded or misguided souls, hate mongers, war criminals, martyrs, zealots, soldiers, patriots, or whatever else you want to call them, and please do feel free to use profanity here -- who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are heroes. Thank God -- the very same God that some believe authorized and condoned these attacks -- that the majority of humanity deems the emergency responders -- those that survived and those that did not -- the citizens aboard American Airlines Flight 93 and all the other innocent victims of the attacks the true heroes. It's worth noting here that to those most sympathetic to the terrorists' cause, we don't worship the same god. In their view, 'they' worship God, 'we' (the Judeo-Christian West) worship Satan. If there is anything more frightening and dangerous than a Fundamentalist religion, it's a revisionist-history religion -- once that line is crossed they can, and apparently will, justify anything!
It touches too many raw nerves -- nerves that may never heal. There are widows, widowers, orphans, parents, siblings and friends that will never be the same. There are zealots still that wish the worst forms of harm to come to all the infidel Westerners of the world, even if the cost is the destruction of the planet*; their cause is unfulfilled. There are too many open, ongoing questions and, really, nothing has been resolved.
* This is in direct conflict with the tenets of Islam which is actually the most ecologically harmonious of Western religions.
Was the act reprehensible? Absolutely! It compares fiendishly with the genocide and "ethnic cleansing" of the past century, in Europe (including the systematic and cruel extermination of Jews, Roma and Catholics during WWII), Africa (disturbingly ongoing and uncurbed) and Armenia, and the deployment of nuclear weapons upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Yes, it can be argued that the bombing of Japan's cities ultimately saved lives by ending the the Pacific Theater of WWII sooner, but this kind of argument requires guesswork as to when the war would have ended without the atrocities. The real truth here is that American (Allied) lives were saved, and that is all that a nation needs to know in order to act in its own best, self-interest. Overall, we don't know that lives were saved, we just reassure ourselves that they were in order to sleep better at night in a very scary and complicated world.) At times, thinking about any of these events brings me to tears, as well as to the brink of rage and breakdown. How are we as a species capable of such evil, and how do people commit such acts so cavalierly, even righteously!?
Was the reaction to 9/11 any better than the action? I'm not sure. I daresay most who think about it rather than merely feel about it aren't sure. Were there any other reasonable courses of action? Maybe. It might be more accurate to say "probably." Would we be better off had we followed another path? Maybe, but we'll never know. We don't get to explore that branch of history or probability.
I'm fairly certain that at least one reader will take a dive off the deep end, and read between lines that simply aren't there and will take my words as a sign that I do not support our troops. To them I say, "Poppycock!" I support our troops. They are people that put their lives on the line in hope of promoting and protecting their, and our, ideals! I support the cause. I even support the main intentions behind their deployment. But ten years later it is clearer than ever that the issues were too complex, too multinational, too multicultural and too socio-economical to rationally think that a military solution existed. To those that point at the state of the world today and say the troops failed, I say, "How?" There was nothing for them to fail at! They succeeded at doing all the things that soldiers are reasonably capable of doing and should never have been asked to do things that they weren't suited to do. (If you force your gardener to remove your cancerous tumour and you die on the table it's not your gardener's fault!) You say they failed, I say they tried to exceed themselves and in some small ways, did.
Well, if not the troops, then who the heck else? Another good question!
The decision to militarize the fight against terror was an executive decision of the US Government. If it was made in concert with any other world powers, no record has been made public to show it. Everyone recalls who the primary players were, so there's no need to rehash that here -- doing so just glorifies them by giving them a place in history. Most of the world, including many Americans, believe that the US-Gov. manufactured evidence to give itself the 'moral imperative' to take the 'war on terror' on the road. This in spite of the fact that it was done with plausible deniability in ind from the start. Is there hard and fast proof that they did so? Is a smoking gun proof? (Actually no, it isn't, since, in and of itself, it doesn't indicate who fired it -- that takes fingerprints and/or gunpowder trace to establish -- and a ballistics match is required to connect the firing of the gun to the victim.) I think that since November 1963, it is naïve to think that a complex juggernaut like the US-Gov. could ever leave behind any evidence of wrongdoing unless it wanted that evidence to be found.
The most likely reasoning behind the military solution was twofold:
- It is more politically acceptable for American soldiers to die than American civilians. (If you want to make this sound altruistic you can say that the people (i.e. soldiers) that were entrusted (i.e. paid) to defend America (i.e. civilians) were given the reign to do so.)
- It is infinitely more politically acceptable for billions or even trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage to be inflicted on foreign soil than domestically -- foreigners don't vote in American elections or pay American taxes and foreign reconstruction is generally far cheaper than domestic construction mainly but not exclusively due to labour costs.
3? To appear to be doing something in order to placate a very agitated, afraid & angry American people?
If you want to, you can believe that the war on terror was a front for the acquisition of oil interests in the Middle East and the export of American-style democracy. There is certainly enough (circumstantial) evidence to support that opinion. If it is true, then the parallel with the actions of the terrorists (co-opting Islam to further a tribal agenda of rectifying economic inequality) is ironic. My belief is that these were just convenient bonuses.
Are we better off now than we thought we were on September 10th, 2001? How? Are we better off now than on September 12, 2001? Probably not.
There was a lot of death and there continues to be lots of death. It was polarizing then and it continues to be polarizing now. Are there more Muslim extremists/terrorists today than there were on September 11, 2001? Almost certainly, and their numbers likely swell daily. (Please note that I'm intentionally using the word "swell" and not the word "grow." Growth is a natural and healthy process integral to life itself. Swelling is associated with anger and pain, and is a sign of disharmony, infection or trauma, processes that are inimical to life and congruent with corruption, morbidity and death. It's pretty clear to me which word is the appropriate choice.)
The big questions that bother me most are these two doozies.
- Has anyone claimed responsibility for allowing such acts to occur? This is not the same as 'has anyone claimed responsibility for committing said acts.' Obviously, Al Qaeda has in claiming The Cowardly 19 as their own. By "allowing", I mean having had the power to prevent from happening. A couple (others certainly exist) of possible targets for blame, and in very different ways and degrees, are: the US Government, that had received credible intelligence indicating impending attack and even attack targets, and attack windows...but didn't respond; and the institution or community that is Islam, which seems unperturbed by the heinous acts of their fellows, except when these acts harm innocent Muslims in Muslim countries. I don't think anyone should be surprised. Humans are nothing if not self-interested. Where do you think NIMBY comes from?
- Has anyone claimed responsibility for preventing this from happening again? Certainly the Western world has ratcheted up security in virtually every way. Is that a good solution? Will it prevent additional tragedy or will it only forestall it? What about Islam? Have moderate Muslims taken it upon themselves to discourage and 'deromanticize' the extremist, terrorist culture? Seemingly not.
Please, allow me to design a metaphor.
- Problem: It rains frequently in your area and you want to be able to play tennis even when the weather does not cooperate.
- Solution A: You can design, manufacture and distribute special water-repellent balls, nets and racquets, and engineer a new playing surface that quickly absorbs and leeches away moisture...at a prohibitive cost (R&D is expensive).
- Solution B: You can put a roof on the stadium/court.
In other words, you can scramble to fight the symptoms or you can prevent the problem at the root. This is an example of "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Is Solution A worth doing? I guess if Solution B was impossible, but then, Solution A doesn't even address hail, lightning or excessive cold & heat. In this case a better question might be, "How do you make Solution B possible?"
That is the question that keeps me awake at night. How do you impress upon a community to police its own? When that community has a religious/cultural belief that it is wrong to criticize let alone censure other members of the community is there any hope for improvement? (This is actually an incorrect interpretation of Islam. In Islam, it is only 'wrong' for non-Muslims (A.K.A. ignorant societies) to criticize Muslims. Since they are ignorant, their motives can only be negative, thus Muslims should pay no attention to the non-Muslims' complaints -- they simply aren't looking out for Muslims' best interests. On the other hand, Muslims are expected to criticize Muslims: since they are Muslims, it is assumed that their motivations are pure, specifically to help the criticized become closer to Allah. Criticism is done in a respectful, giving and educational manner, never in anger or frustration. In practice, however, this seldom occurs. At best, it is seen as 'selling out.' At worst, it can be considered tantamount to heresy. So, Muslims are reluctant to criticize one another, especially if the criticized is of higher station in the (religious) community. Needless to say, Islam has no compunctions about criticizing the ignorant societies. (I have issues with any society that can't seem to follow the Golden Rule or see 'what's good for the gander...' In practice, given the choice of solidarity or choosing right from wrong, solidarity is almost always chosen. Why rock the boat? The youngest generations do seem willing to be more internally critical, so the future does bring hope for change...if humanity can last that long.) If you aren't part of that community, what, if anything, can you do to help? Clearly, according to popular/religious custom, we of the ignorant societies can do nothing. Any efforts to help will be seen as meddling, or attempts to corrupt, and will have negative repercussions. Oh, no one doubts that there are millions of -- maybe more than a billion -- Muslims that are pulling their hair out asking the same questions, but what are they doing? Sadly, even if the entire 'lay' population of Islam were united in their desire to criticize, to end extremism, or at the very least, to end terrorism, they basically have no say in the matter. The people in charge -- the Imams, the Mullahs, the Ayatollahs (etc.), the tribal chieftains, and many of the governments and wealthiest citizens -- are intent on promoting further terrorism, intent on spreading more hate, handing out more fatwas, (and seeking glory and profit opportunities) and not in quelling violence or seeking peaceful solutions to disputes. Apparently, anything is permitted if it rights a perceived wrong committed by an infidel against a Muslim, or, even if it doesn't right the wrong, as long as it 'makes them pay.' (For what it's worth, Islam does not have the same laity/clergy dynamic that is present in Judaism and Christianity.)
And in order to bring things full circle, who, in political power plays, put many if not most of those governments in power? In that sense at least, it seems the chicken has come home to roost. That having been said, given prevailing custom it is unlikely that any organically grown governments would be or would have been any more inclined to do anything, so the damage we've done is probably minimal. However, this relative innocuousness in outcome does not absolve our responsibility to be regretful and/or ashamed for what the world's Superpowers did to manipulate local politics in the Muslim world.
In summary: 10 years later; no answers; lots of questions; 1 dead Osama; 1 dead Saddam; an Iraqi government just waiting to be crushed by an irate Iran the moment the last Allied soldier leaves; a fragile, ineffectual Afghani government (nominally controlled by both US interests AND Taliban interests) just waiting to be overwhelmed by the Taliban as soon as the last Allied soldier leaves; ephemeral changes; boosts in overall terrorist population; a perhaps-weakened, relocated Al Qaeda; an Al Qaeda with its hand in genocide in Africa...at least we have hope that some of the 'Arab Springs' will bring the world some democracy and humanitarianism if not peace and prosperity.
That's pretty much what it boils down to. We have hope and good intentions -- one of the hopes is that the good intentions aren't paving the way to, well, you know...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)