Loekie's Small Sliver of Cyberspace

Reset - Doctor Who & Steven Moffat

2010-04-07T17:10:00.011-04:00

Boy it has been a long time since I've blogged. I suppose I got caught up in trying to organize my different books, getting my life sorted & work, my energies went elsewhere. But I did miss it. So I am going to start of slow & focus on using the first few entries on my commentary on the new Doctor Who series.

But before I write about the 11th Hour, the new era of Doctor Who, I want to set some parameters. I'm thrilled that Russell T. Davies was able to retool Doctor Who but at the same time it hurt the show. Yes he is a fan but I felt he directed the show for himself, not the fans.

He seemed to try to out-do himself each season. More special effects and explosions. And the big bad threat to destroy reality or universe. It grew a little tiresome by the fourth season. I won't get into the brain rape he did to Donna. That is a separate and long blog to come.

I find his storytelling starts off strong but petters off at the end. A good example is The Next Doctor. Great story until the Cyber King rises out of the Thames. OMG! Special effects & explosions, once again. Let alone continuity issues. Victorian London is being blown up by a giant robot and it isn't part of human history? Hello!

But for me, and many other Whovians, each season was guaranteed a bright spot. Something from Steven Moffat. Off the bat, Season 1, The Empty Child & The Doctor Dances stood out. They blew me away. I was creeped out with the image of Jamie with the gas mask, plaintively asking "Are you my mommy?" It caused shivers. I wanted to jump behind the couch.

I was stunned by the happy ending with The Doctor Dances. For a moment, the new dark Doctor had a victory. My friend & fellow Whoian talked for a long time about the episodes and agreed here was a writer that knew, grokked Doctor Who.

When I heard Steven was penning an episode for Season 2, I was excited. And stunned when I watched it. I'm a sucker for good historical Doctor Who stories and this is a good example.

Lady in the Fireplace had creepy elements, especially when Rose finds the heart. And the Clockwork "people" made me jump. But it was the story of the Doctor and Reinette that captivated me. The emotion in the story was honest, real. I welled up at the end, when we see the funeral possession leaving Versailles.

What impressed me was Steven went off in a different direction with this episode. He didn't follow a formula. And he had the balls to give us, this time, a sad ending. Yet the loss is not because of a sacrifice but of circumstance. The Doctor had nothing to do with her death, he just came back too late.

Then came the penultimate episode in Season 3, Blink. We hit the ground running, wondering why Sally Sparrow is in the old mansion. As she rips away the wallpaper, revealing a message, I was totally entranced. Up to now, I have not been too thrilled by the Doctor lite episodes. But Steven pulled it off. This episode made me jump, laugh, cry out, well-up and bask in genius story-telling. This is an episode I bow down to him. Any ideas I've had for Doctor Who stories will now made me say "I'm not worthy!" Here is a story that does not rely on CGI, explosions and giant gizmos. Simple strobe-lighting and fibreglass constructs and I was hiding behind the couch.

Saying Blink is the penultimate episode does not take away from Season 4, Silence in the Library and the Forests of the Dead. Once again he takes something mundane and makes it scary. It was an amazing story that gripped me. And intrigued me. Finally we meet someone from the Doctor's future, who knows the Doctor. For me, River Song is a character I want to know more about and that is going to happen. Hurrah!

What impressed me is the range Steven Moffat has. As an aspiring writer, I'm inspired at what he has done. He does creepy, romantic, funny, biting commentary, usually packed into one episode. He takes ordinary things and makes them extraordinary. Mundane things become terrifying, silly or sad. I have learned a few things from him.

This babbling preamble is important to get an idea of the mindset I came into the new series. I am extremely happy that Russell T. Davies was able to bring back Doctor Who. But the strong hand Davies had gave us episodes that were amazing, at the beginning but ended up with a wet fart with chunks.

I am not putting down the great stories by Paul Cornell, Toby Whithouse or Gareth Roberts but you can see the tinkering hand of Davies in the final production.

From my point of view, Davies is a Doctor Who fan who put together a show he wanted to see. Then there is Steven Moffat, IMHO, wants to put together a show that the fans want to see. And his 4 year track record shows that.

That is why I was so excited when it was announced that Steven Moffat would be "in charge" of Doctor Who. I saw an evolution of the show from a big, funky special effects show to more story-telling and effective uses of special effects. A step back from the fancy CGI to "wow" the audience.

The four episodes Steven wrote, we have strong characters and compelling stories. We wouldn't have Captain Jack, Sally Sparrow or River Song now in the Whoverse. Let alone Dave and the other Dave, Kathy Nightingale or Larry.

I, like many Whovians, scoured the Internet to get details of the hand-over to Steven. Then came the announcement that Matt Smith would be the next Doctor. Up front, I was a little concerned because he was so young. And the BBC website didn't help with some articles that having a "younger" Doctor would help push Doctor Who merchandising. But the gay man I am, I did look and comment he is cute. The initial stills I saw intrigued me.

But when I saw his interview his fingers going all about and his honest humility about taking on such an iconic role, I said "yeah, I think he can do it." I was going to give him a chance.

So the parameters are set. You have an idea where I am coming from as I start to post my reviews of Moffat run of Doctor Who. There will be spoilers and biased. I am part of a small crowd that liked Adric and was shocked & pissed off when he died in Earthshock.

For me, Doctor Who is the story not the effects. It is the crack in Peter Davison's voice in Warriors of Deep, lamenting there should have been a better way or Sylvester McCoy tipping his hat during a sword fight in Battlefield. Or the quiet river-ride in Shada. Doctor Who was low budget so they had to focus on story and characters,

And yeah, not every episode was golden. No series is perfect. But Doctor Who provides a perfect spotlight on our lives, a commentary of who we are. A good example is The Happiness Patrol. Something I think Davies lost track of. He focused on the story arc and the grand finale. Bigger is better. Now we are in a new era. And over the next day or so, I will post a blow by blow review of the new Doctor.

The Illusion of Money (1)

2006-10-29T20:04:00.000-05:00

Originally this post was going to be about the growing trend for businesses not accepting money any more. But it has moved about in different directions and I've settled on focusing on the idea of the illusion of money. And once again, this has grown into more than one post.

Much of the following is derived from an excellent book called The Secrets of the Temple, by William Greider, ISBN 0-671-47989-X It is quite an eye-opening book about the Federal Reserve in the US and the power invested in it. I believe it provides a better, more balanced exploration of the Fed than a documentary I saw last week called Freedom to Fascism.

The illusion of money is ancient and universal. It is present in every human transaction and absolutely necessary for each transaction. Money is worthless unless everyone believes in it. A buyer could not possibly offer a piece of paper in exchange for tangible goods if the seller did not also believe the paper had any value.

This shared illusion comes down the ages. It is old as stone coins and wampum. It is a power universally conferred by every society throughout history. Many different objects have been seen as money. For some, it was seashells, others dogs' teeth. Groups used tobacco, whiskey or cattle as money during transactions. And in time, shiny minerals like silver and gold were used. All evolving to paper and numbers in an account book. And now plastic.

For contemporary people, they have some difficulty acknowledging that they share this linkage with the primitive past. Money is now deeply embedded in elaborate technology. Money is now ruled by electronic accounting and payment systems that are growing in speed and complexity. For many people, today's concept of money is real and not like quaint and amusing tokens used by ancient tribes. A dollar bill is rational; seashells are blind faith.

Of course, modern money requires a leap of faith. It requires the same social consent that primitive societies gave to their money. Yet in fact, modern money is even more distant from concrete reality.

Over the centuries, the evolution of money has been a long and halting progression. During this time, human societies hesitantly transferred their money faith from one object to another. At each step, the object of this faith moved farther away from real value and closer to pure abstraction.

A good example would be cattle used by some African tribes. Now, for the people in these tribes, the cattle is of value. If the money illusion were to collapse for some reason, the coins are still cattle. The seashells that became precious currency among aboriginal tribes in North America and other continents were desirable things. Pre-Revolutionary colonies like Virginia and the Carolinas used tobacco as currency, which was a valuable commodity in its own right. And even silver and gold were not entirely useless; they could be fashioned by an artist into beautiful items.

In that sense, modern money is utterly worthless. At the same time, it becomes more efficient because its value does not get confused with the value of real things. Therefore the money illusion is now refined to a new level of abstract faith. Which is only visible if one consciously pauses to consider how the money process has evolved. At each stage in history, one can see money retreating from concrete reality.

It is suggested that paper money originated with the goldsmiths of Europe. These goldsmiths held private gold hoards, deposited by wealthy citizens for safekeeping. The goldsmith would issue a receipt for the gold deposit. Over time, it became clear that the receipt for the gold deposit could be used in commerce since whoever owned that piece of paper could go to the goldsmith and claim the gold.

This provided two boons for the goldsmith: security and lending. For many of the wealthy citizens, it was dangerous to travel about Europe with gold. The receipt gave a level of security. If a merchant in Antwerp wanted to purchase something in Paris, there was no need to transport gold for the transaction, they just needed to send a receipt for the appropriate value. At the same time, groups like the Knights Templar innovated many of the financial techniques that can be considered the foundation of banking. Often it was these “warrior monks” that ran the banks and transported receipts from one place to another.

The other boon for the goldsmiths and groups like the Knights Templars was the discovery that they could safely write more receipts and lend them to people. This would exceed the total gold that was on hand but as long as the lender always kept a responsible minimum of gold in reserve to honour any withdrawals, no one would be the wiser.

This is the origin of fractional-reserve banking and the bank doing the lending would be created money. This private money system endured centuries and was inherited by the American Republic.

In the States, privately owned banks created money by issuing paper bank notes, paper that was backed by a promise that at any time, the notes could be redeemed for gold.

In the nineteenth century America, the money in use consisted mainly of these privately issued bank notes, backed by gold and silver guarantees. Yet the money's value was extremely dependant on the soundness and honesty of each bank that issued notes. Banking scandals were recurrent in the States, especially on the frontier. There ambitious bankers were eager to make loans for new enterprises, sometimes printing paper money that had no gold behind it. Be it in the States or elsewhere, governments had to impose regulations to keep banks honest, but the bankers were still free to create their own varieties of money. And all too often, if a bank failed, their money failed with them.

Over time, the money illusion was transferred to a new object: demand deposits or more commonly known as checking accounts. So instead of just being a substitute for gold, paper money now existed simply as an account in a bank's ledger and was redeemable by personal drafts or checks.

This shift took time. People were hesitant about the change. In the United States, the transition was inadvertently stimulated by government regulations. During the Civil War, the National Bank Act was enacted. This federal law established a system of national charters for banks. It encouraged development of a national currency based on bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. At the same time the law placed a heavy tax on new bank notes issued by state banks. So in order to avoid the tax, banks encouraged their customers to use demand deposits; encouraged them to write personal checks instead of drawing out their money in cash.

It took quite some time for the general public to overcome its natural distrust of checks. But by the turn of the century, 1900, most people were persuaded. Personal checks, written by the buyers themselves now were accepted as just as valuable as dollar bills.

Currency, obviously, remained in use but demand deposits became the bulk of the money supply. The nationalization of currency issuance, completed with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, simply continued this arrangement in the States. A new dimension of trust was added to the money illusion.

During the twentieth century, the last prop of the money illusion was removed: the gold standard. Demand deposits had been backed by the same promise that applied to currency, that is, any private citizen could, in theory, go to the bank and redeem their money in a quantity of gold.

Well that promise was extinguished by government edict, starting with the warring nations in Europe, during World War I. Belatedly the United States joined these countries in 1933. Without the gold standard, money became only money or “legal tender for all debts, public and private” as it is printed on each Federal Reserve Note. So now a citizen can still go to the bank and redeem the pieces of paper but their money will be redeemed only in new, identical Federal Reserve Notes.

Whereas most mainstream economists applauded the abandonment of the gold standard, the change was traumatic for some ordinary citizens. The main question was: what is money really worth? Still to this day some people yearn for a return to the old guarantee - “a dollar as good as gold”.

Of course main economists, like John Maynard Keynes believes that the transition from gold is a historic liberation of money. It was an enlightened step beyond the obsessive attachment to shiny metals. So “commodity money” was replaced by “representative money”.

Yet economists like Keynes did agree that without the gold standard, money has to be managed. Its true value would ultimately be determined by governments, by the judgements of fallible humans or, more specifically, by the monetary policies of central banks like the Federal Reserve or the Bank of Canada.

For many people, this is a deeply disturbing situation. They long for some system that would take money regulation out of human hands and return it to some sort of fixed set of values that is impersonal. Proposals have be suggested from the “invisible hand” of market forces to some sort of higher authority. In the meantime, for people in the United States, every coin and bill offers their citizens the reassuring motto: “In God We Trust”.

And tomorrow I will conclude this post with the current abstraction of money which troubles me: plastic.

In God’s Name (4)

2006-10-26T05:38:00.000-04:00

So we are getting to the end of my discussion on the first of a series of articles in the New York Times about how religious groups in America are using special exemptions to get extra goodies. The last part continues from the previous post about zoning laws and how various religious organizations are trying to get around them.

As I presented in the previous post, there is a law from 2000 that various religious groups are using to contest zoning laws, and one specific case in Boulder County is being investigated.

There are many critics of this law. They argue that the First Amendment itself has long prohibited religious discrimination in zoning. Therefore the decisions being challenged would be just as successful in court if the law had never passed. The article presents one point here:

When Congress considered the law, “what was actually being discussed was ‘How do we make sure churches don’t get discriminated against,’ ” said Marci A. Hamilton, a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in Manhattan and the author of “God vs. The Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law” (Cambridge University Press, 2005), which calls for closer scrutiny of some religious exemptions, especially those affecting land use and family law.

Professor Hamilton is advising Boulder County in this case. She adds:

Unfortunately, the answer was to give such an expansive remedy that not only are they not getting discriminated against, but they are now capable of discriminating against all other landowners.

Whether it is the Rocky Mountain Christian Church or other growing churches, the financial stakes a high. In Boulder, under the 2000 law, if the county loses, it will have to pay not only its own legal bills but also those of the church.

If the church loses, it will sacrifice the money it spent on not just legal fees. Money was spent on architectural and public relation fees (of course). What is interesting is that unlike the county, the church could have taken free legal help from various religious advocacy groups. But it has not done so yet.

Yet the stakes is not just about money. If the county wins, this may provide a template for other local governments to use when defending against similar challenges. But if the county loses, then some lawyers fear then most other local governments will also fail. The key element here is that Boulder County has a long history of careful land-use planning and its voters are environmentally demanding. If Boulder loses then successfully arguing that preserving open spaces is a “compelling public interest” may not work elsewhere.

The deputy county attorney David Evan Hughes is quoted as asserting in the county’s filings:

Religious institutions have realized that land-use authorities are vulnerable to the threat of litigation.

Greater clarity from the courts is necessary else the new law’s reach:

will expand to the point where religious institutions are effectively dictating their own land-use regulations.

The article ends with something that echoes the posts I did on the paradox of America and being a Christian nation. In Boulder County, several church members say they cherish the open spaces preserved by the county’s past land-use decisions. But, of course, they think the county is wrong in rejecting the church’s proposal.

The article turns to Lanny Pinchuk, a church member who had formerly served on the county planning board. Whereas he praises all of what the county has done to preserve the environment, when it comes to the church’s plan, he is quoted as saying:

But you can’t keep people from coming to the religious institution of their choice.

Then he adds:

I feel that is just, well, un-American.

Now the church leaders and members have said that their current proposal is the “forever plan”. This would be the last expansion the church would make on this site.

Yet it is important to remember that over its 33 year period, the church has expanded the original building 5 times. And I don’t see this megaplex church being any different that others. Especially since Pastor Ahlgrim is eying the expanding subdivisions from other counties.

It is simple to say “this is it” but in reality, who is to say? Can they really guarantee that in a few years they won’t need more room for other facilities, parking spaces and a large worship area. What happens when this “forever” building if full.

The article ends with Gerry Witt, a founding church member. He is quoted as saying:

At some point, we’re going to have to say we can’t accommodate any more; I mean, we’re not going to have a 100-story building over there

The article ends with:

“So is there any limit?” He thought a moment, then answered his question. “Yes,” he said. “There’s God’s limit. When he says, ‘You’re at your limit,’ that’s when we will stop.”

But what is interesting, he and his wife have put their house on the market so they can more to a less-populated place in the area.

We have more posts on how religious organizations are using loop-holes, the courts and other legal aspects to get advantages others can’t. But I will spend a little time ending these four posts. Which will be echoed in the next series of posts.

For me, it is critical that there is a separation of church and state. A theocracy is dangerous for the average person. It is no different that having a dictatorship. It is important for those of a smaller faith to have protection against a large, dominant one.

Yet the conservative Christians in America has come to dominate various levels of the American governing system. More and more they are dictating American policy. And it threatens groups be it Muslims, Sikhs or Wiccans.

American was founded on Christian values, since the majority of the settlers were Christian. But the Founding Fathers knew that all the sects that came over to America had to be protected. And as America grew, it had to be extended to the faiths of those who immigrated there.

That is why I am spending time on all of this. More and more, America is starting to sound like a theocracy. Conservative Christians get up in arms when a non-Christian takes offence to the Christian language found in secular, government areas. They see it as an attack on their religion.

But for a Muslim or Jew, the signs and details of Christianity in court houses or schools echoes a long history of how Christianity tried to remove them from the world. Be it the pogroms of Europe to the Crusades, Christianity has a long history of trying to get rid of non-Christians. And for a Jewish child standing in a class, having to listen to other children recite the Lord’s Prayer, it reinforces this attempt to destroy or convert.

The other point I am getting from these series is the idea of being a good citizen, be it corporate or private. The government is designed for the whole population, not just a small group. The laws are supposed to be for all.

But when a religious faith, not just Christianity, wants to place itself above the laws, it worries me. In the New Testament, the words of Jesus does not tell followers to go against the government.

Christians are supposed to be good citizens. They are supposed to pay taxes. There are aspects like serving in an army which is not a problem. Even atheists have the right to be an objector and not serve.

But I worry when any faith, be it Christian, Muslim or Jewish, try to separate themselves from society. There are rituals and aspects of each faith that cannot be denied. But they are still members of the society at large, and should appropriately remember that. Not everyone follows the same faith.

With this article and subsequent ones, it strikes me is the selective gleaning of the Bible by many of the Christians out there. They want their cake and eat it too, damn the other people around them.

Yet we have just begun. There will be more posts on this. But for the next couple of days, I am going to take a break so I and you gentle reader can read about something else.

In God’s Name (3)

2006-10-24T22:20:00.000-04:00

Now we turn to an area of growing contention between church and state: zoning laws. The article I am using as a base turns to Boulder Colorado. The article quotes Ben Pearlman, a young lawyer:

When you fly in to Denver at night, you can always pick out Boulder. It’s the only one with big patches of darkness around it.

Ben Pearlman is one of the three governing commissioners. He talks about protecting the county’s spectacular beauty as if it is a sacred trust.

Back in 1978, the county limited intensive development to already urbanized areas, buffered by the large swaths of prairie and farmland. As Pearlman pointed out, the landscape stands in a stark contrast to the growing carpet of subdivisions, office parks and malls in neighbouring counties.

Yet, in contrast, there stands Alan Ahlrgim. He is the preacher who founded the Rocky Mountain Christian Church in eastern Boulder County in 1984. He sees the encroaching subdivisions as spiritual vineyards. They are full of families ready to be transformed. The article presents him with:

“The church has never grown fast enough to suit me,” Pastor Ahlgrim said with a grin that showed he was almost, but not quite, serious.

His church is one of more than 200 in the county. Over the past 22 years it has grown from three dozen families in 1984 to more than 2,200 people today. Over these years, the church had five expansions from its original building, approved by the county.

This growing congregation has a 106,000 square-foot home, which sits on 55 acres in an agricultural buffer zone around the small town of Niwot. And it is too small for the current size.

The church has to hold multiple services to handle the overflowing congregation. Its Sunday school is so full, some classes are spilling out into hallways and temporary buildings set in the parking lot.

This has created a dilemma for the Rocky Mountain Christian Church. Are they to just turn newcomers away? Put a ‘no vacancy’ sign up? That doesn’t make sense for a faith that is always trying to reach out to people and have them learn about God and Jesus.

What the church wants to do is renovate. They want to almost double the size of the facilities so they can accommodate up to 4,500 people. But it doesn’t stop there.

The expansion is not just for the church itself. They want to provide a new children’s wing, more rooms for adult classes and a gymnasium with room for two basketball court or hold potluck suppers for 1,000.

The new wings would be linked to the existing building by spacious galleries and be surrounded by more than 1,200 landscaped parking spaces.

Up front, I will admit that I understand the problem they are facing. When you have a thriving and growing congregation, you need to expand. It is difficult for the pastoral staff to deal with multiple masses. And you need facilities for the many different functions the church is running.

I can see that at VCC. When I was involved with Alpha, there were times we had a hard to time organize space for meetings and functions because the basement was already booked and there was no other room.

But I wonder if the plans for the expansions are being done because of necessity or because they can do it. There was one thing about the expansion which was spacious galleries for linking the wings to the existing building. It that really necessary?

I look at some of the megaplex churches I’ve seen. The main one I know is the Crystal Cathedral run by the Schullers. The whole complex looks amazing but they really did not need all of what was built. The cathedral did not need the massive vaulted ceiling of crystal or the landscaped land around it.

I look at cathedrals of old, the amazing Gothic structures I’ve seen in Europe. They were awe-inspiring. But as I would walk around, I would see that much of them were not functional. There was no need for such a massive and ornate structure. Yet it could be done, so it was done. Also, be it then or now, there is a drive to build something more impressive compared to what already exists. Something the Catholics know all too well and the Protestants are now starting to emulate.

So I wonder how much of the expansion is necessary and how much is just for show. This is because the county’s land-use plan and zoning rules for the agricultural buffer zone where the church sits is going to limit construction. And the church cannot build without the approval of the Boulder county commissioners.

So you can imagine what happened when the commission met to discuss the expansion back in February. The article mentions that it was an emotional public hearing which was attended by more than a thousand people. And in the end, the commission said no.

Ben Pearlman is quoted as saying:

People are always trying to develop their properties to the limits of the law and sometimes beyond.

As the article points out that the worst suburban sprawl is the consequence of:

lots of little decisions that have this cumulative effect. We’re trying to resist this death by a thousand cuts, and preserve the land where we can.

Pearlman said. And I can see his point. One small thing leads to another and it can start to snowball. And once that happens there is no going back. And this goes for the growing church. How much of the expansion is really necessary and how much is for show? There has to be a balance between the need of the county and the need of the church.

And this is a problem all of the large, fast-growing megaplex church are confronting. The zoning laws are restricting their expansion plans. Of course, Pastor Ahlgrim is unhappy. He felt the decision:

is severely restrictive to our mission,” he said.

Again I see his point. An important aspect of the Christian life is things like worshipping, teaching and gathering for fellowship. The practice is sharing within and outside the community. And for many Christian churches it is important to allow certain outside groups to use the church when it is available. As Pastor Ahlgrim continues to say:

vital to our mission. When one of your core values is generosity and you are restricted from sharing what you want to share — what God has provided — we consider that to be a severe limitation.

So the church felt it had no choice but to go to court. The church sued the county under a federal land-use law enacted by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton back in 2000. This law was to protect religious organizations from capricious or discriminatory zoning restrictions by local governments. And it is important to note that this law came after a decade-long bipartisan tug-of-war between Congress and the Supreme Court.

It seems that before 1990, the Supreme Court generally held that any government restriction on religion must serve a compelling public interest in the least burdensome way.

This standard was known as the “strict scrutiny” test. One example the article gives is based on an Oregon case dealing with two Native Americans. For them, the use of peyote was of sacramental use. Which as we all know is an illegal drug. The majority of the court concluded that there was nothing unconstitutional about states expecting citizens to comply with valid, neutral and generally applicable laws. In this case, like those criminalizing peyote. Even if compliance conflicted with religious beliefs.

This “Smith decision” from Employment Division v. Smith provoke a fierce reaction which energized the drive for more legislative protections for religion ever since.

As the article points out:

In 1993, under pressure from a broad coalition whose members ranged from the Anti-Defamation League to the Southern Baptist Convention to the American Humanist Association, Congress adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which restored the “strict scrutiny” test to any federal, state or local government action affecting religious practice. A new tool had been added to the First Amendment emergency kit, although no one was quite sure how to use it.

In 1997, the Supreme Court tugged back. It ruled that the religious freedom act could not be applied to the states. This generated a reaction from the states so 13 have subsequently adopted similar actions of their own.

Thing is, though, Congress thought the decision left room for it to address zoning restrictions. And in a separate mann, religious restrictions imposed on prisoners.

So in 2000 there came the act, adopted by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. It restored the “strict scrutiny” test to local zoning decisions.

This made it easier for churches to challenge decisions they did not like. At the same time, the act also made it easier for prisoners to challenge restrictions on their religious practices.

So far, the Supreme Court has upheld the provision that apply to prisoners but as of yet has not ruled on the land-use provisions. So groups like the Rocky Mountain Christian Church can go ahead in the court system and contest the decision of the Boulder county commission.

What is interesting is one of the church’s allies is the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which is defending the law’s constitutionality in cases around the country.

The article points out something interesting about all of this:

Defenders of the law say that some cases invoking its protections have addressed actions by local governments that seem to reflect blatant religious bias. For example, Rabbi Joseph Konikov of Orlando, Fla., successfully sued his local government under the law in 2002 after county officials repeatedly cited and fined him for holding small worship services in his suburban home, in violation of a zoning provision later found to be an unconstitutional burden on religious freedom.

Of course part of me is going “huh?” I can’t see what happened with Rabbi Konikov is of relevance to the expanding of a megaplex church. Other zoning challenges, all invoking the 2000 law include:

a Sikh society that wants to build a temple in a low-density residential area of Yuba City, Calif.
a Hindu congregation seeking permission to expand its temple and cultural centre on a busy highway in Bridgewater, N.J.;
a Muslim organization that has been trying for years to build a mosque on land that the local government in Wayne Township, N.J., now wants to buy for open space.

But of course law is based on precedent and lawyers are good at putting square pegs into round holes. Yet I look at the decision with the Rabbi and see it make sense. He was holding worship services in his home. He was not expanding his home beyond the zoned areas. Whereas the megaplex churches want to expand into areas that are zoned for things like agriculture or public parks.

Well, tomorrow I am going to conclude this train of thought because I don’t want this post to become too long and dense as some readers have commented. And then I’ll wrap all of this first article before heading into the next ones.

In God’s Name (2)

2006-10-21T18:21:00.000-04:00

And now I continue focusing on a recent series of articles in the New York Times about how religious organizations are getting benefits from the government.

Thing is, religious organizations are not just getting regulatory and tax exemptions, some which have been in place for decades. Recently they have become eligible for an increasing flow of federal grants and contracts issued from the state and federal governments.

This did not happen on George Bush’s watch. This started back in 1996 with Bill Clinton. What George did was give it greater force, which the administration call the Faith Based Initiative.

What is interesting is how this increasing weave of regulatory and tax exemptions has gone largely unnoticed. Over the past while, religious leaders and politicians are focused and focusing the press on other issues like the public display of religious icons. A good example is showing the Ten Commandments.

And what I find curious is the rhetoric that is coming out from these leaders. All too often they say that religious groups in America are targets of antagonism, not favouritism. One example is from the House Speaker J. Denis Hastert from Illinois. When introducing a legislative agenda in July, he said:

Radical courts have attempted to gut our religious freedom and redefine the value system on which America was built.

Then there was a conference called The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006 in Washington in March. There Tom DeLay is quoted telling the crowd that society:

treats Christianity like a second-class superstition. Seen from that perspective, of course there is a war on religion.

Now back to Alabama for a moment. When the argument that religious groups are victims of discrimination, Ms. White sighed. Thing is, she is finding it harder to compete with unlicensed faith-based centres that don’t have to comply with expensive licensing requirements and regulations.

Lets jump to the other side of the point, to the Harvest Temple Church of God. Paston Fuson says that the busy church-based centre, next to the sanctuary covers its costs and helps support the work of the church. He is quoted as saying:

We have talked about getting licensed before in the past, but it would cost us quite a bit of money.

He points out that the staff would be probably large enough to meet state standard but the centre would need costly renovations to upgrade the facility.

That made me stop and go “Huh?” Be it here or in the States, the requirements for day care centres are strict. They have to comply to everything, including the specific toys required for each age group. And there is a reason for these regulations: the security of young lives. But if it would be too costly to renovate the facility, what does that say?

The main problem is broached by Ms. White. The state funds day care centres and the resources are limited. So it seems unfair that subsidies are available to unlicensed centres as well as the licensed ones. Shouldn’t the financing and licensing be universal? We are talking about the safety of children here.

But in Alabama, some churches have voluntarily obtained licenses. In Huntsville, the First Christian Church has a fully licensed day care centre. The pastor of the church, Paul B. Koch Jr thinks it is appropriate and raises the quality of care. But he also says:

But the Christian Coalition is still strong in Alabama and this is an issue for them.

Of course, we need the Christian Coalition to jump in here. John W. Giles, the president of Alabama’s “chapter” confirmed that his organization supported the exemption. He noted that state oversight would be intrusive and was unnecessary because:

because the pastors and congregations are your quality control.

When I read this I just flipped. You don’t need quality control because the pastor and congregation are your quality control??? What planet does this man come from?

I think back to the scandal with the Catholic church and the young people who were abused by the priests. Here in Canada we have also had problems with institutes run by the Church.

One of the major incidents was the Mount Cashel Orphanage in St. John’s, Newfoundland. Yet there were many other reports of other Church run facilities. Here is part of a report:

I saw many young children beaten up and strapped. I saw Brother --- wake up young children and take them to a room to sexually assault them. I saw children handcuffed to a pillar in the basement. They would be pushed and kicked. I saw Brother --- use a pool table stick to hit children if they would not have anal sex with him. Children were given cold showers then strapped. If I told any Brothers that another Brother tried to have sex with me, I would be strapped." [From a report on abuse at St. Joseph's and St. John's Training School for Boys]

The society had put their trust in these institutions. The people believed that they were doing God’s work and no quality control was necessary. And look at what happened.

Now, I am not saying this is happening in places in Huntsville or at the Harvest Temple, but the idea that these unlicensed centres have the appropriate quality control because of the people and the pastors is just inane.

Although many of the unlicensed centres are run by Protestant churches, the exemption covers all faiths, from an Islamic preschool program in Huntsville to a Catholic parish centre in Tuscaloosa. Each faith brings in different rules to the centres. Some strict faiths may institute “spare the rod, spoil the child” as an appropriate method of disciplining the children. And because they are not covered by a general, universal set of criterion, who can stop them? Certainly not the government.

Many of these centres are regulated internally. A good example is in Texas. In 1997, Governor George Bush pushed through legislation that exempted faith-based day care centres and addiction treatment programs from state licensing. He allowed them to be monitored instead by private associations controlled by pastors, program directors and other private citizens.

But who are these associations answerable to? I understand the government can be a pain to work with, and things can fall through the cracks, but people can work through the system to find someone who is answerable. A nebulous association does not have to answer to anyone.
What is interesting is that George enacted other laws steering more state financing to these “alternately accredited” institutions. Yet:

Fewer than a dozen child care centres and about 130 addiction treatment programs took advantage of this new alternative, according to subsequent studies. But several of these later became the focus of state investigations into complaints of physical abuse. A study by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, a nonprofit research organization that opposed the faith-based initiatives, found that “the rate of confirmed cases of abuse and neglect at alternatively accredited facilities in Texas is more than 10 times that of state-licensed facilities.”

So the self-policing by the private associations does not seem to work, in Texas that is. Again, we should not paint the whole situation with a wide brush but it has to make people stop and think.

The New York Times asked two leading First Amendment scholars, about faith-based day care licensing exemptions like these. Both were unfamiliar with the practice but though it sounded legally dubious.

Ira C. Lupu, a law professor at George Washington University and the co-director of legal research for the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, an independent project of the Rockefeller Institute of Government said:

I think what you describe is unconstitutional.

Professor Witte, the director of Emory University’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion, responded in an email and said that he:

would frankly be surprised to find even this Supreme Court going that far.

But the courts are going that far. When a group of licensed day care centres challenged the Alabama law in a federal court in mid-2001, guess what? They lost. They argued that the law deprived them of their constitutional right to equal protection before the law.

Well, Judge Myron H. Thompson of United States District Court, who ruled on the case, did not see it that way. He

said the state could have adopted the arrangement to avoid church-state entanglements or simply to accommodate the free exercise of religion. Indeed, he cited four other federal cases, all decided since 1988, that had upheld similar exemptions for day care centers in other states.

And the New York Times concludes this section of the article with:

In Judge Thompson’s view, it is “well settled” constitutional law that “the possible economic inequalities that might result from religious exemptions such as day care licensing exemptions” are not a violation of anyone’s equal-protection rights.

That is it for today. Tomorrow we get into aspects like exemptions from zoning rules.

In God’s Name (1)

2006-10-20T13:42:00.000-04:00

What started the previous series of posts was the article I wrote about and a series that is going on in the New York Times entitled:

In God’ Name

by Diana B. Henriques. This lengthy series is giving me more on this subject to continue on. So here goes another series of posts, especially with this tag line about:

how American religious organizations benefit from an increasingly accommodating government.

The reason I am following up the previous post right away is because of they are linked. As you will see this presents the ever increasing blur occurring between the Christian ethos in America and secular institutions, especially the courts and the IRS. It also looks into the important issue of the separation of church and state and abuses that are arising from it.

The article in the series is called:

As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation

The article starts with two different child care centres in Auburn Alabama. The first is run by Ethel White. At any time, state inspectors can come in, unannounced to make sure her centres meet state requirements. Which makes sense because the law is intended to ensure the children are safe.

For Ms. White, this means continual training for the staff, and details like having two sinks, one exclusively for food prep. And important things like all cabinets require safety locks, and things like medications are kept under lock and key.

Then there is a day care centre run by the Harvest Temple Church of God with the Reverend Ray Fuson. Alabama exempts church day care programs from state licensing requirements.

It is important to note that recently, the requirements were tightened after almost a dozen children died in both licensed and unlicensed day care centres in two years.

As the article continues, the differences do not end there. As an employer, Ms. White must comply with the civil rights laws. Therefore if employees feel mistreated, they have a recourse in the courts. Yet:

Religious organizations, including Pastor Fuson’s, are protected by the courts from almost all lawsuits filed by their ministers or other religious staff members, no matter how unfairly those employees think they have been treated.

And another telling difference has to do with financial statements. Anyone can see how Ms. White’s nonprofit centre uses its public grants and donations because she has to file her financial statements each year with the IRS. But there are no IRS reports from Harvest Temple; federal law does not require churches to file them.

Because of the separation of state and church, religious organizations are enjoying an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes. And the number in the States is increasing rapidly.

Yet it is important to point out, this is not just for the mainline Christian megaplex churches. Mosques, synagogues to Hindu temples also enjoy the growing area of exemptions.

Some of these exemptions have existed for much of America’s history. Originally they were devised for Christian churches but as the nation became more religiously diverse, it expanded to other faiths.

What is curious is that many of them have been granted only within the last 15 years. And often, it seems, they have been added to legislation anonymously and with little attention. As the article suggests:

An analysis by The New York Times of laws passed since 1989 shows that more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.

The article quotes Professor John Witte Jr. the director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University Law School. He say that the special breaks amount to a sort of religious affirmative action program. And then he says:

Separation of church and state was certainly part of American law when many of today’s public opinion makers were in school. But separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land.

The obvious reason for the changes is the growing political influence religious groups are having, especially conservative Christians. This influence is not just in the political arena like Congress but there is a growing presence of conservatives in the courts and regulatory agencies.

I can see some people jumping up and down complaining about people like the Republicans, but it is important to realize that these tax and regulatory breaks have been endorsed by politicians from both parties, by judges across the country and at all levels of the government.

As Richard R. Hammar, the editor of Church Law & Tax Report and an accountant with law and divinity degrees from Harvard is quoted saying:

The religious community has a lot of pull, and senators are very deferential to this kind of legislation.

The end result is that religious organizations of all faiths are in a position that American businesses and all non-religious nonprofit groups can only envy. What is telling is that the new breaks these organizations are getting is at a time that they are expanding into activities like day care centres, fitness clubs, books and broadcasting. They are coming into the market place and competing with others that do not have the benefit of these exemptions.

Thing is religious organizations are exempt from many federal, state and local laws. One area of growing contention is that federal law gives religious congregations unique tools to challenge government restrictions on how they use their land. The result is things like land-use restrictions that are a result of a long standing public demands like open space or historical preservation can be superseded by a religious congregations’s construction plans. More on this later.

As mentioned before, another area is the civil rights laws. Exemptions protect religious employers from all legal complaints about things like faith-based preferences in hiring. And the courts have shielded religious employers from different complaints on other forms of discrimination such as race, nationality, age, gender, etc. What surprised me the most is that most religious organizations have been exempted from federal laws meant to protect pensions and to provide unemployment benefits. More on this later.

The one area which is guaranteed to raise an eyebrow has to do with taxes. Congress has imposed limits on the IRS’s ability to audit churches, synagogues and other religious congregations. Which has allowed more vague religious groups like the Church of Scientology some great exemptions. At the same time, at the local level, houses of worship have long been exempt from local property taxes in every state.

If we were just talking about a local church and the pastor, I don’t see a problem. But religious activities, especially in the States are expanding far beyond the weekly worship and the running of a soup kitchen.

In Minnesota, you can find a church-run fitness centre with tanning beds and a video arcade. In Florida, there is an biblical theme park. These are just two examples of the expanded activities which are getting tax breaks. And if the local officials don’t want to give the breaks, the courts or state legislators step in.

So these organizations are exempt from the local taxes. Yet they still rely on public services. They still want police and fire protection. They need street lights and storm drains. The roads need to be maintained. But these exemptions shift the cost of providing the local benefits onto other citizens. The tax burden is placed on the ordinary Joe in the town or city. And the resulting cost is unknown because no one keeps track.

Now it is important to go back a few hundred years. One of the brilliant aspects of the framers of the Constitution was the insight they brought to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One area, from the onset, was they wanted to protect religious liberty. There were two clear goals in mind, as constitutional scholars point out.

The framers wanted to assure that everyone, even members of a small and possibly unpopular sects could practice their faith without the fear of persecution. All too often many came to America because a dominant religion was allied with the state, as it was in England, and persecuted smaller sects.
The framers wanted to make sure that the government would not become captive to a particular religion or set of beliefs at the expense of people with other faiths.

Many scholars say that this tradition of religious freedom and tolerance helped America avoid sectarian violence that erupted in places like Ireland and attracted immigrants, bringing talents from around the world.

For some legal scholars and judges, they see the special breaks for religious groups as a way to prevent the government from infringing on religious freedoms. As Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has written and testified in support of greater legislative protection for religious liberty is quoted as saying:

Never forget that the exercise of religion is a constitutionally protected activity. Regulation imposes burdens on the free exercise of religion. Exemptions lift those burdens.

He adds:

That is constitutionally a good thing.

Yet he is talking about the exercise of religious freedom here, not running a day care centre. We are now entering murky waters that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned. Until recently, churches, mosques or synagogues were a local matter. And whatever exemptions they received were not far-reaching. Yet as some of these churches grow into megaplexes and other just jump on the bandwagon, these special interests start to collide with other values important in the country. For example:

like extending the protections of government to all citizens and sharing the responsibilities of society fairly.

Of course, religious organizations defend the exemptions as a way to recognize the benefits these groups are providing. From early on, religious organizations operated things like schools, orphanages, hospitals, etc. long before social welfare and education were seen as a responsibility of the government.

Yet the question arises about fairness. These ministries benefit from exemptions with things like soup kitchens and homeless shelters but the nonprofit organizations that provide the same services get nothing. It would make sense to have any and all breaks available to any charitable organization.

I saw that when I was living on the streets. Nonprofit shelters like the Old Brewery Mission were run down compared to those run by the Salvation Army or other religious organizations. What kept some people away from the religious shelters was the dollop of religion that would be forced upon them be it like during meals. While others took it in stride because the food was a little better, as was the bedding. Even back then I wondered about the fairness that the religious run shelters had more than the non-religious ones.

But now, religious nonprofit groups are expanding vigorously into other areas. These groups do things run nationwide broadcasting networks or generate best-selling publications and take full advantage of exemptions that are not available to secular nonprofit groups that are engaged in similar activities.

Of course one of the key elements is the First Amendment and the command that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

As I said before, the Founding Fathers did not envision churches moving into endeavours like publishing books or running fitness centres. And what they are doing, does it really have to do with exercising their religious faith.

As the article states:

For most of the past half-century, courts interpreted the first part of that clause as a barrier to government action that seemed to treat religious groups more favorably than secular ones, legal scholars said. But today, many lawyers agree, courts are taking a more accommodating view of government actions that benefit religious groups.

But it seems the change started to change under the influence of William H. Rehnquist when he was the chief justice of the Supreme court. This is suggested by Derek H. Davis, until recently the director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco, Tex. Additionally, he feels:

Clearly, we’re going to be in this accommodative mode for some time.

This is because Mr. Davis sees Chief Justice Rehnquist’s successor, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to continue to follow in his footsteps with respect to cases affecting religious groups.

The issue here, for people like the Supreme Court is to protect the free exercise of religion but also assure that religion is not being favoured by the government. Yet all too often the two efforts collide and become messy court cases.

In the next post we look into more about exemptions including how religious organizations are now eligible for things like federal grants and continue this exploration.

Yet There is Hope

2006-10-17T07:17:00.000-04:00

I am going to follow-up the last three posts with something I read recently in the New York Times. The title of the piece was:

Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock

In Maplewood, Minnesota, there is megaplex church called Woodland Hills in suburban St. Paul. The pastor, Gregory A. Boyd is leading this thriving evangelical megaplex. And he is frequently asked to give his and the church’s blessing to conservative political candidates and causes like many other pastors of the megaplex churches.

These requests came from church members and visitors alike. Some of them mentioned in the article were:

Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services?
Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit?
Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work?
Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates?
And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

To my surprise, Pastor Boyd refused each time. And he finally became fed up. Even more surprising, Pastor Boyd, before the last presidential election preached six sermons called The Cross and the Sword in which he said that the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming that the United States was a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

I read this and went whoa! And even better was a quote from him:

When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses. When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.

It is important to point out that Pastor Boyd is not a liberal. He opposes abortion and believes that homosexuality is not God’s ideal. So we are not dealing with a liberal megaplex church that is conducting gay marriages and gives abortion as an option during counselling for someone who has an unwanted pregnancy.

Yet it is the response from his congregation that is telling and ties in with the previous posts I have put together. Keep in mind that Pastor Boyd’s congregation is packed mostly with politically and theologically conservative, middle-class “Christians”.

The response from his sermons was passionate. Some members walked out and never returned. By the time the dust settled, Woodland Hills, which Pastor Boyd founded in 1992 had lost about 1,000 of its 5,000 members.

Yet there were congregants who thanked him, telling Boyd that they were moved to tears to hear him voice concerns that they had but were too afraid to share. Sharon Staiger, a church member and psychotherapist is quoted as saying:

Most of my friends are believers and they think if you’re a believer, you’ll vote for Bush. And it’s scary to go against that.

What is interesting is that Pastor Boyd’s sermons is starting to reflect a common concern that the Christian message is being compromised by the tendency to tie evangelical Christianity to the Republican Part and American nationalism, especially through the war in Iraq.

And grass-roots churches, even the megaplex ones are starting to question this. And it isn’t easy when you have the airwaves filled with people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson whose words are dire and threatening. Or the feel good theology of people like Joyce Meyers. And it doesn’t help when you have moronic pitbulls like Ann Coulter who spew invectives laced with religious wordings. Just look at the title of her last book: Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Yet amongst these strident voices, some others are trying to counter the movement. As the Times points out, at the time of the article, at least six books had been published on the Christian message being compromised. Pastor Boyd published The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church, based on his sermons.

Randall Balmer, a religion professor at Barnard College and an evangelical, has written Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America — an Evangelical’s Lament.

The article turned to Brian D. McLaren, the founding pastor at Cedar Community Church in Gaithersburg, Md and a leader in the evangelical movement known as the “emerging church”. This movement is at the forefront of challenging the more politicized evangelical establishment. He is quoted as saying:

There is a lot of discontent brewing. More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right. You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.
Because people think, ‘Oh no, what is going to come next is homosexual bashing, or pro-war rhetoric, or complaining about ‘activist judges.’

But let us go back to Pastor Boyd because the more I read the more his church is an interesting case study which reflects on my previous posts.

Pastor Boyd said he had cleared his sermons with the church’s board. Yet his words left some in his congregation completely stunned. Some felt he was disrespectful of the President and the military. Some felt he was soft on abortion. Some felt he was telling them not to voice. A telling quote comes from William Berggren, a lawyer who had joined the church with his wife six years ago. He is quoted as saying:

When we joined years ago, Greg was a conservative speaker. But we totally disagreed with him on this. You can’t be a Christian and ignore actions that you feel are wrong. A case in point is the abortion issue. If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70’s, it wouldn’t have happened. But the church was asleep.

The article continues to give a little history and detail about the church. It seems that Pastor Boyd, who is 49, preaches in blue jeans and rumpled plaid shirts. The church is in a squat block-long building that was once a home improvement chain store.

The church started with 40 members about 12 years ago. The article says that the church’s growth was because Boyd is not just because he is an electrifying preacher. He has degrees from Yale Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary. And taught theology at Bethel College in St. Paul.

It was at Bethel that Boyd created some controversy a few years ago by questioning whether God fully knew the future. Some pastors in his own denomination, the Bapist General Conference, mounted an effort to evict Pastor Boyd from the denomination and his teaching post but in the end, he won.

Thing is, Pastor Boyd said that he never intended his sermons to be taken as merely a critique of the Republican Party to the religious right. He will not share his party affiliation, if he has one. He believes there are Christians on both the left and the right. And both have turned politics and patriotism into “idolatry”.

In an interview, Pastor Boyd explains where this is all coming from. It seems that he first became alarmed years ago visiting another megaplex church during a worship services on July 4th. The service ended with the choir singing “God Bless America” and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses. He says in the interview:

I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’

As was pointed out in the previous posts, politics and evangelical Christianity have become fused. Patriotic displays are mainstays in some churches. Across town from Pastor Boyd’s church, the sanctuary of North Heights Lutheran Church was draped in bunting on the Sunday before the Fourth of July for a “freedom celebration”. Military veterans and flag twirlers paraded into the sanctuary. An enormous American flag slowly rose behind the stage. And a Marine major, who had served in Afghanistan preached that the military was spending the parishioners hard-earned money on good causes.

What impresses me about Pastor Boyd is that in his six sermons he lays out a broad argument that the role of Christians is not to seek “power over” others. That is by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. He feels that Christians should, instead, seek to have “power under” others. That is “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did. He says:

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy. America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.
“I am sorry to tell you that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.

As if this wasn’t enough for me, Pastor Boyd lambasts the sheer hypocrisy and pettiness of Christians who focus on sexual issues such as homosexuality and abortion. And lest we forget Janet Jackson’s little breast-revealing performance. He points out that Christians these days are constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public. He says:

Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act. And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed.

What is interesting, as the article continues, is that some of his parishioners applauded the sermons because they had resolved their conflicted feelings. The article focuses on one person, David Churchill who is a truck driver for UPS and has been a Teamster for 26 years. He said he was raised in a religious-right home but was torn between the Republican expectations of faith and family and the Democratic expectations of his union. Yet when Pastor Boyd preached his sermons, Churchill said:

it was liberating to me

What is fascinating and a telling aspect of the “Christian” nation of America is that Pastor Boyd gave his six sermons while his church was in the midst of a $7 million fund-raising campaign. In the end, only $4 million came in. Which meant some staff members had be to laid off. But it doesn’t stop there.

The family pastor, Mary Van Sickle said she lost 20 volunteers who had been the backbone of the church’s Sunday school. She says, of the volunteers who quit:

“They said, ‘You’re not doing what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way.’

It is too bad that the article never interviewed some of the 20 odd twits that quit. I would love to see them justify Biblical how it is the church’s job to support a political idealogy, let alone one that embraces bring violence and chaos to other countries.

I thoroughly adored a quote the article brings up from Reverend Paul Eddy, a theology professor at Bethel College and teaching pastor at Woodland Hills:

Greg is an anomaly in the megachurch world. He didn’t give a whit about church leadership, never read a book about church growth. His biggest fear is that people will think that all church is is a weekend carnival, with people liking the worship, the music, his speaking, and that’s it.

The sad fact, the article continues, is that those who left tended to be white, middle-class suburbanites. Yet in their place, the church added more members who live in the surrounding communities which include African-Americans, Hispanics and Hmong immigrants from Laos.

What I applaud is that this suits Pastor Boyd. His vision for his church is an ethnically and economically diverse congregation. A congregation that exemplifies Jesus’ teachings by its members’ actions. And he now, about the upheaval his church had, he says:

I don’t regret any aspect of it at all. It was a defining moment for us. We let go of something we were never called to be. We just didn’t know the price we were going to pay for doing it.

Obviously the older members of his congregation needed time to digest his message. When Pastor Boyd organized his book, based on his sermons, he arranged a forum to allow members to sound off. The reception was warm but many of the 56 questions submitted in writing were pointed. They included.

Isn’t abortion an evil that Christians should prevent?
Are you saying Christians should not join the military?
How can Christians possibly have “power under” Osama bin Laden?
Didn’t the church play an enormously positive role in the civil rights movement?

During that forum, one woman asked:

So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn’t we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?

Pastor Boyd responded:

I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.

For me, all of this is refreshing, yet not new. The church I occasion, VCC, I’ve seen Pastor Billy stand up and say things that makes the congregation uncomfortable. He tries to remind people what the Bible really says, not what people want to hear.

And after spending some time with the previous posts, I am glad I can present an exception to the rule. Yet the problem is that for one or two of Pastor Boyd, we have ten like Joel Osteen.

And someone like Boyd has the power to change things locally. The problem with the feel-good theologians is that be in their megaplex churches or massive services, they focus on the self not God.

The shows these pastors have are really just infomercials. They interview an author about his/her brilliant book about how God has a miracle for you today and then at the end of the show, offer it free for a one-time gift of $24.95. If you go, for example, Joyce Meyer’s website, with the blah-blah about her sermons and missions, there are ads for books like The Confident Woman and Look Great, Feel Great.

So people like Boyd have a long way to go if they are to impinging on the end time or self-obsessed creed of Americas. Yet at least there are some out there that are trying and not just small pastors for a congregation of 200. There is hope, albeit a small one.

With all of this said and done, I would like Pastor Boyd to have the last word. On his church’s website, speaking about the books that came from his sermons, it comes down to the following:

Sadly, many people today claim that if you’re really a Christian, you’ll vote a certain way, support a certain candidate or take a particular stand on a particular issue. But most political issues are ambiguous enough that sincere, intelligent and Bible-believing people can and do strongly disagree about them!
However, nowhere in the New Testament do Jesus or any of his followers weigh in on any of the many divisive political issues of their day. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t have political opinions. They did – and they were very different from each other! Matthew (a tax collector) and Simon (a Zealot) were much farther apart in their views about political issues than (say) a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative Republican would be today. Yet, we never read a word about which view was “better” in the Gospels. And the reason is that our widely different political views are insignificant next to the one thing we are called to do as followers of Jesus: express God’s love for others the sacrificial way God expressed his love for all of us!

The Christian Paradox (3)

2006-10-16T07:28:00.000-04:00

The last part of this piece concludes focusing on an article by Bill McKibben. And as I ended the last post, it seems that American Christians have lost sight of the message Jesus was trying to explain to his disciples, and in turn, us. And I think it is important to stress the point, so I will give the text in full:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. [Matt 22:34-40 (NIV)]

As mentioned before, this was a radical notion back in Jesus’ time and is still a radical notion. Jesus, in all his teachings makes it crystal clear who one’s neighbour is. They are:

the poor person
the sick person
the naked person
the hungry person

And the hardest one to swallow would be:

your enemy.

What makes the New Testament so radical is that Jesus would say things like the last shall be made first. You should turn the other cheek. A rich man aiming for heaven is like trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle. The basic, unique message of Jesus’ call was, as McKibben writes:

a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love.

Then McKibben writes a telling point:

I confess, even as I write these words, to a feeling close to embarrassment. Because in public we tend not to talk about such things—my theory of what Jesus mostly meant seems like it should be left in church, or confined to some religious publication. But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings. The Bible is a long book, and even the Gospels have plenty in them, some of it seemingly contradictory and hard to puzzle out. But love your neighbor as yourself—not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but love your neighbor as yourself—will suffice as a gloss. There is no disputing the centrality of this message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is so counterintuitive, Christians have had to keep repeating it to themselves right from the start. Consider Paul, for instance, instructing the church at Galatea: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” he wrote. “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Thing is, be it churches in the States, here in Canada or elsewhere, they are good at loving the neighbour in the next pew. When someone in the congregation is in trouble, most of the congregation will rally around that person. But personally, I have seen how that does not translate to outside the church.

The soup kitchen I volunteer at occasionally often has trouble getting volunteers to help out, especially in the summer. Usually it is the same people over and over again. And it is not because the parishioners are old and can’t help. The congregation is quite youthful. Yet Penny could use a constant flow of people but doesn’t get it. All in all, every week, it is the same few people.

Now Pastor Billy has stood up in front of the congregation and brought up the importance of loving your neighbour. I’ve heard him. But it seems that all too many don’t see beyond the church walls.

And the thing is the congregation does not just have to be involved in church sponsored aspects like the soup kitchen. They could be volunteering to help make food at places like the Old Brewery Mission, where I stayed at for 9 months.

I’ll give a salient example. The block party the church had at the end of August had some problems getting the knapsacks and supplies they wanted to give to the kids. They did not get as many as they had hoped. Here was an opportunity for many of the parishioners to step up, be it with cash donations or help to get more. But many did not. It was only the volunteers involved that tried to do something In the end, we had enough but it made me stop and wonder.

But back to the dominant creeds that saturates the American psyche right now. It seems that the current theology is making it harder to love one’s neighbour, especially the poor and weak. As McKibben writes that is a problem right now. And:

the dominant theologies of the moment do just that. They undercut Jesus, muffle his hard words, deaden his call, and in the end silence him. In fact, the soft-focus consumer gospel of the suburban megachurches is a perfect match for emergent conservative economic notions about personal responsibility instead of collective action. Privatize Social Security? Keep health care for people who can afford it? File those under “God helps those who help themselves.”

McKibben goes on to give a scathing example. In 2002, in Alabama, Bob Riley was elected governor. This is a state where 90% of the residents identify themselves as Christian. He could be safely called a conservative since Grover Norquist, a right-wing majordomo gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he never once voted for a tax increase.

When Riley come to power in Alabama, he found that he was administering a tax code that dated back to 1901. As McKibben wrote:

The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits.

Because of this situation, Riley proposed a tax increase. Part of the reason was to get the state out of a fiscal crisis but also to put more money into the state’s school system which was routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was a Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully.

If the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have to pay $1,432. Not much to pay, some would think, only around 0.5%. Well, the bill did not pass. In fact, it was defeated by a factor of two to one. Approximately 68% of the state voted against it, so something like at least 60% of the Christians voted against the increase.

McKibben points out that the opposition was not just led by the state’s wealthiest interests. It was also led by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. The group’s president, John Giles was quoted as saying:

You'll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart. They just don't want it coming out of their pockets.

Yes, this is a Christian speaking here, not just some rich twit. A Christian! And on its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor:

results in punishing success

and that:

when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.

I wonder which part of the Bible Giles can point to therefore supporting that statement. Jeesh! McKibben brings up a point when a rich man came to Jesus and asked what he should do to get into heaven. This is what is written in the Gospels:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, “'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. [Matt. 19:16-22 (NIV)]

Jesus did not say he should invest, spend or let the benefits trickle down. The words here are plain and simple for anyone to understand. You don’t have to be a Biblical scholar to understand these words. And as I pointed out in the last post, Christians are not exempt from taxes.

If those that were trying to stop the tax increase were doing so because the tax increase was outrageous, say 20%, then I could see their point. But from what I can see, Riley was not going crazy and pulling a ridiculous amount from the rich in Alabama.

And to press the point further, McKibben points out that in 1989, the Christian Coalition of America was founded in order to

preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history

yet it proclaimed in 2004 that its top legislative priority would be:

making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts.

The problem isn’t just in the area of taxation. McKibben brings up a furore that came up in the spring of 2005 when a Colorado jury consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. This caused a major debate across the board. Legal experts debated whether the Christian jurors should be using an outside authority in their deliberations while the Christian right saw this as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion.

But the important point here is that the jurors were focused on Leviticus 24, which calls for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Yet they did not take into account Matthew 5 where Jesus specifically says:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matt. 5:38-39 (NIV)]

Thing is, those jurors are just a reflection of the paradox that is in the States. The paradox rests in what I see as a problem in a democratic society: it devolves to a system where the minority with strong voices control the system.

In America, the power of the Christian right has rested largely on the fact that they can boldly claim religious authority. And by their very boldness, convince us that they must know what they are talking about. As McKibben writes:

They're like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell.

What I find interesting is that all of these religious conservatives are rolling in the money. And so are their followers. Be it Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or the megaplex churches, they have money. They are not pastors from an inner city church or small town America. Their flock are not people who are worried about making ends meet. They are affluent Americans who do not want to hear the real message. And these pastors dare not speak the reality of the Gospels because if they did, they would lose their money base.

If you spend the time and read what Jesus had to say, you are struck by what it says. It demands a departure from selfishness. It conflicts with all of our current desires. And as the Gospels starkly show, what Jesus said was extremely unwelcome news for a large majority of people during his time. McKibben becomes quite pointed in his article with:

There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that's not what I'm talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It's hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change.

The sad thing is that, in many ways, the message of Christ has been hijacked by a select few. Even sadder is that the Robertsons and megaplex churches are weakening the smaller churches that actually try to make a difference. They provide the instant gratification people want whilst people like Pastor Billy at VCC try to present what the Gospels really say.

I have heard Pastor Billy say some harsh things about people who say they are Christians but are not. And it makes some of the parishioners uncomfortable. But you aren’t going to hear that from people like Joel Osteen. They don’t want to rock the boat because if they actually presented the radical message of Jesus, parishioners might move to another megaplex church just to hear the platitudes they want to hear. And you will see an example of this in my next post.

The American Christian culture has become completely self-absorbed and legalistic. Be it stem-cell research, abortion, gay rights, whatever, we hear visceral words and warnings. It becomes a conflict between us and them. Yet the words are not Scriptural. They shy away from the challenge the Gospels presents. They are more comfortable with the language of sociology and politics.

McKibben points out the best-selling of all Christian books in recent years is Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life. As he says:

It has all the hallmarks of self-absorption (in one five-page chapter, I counted sixty-five uses of the word “you”), but it also makes a powerful case that we're made for mission. What that mission is never becomes clear, but the thirst for it is real. And there's no great need for Warren to state that purpose anyhow. For Christians, the plain spoken message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount.

McKibben ends his piece wondering about the state of Christianity in America. He ends his piece with:

Admittedly, this is hope against hope; more likely the money changers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our “spiritual” life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-opt the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters—the TV men, the politicians, the Christian “interest groups”—have found a way to make each of us complicit in that travesty, too. They have invited us to subvert the church of Jesus even as we celebrate it. With their help we have made golden calves of ourselves—become a nation of terrified, self-obsessed idols. It works, and it may well keep working for a long time to come. When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same.

Now for a little of my own ruminations here. The reality is that the message in the New Testament is a difficult pill to swallow. Many of his disciples had a hard time with it. As did the people around him. But it is clear. Much of what Jesus presents is not cloaked in mystery and dense words, as some of the Scriptural references I’ve presented.

If America was truly a Christian nation, it would at least try to following the summons coming from the Bible. It would try to “lover thy neighbour”, be it outside America or inside America.
For an outsider like myself, when I look to the States, I am hard pressed to call America a Christian nation. Special interest groups lobby for themselves and no one else. The society is infused with an obsession of self and the dollar and victimology. It seems everyone is out for themselves and trying to get as much as they can.

The government gives lip service to helping people who are in trouble. The right would prefer that private enterprise take charge, which is absurd. The government’s charge is to protect and help all of the people. A business’s charge is to the stockholders and investors. All too often, I don’t see Americans helping out other Americans.

So I find it interesting that Americans are honestly confused when countries have no interest in being like them. And they wonder why places like Iraq and Afghanistan are in such a mess. They wonder why they don’t want an American style system.

Thing is, Americans should look to themselves without their rose-tinted glasses. Their system is riddled with corruption and hypocrisy. Politicians who espouse Christian values vote for pork-barrel items and help out friends. They cover up the misdeeds of their colleagues. They launch smear campaigns to get elected.

If America was really a Christian nation, then ideas like universal health care would not be slammed as it is. People are struggling to get adequate health care. There are people who have to decide between their prescriptions and eating. There are people dying because they can’t get proper treatment.

Yet if you mention things like universal health care or government control of the pharmaceutical companies, these Christians jump up and down with abject horror. Words like “Communist” get thrown about. They quickly point to Canada or the UK and say it doesn’t work.

In many ways, I look at Canada being more of a Christian nation than the US. Yes, we have major problems with our medical care. Yes, it make take a few days for someone to get treatment and there are waiting lists. But if you are in an accident, you don’t end up getting a massive hospital bill when you come out.

And the government here is trying to do things like make sure there is proper and affordable daycare. And, gasp, horrors, it is funded by the government. Canada has a long way to go to follow many of the Christian ideals presented in the Bible, but it seems to be a little more ahead than America.

Americans want to be the light of the world. They believe they have the way. But their Christian message has been hijacked by the affluent and self-obsessed. How are you going to convince an Iraqi your system is better when the conditions in many of the American inner cities rival the conditions in Iraq?

But to make things worse, Americans stumble around the world announcing they are correct and have the answer. There is an arrogance in the tone when you listen to Americans talking to non-Americans. A true Christian is humble.

I’ll use an old story to illuminate this. At the end of World War II, as the Americans were bearing down on Berlin, places like Belgium and Holland were left to people like the Canadians, Brits and Free Poles. The few Americans there were in the back.

As the Canadians liberated each town in the Low Countries, the soldiers would stop for a brief moment. If they could, they would give some of their rations to the people around them, especially candy to the children. And then move on. When the Americans finally arrived, they would be moving about with puffed chest saying if it weren’t for them, the liberation would not have happened.

Whereas most Europeans will admit that the American entrance in the war was decisive, many of the other participants that were in the war from the onset, like the Canadians, did not parade around like preening peacocks.

When you are in places like Belgium and Holland, you will see how the Canadian contribution to the war is celebrated. The Canadians that served in World War II did not expect the outpouring of love and respect after the war when they returned. As many of them have said, they were there to do a job. And it is this humility people remember. It is this that marks one as a Christian.

Yet not all is bleak. Even though this piece is done, the next post will follow up many of the points brought up here. It seems that not all megaplex pastors are the same. Stay tuned.

The Christian Paradox (2)

2006-10-15T07:23:00.000-04:00

Last post I started with the idea of the paradox inherent in America calling itself Christian, as presented by Bill McKibben. Now we get into one of the possible reasons why this is so.

McKibben writes:

Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans—which means most believers—have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed.

As McKibben points out, in fact there are several competing Christian creeds in America. One area where American Christians are obsessed about is figuring out the schedule for the End Times. He gives a good website Rapture Ready for a taste of how some of these believes view the world.

And there are some End-Timers who believe in forcing the issue. They are convinced that can coax Jesus back to Earth if they “Christianize” America and then the world. Before you consider this crazy, McKibben points out that the House Majority Leader at that time, Tom DeLay was in church one day and the pastor was urging his flock to support the administration. He declared:

the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.

Now DeLay rose to speak, not just to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations to pronounce:

Ladies and gentlemen, what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.

Of course, throughout history, there were some Christians announcing that the End Times were near. From the very beginning, the early Christians believed that Jesus was returning in their life time. But as the years went by, the reality of the End Times became cloaked and shrouded.

But comments from Tom DeLay show how a certain Christian creed has become infused in American politics. And there are people like Tim LaHaye with his Left Behind series or for Pat Robertson saying:

The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today

that are trying to infuse it into the American psyche. But as McKibben points out, these apocalyptics are focused on the poetic and dense imagery of the Book of Revelation. The last of all the books of the Bible. McKibben asks:

Imagine trying to build a theory of the Constitution by obsessively reading and rereading the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and you'll get an idea of what an odd approach this is. You might be able to spin elaborate fantasies about presidential succession, but you'd have a hard time working backwards to “We the People.”

McKibben gives an interest example of this going backwards. Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), using the Bible, calculated that the world was created October 23, 4004 BCE and Noah’s ark came to rest on Mount Ararat on May 5, 2348 BCE, which was a Wednesday for him. Whereas this is interesting, it is but a distant distraction from the Gospel message.

Thing is, these apocalyptics are just one aspect of the problem. America has become the breeding ground of a competing creed that are rising from the sprawling megachurches that are growing all across America. Which spill onto TV with half-hour shows that almost seem like infomericals.

The apocalyptics can be dismissed but the output from these megachurches can’t. Their deviation from the main Christian creed is not obvious. In fact, much of was is preached in these massive structures isn’t off the wall, not loony at all.

But what these pastors do is focus relentless on you and your individual needs. As McKibben writes:

Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: “seekers” is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children's) lives but who aren't tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith.

As an example, McKibben points to a New York Times report that visited a booming megaplex church outside Phoenix. The reporter found a drive-through latte stand and they had Krispy Kreme doughnuts at every service. Some of the sermons included:

how to discipline your children,
how to reach your professional goals,
how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt.

The report found that on Sundays, children played with church-distributed XBoxes and many of the flock had signed up for a twice-weekly aerobics class called Firm Believers.

One area where this creed has spread across America is just to look at the list of best-sellers compiled by the Christian Booksellers Association. When McKibben wrote his article, one of the top sellers was Your Best Life Now, by Joel Osteen. What is interesting is McKibben points out that the normally tolerant Publishers Weekly dismissed this book as:

a treatise on how to get God to serve the demands of self-centred individuals.

McKibben gives a few more examples of the best-sellers at that time. There is Beth Moore and her Believing God. She asks the tough questions concerning the fruit of a Christian life like “are we living as fully as we can?”

My favourite because I had heard about this book from my Christian friends is The Five Love Languages by Dr. Gary Chapman. This is a book that helps you figure out if you’re speaking in the same emotional dialect as your significant other.

I agree with McKibben, it is not that these books are bad. We live stressful lives and we need to pay attention to our own needs. We need positive things to help us through the day. And these text most likely have helped people to be better spouses or bosses. We can use all the help we can.

But the focus of this creed is the individual. They are presenting perfectly sensible advice yet they are managing to completely ignore Jesus’ radical and demanded focus on other. Yes it may be true that God helps those who help themselves, be it financially or emotionally, but that is just a subsidiary, secondary truth of Christianity.

As McKibben rightly points out, if one were to eliminate the Scriptural references in most of these best-sellers, ten to one they would have the same message. And whatever references they do pull out are just snippets of the whole message the Bible is trying to present.

And the Christian best-seller list mirrors the best-seller lists in the secular world. There is a fixation on self-improvement, on self-esteem. Bluntly on self! As McKibben writes:

These similarities make it difficult (although not impossible) for the televangelists to posit themselves as embattled figures in a “culture war”— they offer too uncanny a reflection of the dominant culture, a culture of unrelenting self-obsession.

What makes things even worse is these televangelists want their cake and eat it too. As they preach this creed, they want every break they can get from the government. They don’t want to pay sales tax on these books. A Christian theme park in Florida does not have to pay any taxes. A Christian retirement complex in South Dakota wants to be tax-exempt. Yet they want money from the government, from different levels to fund them for things like building their megaplex churches.

Daycare centres run by these different megachurches are exempt from all types of taxes including Social Security. Yet secular daycare centres are not. Now if these church run daycare centres were open to everyone, I don’t see a problem. Yet they are only for the parishioners. And for most of these megaplex churches, they are not that poor as is. Most are middle-class, affluent people.

The worst is how these megaplex churches try to get out of things like municipal taxes. These are taxes which are supposed to go into the infrastructure of the city these churches are in. It funds things like the fire department, water treatment, road repair. But they want all the benefits that the city has without paying for it.

They argue aspects of separation of church & state and some of the laws that exist to make pastors and such tax-exempt. But the Bible tells Christians that they should pay their taxes. When the Pharisees ask if it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus responds:

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's [Matt 22:21 (NIV)]

And Paul, in the Letter to Romans, is even more explicit:

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. [Rom 13:5-7 (NIV)]

And by authorities, Paul means the government. Sort of makes these megaplex churches sound somewhat non-Christian, doesn’t it?

Now back to McKibben after that sidebar. He rightly says that it is not for him to criticize someone else’s religion. America was built on the idea of tolerating someone else’s religious expression. But the point here is to show that if you are going to profess that you are a Christian, then you should be walking like a Christian.

And it seems that neither the government nor the driving voices in America are really following the Christian message and summons.

McKibbin reveals in the article this all came about came about because he is an environmental writer mostly. It was his work with religious environmentalists that made him start to think about the essay I am commenting on.

He mentions that they have been trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandates protecting the world around us. There are complete sections that give sound advice on how to take care of the land around us, such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

McKibben points out countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion is relatively unimportant, who focus on things like carbon emissions, public transit, giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone has health care. As he asks how can that be? and says:

For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways.

It may make people wonder, looking at some of the European successes compared to the American failure that it may be better to abandon religion for secular rationality. But for the foreseeable future, America will be a “Christian” nation. And McKibben then asks:

The question is, what kind of Christian nation?

Above I pointed to a couple of creeds that are dominating America: the apocalyptic End Times creed and the comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment creed. But if one cracks open the New Testament, you find that these messages veil the actual and remarkable message of the Gospels. And that will be the concluding post for this piece, tomorrow.

The Christian Paradox (1)

2006-10-14T09:04:00.000-04:00

The following is going to be a multi-part post because of an article I read recently that has given me some thought and I wanted to address various aspects of that article.

I read an article a little while ago on www.harpers.org. It was titled: “The Christian Paradox”. It is originally from a guy named Bill McKibben who wrote this back in August 2005.

From the onset, he points out some interesting stats about Americans.

Only 40% can name more than four of the Ten Commandments.
50% can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels.
12% believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.

But the scary stat is:

75% believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves”.

As McKibben points out, three out of four Americans believe this über-American idea. A notion that is at the core of the current American politics and culture. The sad fact, this was uttered by Ben Franklin and it not in the Scriptures.

Actually, what those 3 out of 4 American believe is completely counter to the Bible. One of the most radical summons in the Bible is to love thy neighbour as thyself. And that meant everyone, even those you despise.

McKibben writes that asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. Yet there are so many Americans that take pride in that the States is a Christian nation. Many of these Christians go to church to learn lessons. And then these Christians make real decisions based on these lessons.

And more and more, these lessons inform their politics, McKibben points out. He says that one poll found that 11% of the American churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in 2004 which is up from 6% in 2000.

And lest we forget that moment when George W. Bush said that Jesus Christ was his favourite philosopher. And ten to one he was being sincere yet he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of a large group of Americans. Americans who don’t seem to know their own religion.

And here is the paradox that McKibben is pointing out: America is the most professed Christian of the developed nations yet the least Christian in its behaviour. As McKibben states that this paradox:

lluminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.

At the time McKibben wrote the article, America could be seen as one of the most spiritually homogenous rich nations of the world. Overall 85% of Americans called themselves Christians. Even though only 33% of Americans say they try to get to church, 75% say they actually pray to God on a daily basis. The Christian identity is saturated in America.

For me, what is interesting about what McKibben is saying is also reflected here in Canada. What is it to be a Christian? And as he says:

This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins.

With my journeys over the past while, I have been exploring Christianity. I have read through the whole Bible and am rereading it now. All too often I was shocked at what I read with respect to what I am seeing Christians doing around me.

All too often, Christ was very specific about what he had in mind for his followers. In Mark 12, Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment. He answers:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength [Mark 12:30 (NIV)]

Then he goes on the second is:

The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’. There is no commandment greater than these. [Mark 12:31 (NIV)]

And in the days leading up to his crucifixion, he summed up all of this by saying there was a simple way to tell the righteous from the damned. Those who would feed the hungry, slake the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger and visited the prisoner were righteous. But do we see this today?

McKibben brings up a damning point that in 2004, as a share of their economy, American ranked second to last, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Italy was last. He says that Americans provide 15 cents a day in official development aid to poor countries.

But he doesn’t stop there. It isn’t because Americans are giving to private charities for relief work. That funding only adds 6 cents to the total.

Of course, there will be some Americans that will jump on this and say that the focus should be domestic rather than foreign. We need to take care of our own. Yet that is farther from the truth.

McKibben says Americans aren’t too busy taking care of their own. He brings up some points focused on children. This is important because the most important measure of caring is how the children are treated, and the America is failing miserably.

Nearly 18% of American children live in poverty whereas it is only 8% in Sweden. When it comes to aspects like childhood nutrition, infant mortality and access to preschool, they come in nearly last among the rich nations and often by a wide margin.

For McKibben the issue is it is not that it is the American nation that trails badly in these categories but it is the overwhelming Christian American nation that is trailing badly.

The final point on this subject is to show things aren’t getting better. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in 2004 that the number of households that were “food insecure with hunger” had climbed more than 26% between 1999 and 2003.

Within my limited scope of the things, be it here or in the States, there are churches that are out there helping the best they can. The church I occasion (VCC) had a block party just before school started so some kids could get backpack and school supplies. VCC also has a soup kitchen. And the same is for churches around the States.

Yet we have people like Dubya and others profess the Christian aspect of America but the overall the country does not “act” Christian when it comes to charity and loving their neighbour.

The critical point (again) is the idea of “loving your neighbour”. After Jesus say the two commandments, a little while later he adds: “and to love your neighbour as yourself”. Every time this comes up, he refers to neighbour, not friend or family. And specifically he says:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you [Matt 5:44 (NIV)]

Neighbours are not just those you like or love. It is everyone around you. Thing is, this is not an easy commandment to follow for any human being, let alone Americans.

But if you are going to profess to be a nation that follows Christian values, ah shouldn’t you be following these values? More and more, with the polarization of politics in the States, from me on the outside, I am seeing more and more non-Christian values being espoused. But I’ll get into that in the next post.

The last point of this before I close is McKibben rightly points out that as a Christian nation, America tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon.

Despite the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”, America is the most violent rich nation on the planet with a murder rate four to five times that of Canada or Europe. America’s prison population is a factor of six to seven compared to other rich nations.

Then McKibben brings up a point I found a little weak but needs to be addressed. Jesus had strong declarations against divorce. Yet American marriages break up at a rate of just over half. Whereas in the European Union, the average is about 40%. He does bring up the fact that many Europeans marry less frequently so the average can be held down. But he points out, the godless Dutch have a divorce rate of only 37%.

There are tons of other areas that can be pointed to where Americans fail with respect to the messages in the Bible. But why is this so? How can America stand up and define itself as a Christian nation yet fail so badly. I’ll turn to that in the next post.

Love & Marriage

2006-10-12T19:09:00.000-04:00

Something from work yesterday has made me stop and think. One of my colleagues, Sofia (sic) asked me what I thought about marriage. I responded that I don’t believe in it. It is a social construct I want nothing to do with.

Then she asked if I believed in love. I said yes but I stumbled with my point because there was a disconnect between the first question to the second. But by her reaction to my response, a little light bulb clicked.

In my little mindset I do not see the connection between marriage and love yet for many people there is a strong bond. If you love someone, then you get married.

As some of my previous posts show, I do not believe in marriage. It is an artificial construct created by society. Yet it is a tradition so infused in our collective consciousness that many don’t see marriage as I do.

From the early times, most marriages were for things like money, land or prestige. People did not get married because of love. That is a modern slant put onto marriage. Why else would there be things like dowries?

Yet in simplistic terms, for me, marriage is a control mechanism. It is society’s stamp of approval for a couple. Without it, they may be shunned. Definitely garish the disapproval of the people around.

Just look at some of the terms “living in sin” or “shacking up” for people who aren’t married. The society as a whole places derogatory terms to make people feel guilty because they are not married.

And how many people out there have had those like their parents saying: “you can’t marry him”? A stamp of approval is necessary before going the next step.

A more extreme example of this stamp would be interracial marriages. Even though the two people might really be in love, the prejudices of the society would and at times, still, make the life difficult for an interracial couple.

One can only marry the right person, defined by other people. And there have been times I’ve heard parents refusing to come to a wedding because they do not approve of the spouse. Or the priest refusing to perform the marriage. So for me, all marriage is is just a society control mechanism, be it on a macroscopic or microscopic scale.

And the validation does not have to be religious. The government is involved as are businesses. People who live together (until recently) could not get tax breaks or get their partner on their medical plan from work. You have to get that little piece of paper or you get nothing.

I know that if this is not in place, it could lead to abuse. Then roommates could use the tax breaks or get their roommates on their medical plans. That would be a “drain” on the system because people will use any loophole to get something extra. Yet how many people, in a loving relationship, get shut out from the extra goodies you get when you get the stamp of approval.

And things get worse when you hear people start yammering about family values. Children can only grow up properly in a heterosexual setting with one man and one woman who are married. And the main argument is that is a time tested tradition.

Well, that is because of the extra pressure and stress put on by society to a “non-traditional” family. It is much more difficult for a single parent to raise a child than two parents. And all too often it is not because of the lack of love but the lack of resources. And the stigma that seeps into the family environment.

And then you hear groups like Conservative Christians who go on about the only correct coupling is one man and one woman because it is mandated by the Bible. That is only proper family setting.

Yet the Bible is replete with families that were not one man and one woman. Check out the Kings like David and Solomon. They had many wives and concubines yet God did not waggle a disapproving finger at them. Abraham’s first son was from Sarah’s maidservant with his wife’s & God’s approval. Only after did Sarah get pregnant.

Now some will jump in and say that is in the Old Testament. The New Testament is different. Jesus does address marriage yet does not the constituent form. A man will leave his parents to be with his wife. But there is not interdiction about him having a second or third. But for some, it is implied.

And of course, we cannot ignore how massive the industry marriage is. Even the government gets a share for the paper work. But the biggest money goes into the ceremony to celebrate the union of the happy couple.

I won’t get into the cost of putting a wedding together because that would triple the size of this post. But I am stunned to see the prices be it for the dress to the food and catering.

But I want to address for a moment some of the ugliness that a wedding brings out. Things like “you have to invite uncle Harry because he invited you” yet you despise Harry. But to keep peace in the family, Harry will be there.

And it can degenerate to what the parents what, not what the couple want. There was one wedding I went to that the couple were told, by her parents, that if they played secular music at the reception, then they would not attend the reception. Huh? Isn’t this supposed to be a celebration of their union? This is there party, ain’t it? Is it worth the effort for one day?

Yet I don’t see the need for it, per say. If two people love each other, they don’t have to go through all of this stuff to celebrate and validate their union. Now if they want to have a celebration because of it, great, go for it. But this is something that they should plan for themselves.

I know some people might jump in and say I feel this way because I’m gay. Since I can’t get married (until recently), I never entertained the thought of marriage. Well that is not true.
I am going to be 49 next month. I lived a long time and have seen many things. Many of my friends from the 70’s and 80’s got married. And many are not any more.

The sour taste in my mouth with regard to marriage is more because of their break-ups. Marriages that we thought would last, didn’t. There was one couple of good friends, who went through hell when they were dating because of family issues in particular. All of their friends, when they got married, said if they ever break-up, then there is no reason for marriage.

And they were deeply in love. They had to be to get through the hell days of the late 70’s. And they got through it. But over time, as they settled in, things started to change. Over years, tension and stress grew in their relationship, which none of us saw. Which then exploded into a nasty fight leading to a bitter divorce.

Now some marriages have survived the rocky tests of time. I look at my friends Brian and Jude. They have had stormy times but they survived and have two great kids. In some ways, I would attribute their faith helping out a lot.

Yet I have friends who aren’t “married” but are still together. They never saw the need to get married, even in a civil ceremony.

Unlike years ago, marriage is not forever. Which is a good thing, in my view. In the flush of first love, little foibles or problems don’t crop up. But once the couple settles down, they intrude into the marriage. Most abusive relationships don’t start out that way. They evolved. And I believe it is important the abused spouse should be able to get out of the relationship and not have some cleric say they have to stay married because of the vows.

But the flip side is that marriage is not taken seriously by many. When problems arise, it is all too easy to just abandon ship and move on.

A loving relationship is hard work. Troubles will visit the couple. There will be things about the other person that will drive the other crazy. The flames of passion that first consumed them become embers that need tending. And that means work and toil.

Getting married is not a guarantee. Just because you get married does not mean the tough times will not come about. You don’t get a special pass because of a blessing from a cleric.

I suppose my main point of this rambling is that we don’t need to validate a loving relationship. Seeing their love should be validation enough. I look back to Brian’s parents, Johnny and Blanche. You did not need to see their marriage certificate to know they were in a loving relationship. It just exuded from them.

So for the gay people out there who want to get married, fine. Go for it. If you really need that stamp of approval from society or the government, I don’t care. But I believe it is the wrong reason to get married. The validation is between those in the relationship. Anything else is, for me, superfluous.

It’s Been A While

2006-10-10T07:23:00.000-04:00

It has been a while since I’ve been here. The break has been because of multiple factors keeping my focus elsewhere. Excluding dealing with the tax man, leaving me constantly drained of money, I’ve been focused on more creative things.

One of the main things I did this summer was set-up my little writing corner. The problem with my main website, Pyrais’ Corner, is that it has banners, being a free site. I wanted a clean site just to showcase my writing. So until I can afford my own hosting & domain, I am using a little part of the Brutopia website I am maintaining.

And through the site, I can set things up because I have started to work on an idea for a children’s book with a buddy at work. Back in July, when he told me he was starting to work on one for a Canadian publishing company, Lone Pine, an idea came to me here at home.

I have a couple of books on Amerindian folktales. I did a quick search on Amazon, and checked out a couple of books stores and saw that there aren’t many books out there retelling these tales for a younger audience. So I proposed I adapted a few while Leon illustrates it.

Now that Leon has finished his book, he can start this new project. Hopefully, in a little while, I can meet with one of the guys from Lone Pine, pitch the idea and see if they are interested. I’ve adapted four stories as an example and the first drafts are in my little corner.

The second major creative thrust has been role-playing. About 10 years ago, I was a game master for a group. We were playing Dungeons and Dragons. It wound down then and I stopped playing. Well my buddy at work, Jason, suggested I might be interested in getting back in with him for a different role-playing game called Shadowrun. A role-playing game that mixes elements of the Matrix, Bladerunner and Dungeons & Dragons.

I was a little hesitant because it had been 10 years since I role-played and also most of that time, I was the game master. I was in charge, I was the god of the campaign. I hadn’t played a character in a long, long time. But I went for it.

Thing is about role-playing is, to do it right, you need to get into character. As I have told people who don’t know about role-playing, the players are improvisational actors and the gaming master is the script-writer and director. A good player is the developed character, not him/herself.

So I am playing Gideon Kingswell, a lawyer who is trying to make the world a better place. The first couple of games were a bit cranky because I didn’t have a good handle on the character.
But as I always do, I started to create background and details about this character. Doing this allows me and Jason to know more about the character and let’s Jason have fun bringing people my character knows.

And I hit my stride last game. I know I’m getting into the character when my character does things and I just shake my head thinking it was a stupid thing to do. That happened last game, when Gideon tried a gambit with some operatives and I, as Loekie, knew it was risky and potentially dumb. But in Gideon’s mind, it was the obvious choice.

And of course, as I am building up Gideon, it means using the web to collect data and information. So I created a small website for myself and the other players called The Darkness. If you are into role playing, check it out.

Finally, the last creative thrust is getting back into Tangled Threads. During a burst of cleaning in my room, I started to go through oodles of hand-written notes and old notes I had lost on my hard disk a couple of years ago. By re-entering the old stuff, it has allowed me to rethink and play with the beginning of this massive series again. Maybe now I can get the first section to work!

So all in all, I haven’t really blogged this summer but it has been busy. But with the leaves changing colour and different thoughts going through my mind, I’m back for another little while to add more from my little way of looking at the world.

The PC Gestapo Strikes Again (2)

2006-08-08T07:04:00.000-04:00

Yeah, they have been out, full force, the past while over the Mel Gibson tempest in a teapot. I cannot believe the furore that is being generated from his idiotic outburst. And I want to just yell at many people: GET A LIFE!

Mel Gibson is a celebrity. He is an actor and director. That’s it, that's all. But his stupid comments are articles in things like the New York Times. And they include crap on what he should do to “smooth” things over.

Now he had been someone in a position of power, like a senator, governor or member of parliament, then I can see the outcry being justified. You don’t want some helping craft a bill that will affect a population who says one thing and believes another. If I heard one of my MPs making the kind of slurs Mel is accused of saying, then that MP should be taken to task.

But Mel is in film making. He is an entertainer. He does affect proposed legislation or treaties with other countries. He makes films or plays characters. That is his extent of affecting the average person’s life.

Thing is, when The Passion of the Christ came out, I had some heated debates with people about the perceived anti-Semitic aspects of the film. Yes, he is an über-conservative Catholic who believes that all the positive changes of Vatican II is wrong. Yes, his father has uttered many comments questioning the Holocaust and Mel has defended his father. And yes, this would influence the material he was filming in the Passion.

But, hello, the Gospels can be considered anti-Semitic. They don't just show the Jewish officials conspiring to kill Jesus. It is also a crowd of common Jews that shout:

Crucify him! [Matt 27:22, Mark 15:13, Luke 23:21]

John 19 is vague, for it seems only the Jewish priesthood & officials who are involved. And the Gospels do show Pilate in a “good” light. So all of the discussions that arose over Gibson's portrayal of the Jews & Romans in Passion, for me, was ridiculous.

Through historical analysis & documents, Pilate was not the “nice” guy portrayed in the Gospels. But since the Gospels were written years later, some political aspects were glossed over to keep in the good graces of the Romans. And the Church was looking for scapegoats, which were the Jews. Fine, good points. But Gibson was basing his film on a Gospel, not historical documents.

This lead to some heated arguments. There were people that vilified Gibson because he didn't give a balanced view of the culpability of Romans. Well, if he was presenting a 'historical' film, then they are right. But using Matthew, Mark or Luke, you get a slanted view and should film it that way.

But back to the incident a few days ago. Mel fucked up big time. He cannot blame alcohol on his outburst. Yet we don't know what his frame of mind was at that time, what was going through his head before and at the time. Did something piss him off beforehand which came out wrong?

I am not trying to find excuses for him but we are complex people. We are all prejudiced to certain extents. And if anyone says they aren't, they are lying. Especially to themselves. And to us. We are a product of our environment, especially when growing up. The key is to recognize we have our prejudices and try to do something about it.

Yet within this politically correct morass we live in, the minute a celebrity says something that offends some group, a furore starts. Be it an anti-gay, Jewish, Muslim, etc. etc. comment, if a celebrity missteps, a group will go after them. The rhetoric starts to fly. Suggestions abound on how this celebrity can combat their prejudices. Then come the cries to boycott their stuff, demands that they don't get hired and other absurd reactions.

Thing is, these groups put too much stock in the importance of these celebrities. I can see the protest against Mel working on a project about Jews during the Holocaust because he has no anchor or connection to it, whether he is anti-Semitic or not. I would never attempt to write anything about the Jewish experience during the Holocaust or being black in our society, because I am a boring white guy that was brought up as a Catholic. I have no connection to being a Jew or a black man. So I am not going to write a story about something I have no deep connection with, not because of my prejudices, but because I don't have the experiences.

For me, this once again shows the dangers of the PC world. I have been called anti-Semitic because of comments I made against Israel. Over the past twenty years, I have had a lot to say about Israel, not always in a positive light. But in our PC culture, the minute I say something against Israel I am classified as anti-Semitic. Yet my comments are aimed at the politicians and policies of the country, not against Jews.

I have been called a self-loathing homosexual because I rail against different aspects of the gay community. Over the past week, I have seen people I work with gingerly try to express their opinions about the current OutGames here in Montreal. They want to say some critical things about it but dare not to because they might be branded homophobic. Only when I bring up that I don't agree with the OutGames and that they are useless, a waste of money and time, do they feel comfortable to bring up the same points.

The PC culture has seriously eroded the idea of free speech. Personally, I prefer people speaking their mind and out there. Then I know where they are coming from. If Mel is an anti-Semitic, so be it. Then we know where he is coming from. If someone is a homophobe, great. I can deal with that.

But the PC culture wants everyone to be of the same mind-think. So people who are anti-Semitic, homophobic or against blacks, slip into a “closet”. They watch what they say. The end result is you meet people who have a mask on and don't see the real person.

For me, that is the danger of the PC Gestapo. Excluding they are stifling free speech, they push what people are really thinking away from the spotlight. This allows racists, sexists, etc. to hide behind the safe veil of PC and potentially do dangerous things.

That is if they are positions of power. Someone like Mel isn’t. Now if he were thinking about running for governor or president, then what happened is a pertinent point to investigate.

I understand there are many people within the Jewish community that are offended by what is alleged to have happened. As I get offended when I hear homophobic comments. But I don't waste my time actively trying to tar & feather the person. I will react by not going to his films. I will not get involved with anything he may be involved in.

And now there are calls for, if Mel, really wants to reach out to the Jewish community, he should do things like speak during Yom Kippur. Or work in a Holocaust museum. This way, he can atone for what he said. And maybe, as some have said, he will be able to deal with his prejudice.

Part of me wonders if these people are really as naive as they sound. His job is to make you believe he is someone else. Can you really ever be sure that he is really sincere or is it just acting for damage control?

Is Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? I don’t know. Is he homophobic, as some have suggested? I have heard a couple of homophobic comments come from him. Knowing his stance on abortion, and other religiously charged subjects, I won’t be surprised.

Do I care? Not really. If he makes a homophobic comment, then I’ll just sigh and respond that he is an ignorant fool that needs to learn more about life. Will I join protests against him, boycott his films, demand he not be hired? Nope.

Personally, I prefer knowing the real Mel Gibson, not the persona put on for the fans. I think that the booze ripped away the myriad of masks he wears and let us have a glimpse of who he really is. And unlike the PC Gestapo, I prefer to see him as human, foibles and all. After all, he is human from what I gather, not God.

The PC Gestapo Strike Again (1)

2006-08-06T14:19:00.000-04:00

The past week, my anti-PC mode has been in full swing. I have been working on posts ranging from 9/11 to Mel Gibson. Those can wait. Today, being Sunday, I will by politically incorrect with a bit of tongue in cheek.

Over a week ago, I read an article in Reuters about a British woman who had to take down a sign on her garden gate. The sign read:

Our dogs are fed on Jehovah's Witnesses

This woman, Janet Grove, owns a terrier puppy named Rabbit. But police were summoned and ordered her to take down the sign. They were forced to act after receiving a complaint.

Janet insisted the sign was a gentle joke to discourage callers at her front door. Her late husband had put the sign up more than 30 years ago when Jehovah's called at their house on Christmas Day. Yet she had to take it down. A police spokesman is quoted as saying:

We were informed by a member of the public who found the sign to be distressing, offensive and inappropriate. Officers attended the address and the sign was voluntarily taken down.

Thing is, I can understand why the sign was put up in the first place. When I was living in Verdun, there was a time when every second Saturday or so, the door bell would ring around 8 AM and it would be Jehovah's asking if I had found God. It got to the point where one Saturday, I said fuck it. I went down to my door, stark naked and opened it.

There was a young man and his wife with their young daughter, around 5 or 6. Of course, they stared at me in abject horror. Then to really send the word, I said something to the effect "What do you want? I was just going down on my boyfriend." There was a stammered apology and they moved quickly away. And I wasn't bothered for quite a few months after that.

I can understand that it is important for Christians to witness. But coming to someone's place unannounced to push your version of religion, to me, is no different that a telemarketer calling trying to sell you something you don't need. I know, I've been a telemarketer. People do not appreciate being interrupted to hear about something they don't want or need.

I have no problem with Jehovah's who stand around the Metro (our subway system) exits, holding the Watchtower. They don't bother me or push it into my face. If I want to initiate a conversation, it is up to me.

I look at the people who are part of the church I go to occassionally. VCC is active in the Verdun community. On Aug. 26th, they are having a block party where families can get a couple of knapsacks full of supplies for their kids who are going to start school. As it was last year, it will be a big party. The religion aspect is small. Flyers about some of the various church functions like the Alpha course will be handed out. There will be a little prayer but that is it.

The same can be said for Oasis. The people going there know it is being run by VCC. But religion isn't thrust down their throat as they get their supper and little handout bags. If they want prayer or to talk about Christianity, only then is it brought up.

Yet there are some places here in Montreal where it is different. There are some soup kitchens where once the people are settled down, they have a prayer and a little sermon. Once the people are finished eating, the same thing happens with the next group that come in.

Personally, I don't appreciate being forced to hear about the evils in my life and by giving my life to Christ, life will get better. Some of these soup kitchens have a captive audience because there are not too many around Montreal. And the thing is, it doesn't work. When I was living on the street, not one of the people I knew were converted because of the prayer or sermon. The general reaction was "I don't have a choice. I need a meal, so I'll just let them babble."

Groups like VCC look things a little differently. They witness through their deeds and lives. It is the same for my friends like Brian, Jude and Bob. They are examples of what a Christian life can be. They do not annoy anyone in the morning on the weekends, or at night when people are sitting down for dinner. They try to use their lives as examples of what being a Christian can give someone.

But time to get back to the offensive sign. I have no idea who was offended by Ms. Grove's sign. I don't know if it was a Jehovah Witness or some stupid twit who is ingrained with being PC. Thing is, the sign was up for over 30 years. Whoever was offended by the sign should either get a life or a thicker skin.

But this, once again for me, shows the insipid intrusion of the PC Gestapo into people's lives. Because someone complained that they were offended and distressed by the sign, it had to go. So police were dispatched to Ms. Grove's house to have the sign removed. What happened to Janet Grove's expression of free speech?

If the sign was new, I could see the possibility of someone being offended. But the sign was up for over 30 years. Only now someone gets offended? And what is so offensive?

In the Gospels, Jesus tells his disciples that there will be people who will not listen. And what does he say to this?

And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them. [Mark 6:11 NIV]

That is the point of witnessing. Not everyone is going to listen. If they don't, move on. People will jeer, hurl insults and put you down. But if you believe in your cause, then you will continue on. Some will hear what you have to say.

And if you come about a sign which offends you, so what? Move on. Thing is though, our PC culture does not allow people to get thick skin. If something is offensive, it has to be removed. Taken from our sight. But what the PC Gestapo don't get is just because you remove the sign doesn't mean you've removed what was behind the sign.

The removal of Ms. Grove's sign may be salve to the person it offended but it doesn't get rid of the sentiment behind it. And the more the PC Gestapo try to stiffle what people are saying, the more things will go underground. The more things will fester and become a cancer.

That is one reason I am so anti-PC. I want to know what people are thinking and saying. The PC culture makes people couch what they say and do. So they form a mask which is not easy to pierce. It pushes what people honestly believe into a hidden place which only they and a few know. And I don't like that evolving culture.

So this is the first post on the current PC Gestapo tactics as I see it. Over the next week, I will have a few more things to say which will include Mel Gibson and 9/11. Stay tuned.

A Sport Too Far?

2006-08-01T22:19:00.000-04:00

I suppose I should stop reading Reuters because I keep getting fodder for silly posts. Well this one once again allows me to be politically incorrect and rail against some activists.

There is a traditional event in Lyme Regis, Dorset, England called conger cuddling. This event was started in the early 1970's by Richard Fox, a retired publican. Conger cuddling is an event in which a dead conger eel is thrown at members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI). This is part of the town's "Lifeboat Week". The eel is attached to a rope and thrown at nine people standing on flowerpots. There are two teams that involved in a last man standing competition.

This event attracts around 3000 people annually and is used to raise funds for the RNLI.Specifically for the local lifeboat. It has been called the

most fun a person could have with a dead fish

Well, in 2006, the idylic town of Lyme Regis and their annual event became the focus of animal rights activists. They complained to the RNLI and threatened to film the event and start a national compaign. Their main complaint was that conger cuddling is "disrepectful" to the dead fish.

Things is, animal activists in Britain have a reputation for radical action. So Rob Michael, chairman of the Lyme Lifeboat Guild, told Reuters:

The RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) were worried that it might show them up in a bad light.

In this day and age, and with health and safety, you have to be that little bit more careful. But some people are extremely upset.

The mayor of Lyme Regis, Ken Whetlor, told the Daily Telegraph, that the complaint was from a:

gutless troublemaker with nothing better to do than stop people enjoying an innocent event that helps raise money to save lives

He added:

I cannot see how using a dead conger eel landed by a local fisherman is unethical

The above picture and image I have in my mind made me think of the fish slapping dance of Monty Python and the absurd situation this is. I know we are all God's creatures but don't these activists have anything better to do?

I understand going after puppy mills and the disgusting condition in many of the slaughterhouses and farms. But this, for me, has hit a new low.

For me, I am really bothered about the idea the conger cuddling is "disrespectful". First of all, respect is given to another human being. Second, it is, for me, something that has to be earned. An eel cannot earn my respect by just swimming around or being tasty. An eel doesn't volunteer to feed more disadvantaged eels. An eel doesn't investigate viruses and bacteria to find cures of eel diseases. An eel cannot write that great novel which moves other eels.

And they cannot use the point that this is harming the eel. It is already dead before the cuddling starts. The codger eel is not being beaten to death because of the cuddling. It is brought in dead by a local fisherman.

But I can see the dilemna of the RNLI. Some of the activists can go extremes. In the end, it wasn't worth the grief so they are replacing the eel, by 2007, with a plastic eel most likely.

What pisses me off is two fold. First of all, this was a fundraising event. Yeah, it might be a little distasteful to some, but it brought in money for the local lifeboat. It ain't going to be the same with a plastic eel. Conger eels can grow up to 10 feet (3 meters) long and can be around 100 kgs. A hefty piece of meat.

But for me, it is the second point. Our world is going to hell in a handbasket. And it just isn't the mess in the Middle East or other countries. People in our local neighbourhoods need help. Be it food to feed kids or other people to helping people to fight addictions. More and more people are crumbling under the stress of their lives. They could use someone to listen to them, give them a hand. Kids need mentors to help with their studies and dreams.

If these animal activists put half the energy they use to fight their causes into helping their fellow man, we might see some changes in neighbourhoods and communities. Yeah, I've babbled this litany before but these people seem to have more compassion and respect for a dead eel than they do for the people around them.

And they cannot hide behind the banter that the homeless, etc. have their own advocates while animals don't. The more people who help in soup kitchens or are advocates in the seats of power, the more change we can affect.

But these animal rights activists are wrapped in their own rhetoric and dogma. And they are addicted to the power they yield. They are intoxicated by the change they can affect because of the politically correct society we are currently living in.

The problems of latch-key kids or the homeless cannot be solved right away. But stopping a small town in England from "disrespecting" a dead eel gets results immediately. It validates their little sense of worth. Yet it amounts to nothing in the long term. What has this action achieved? Nothing. Except their little egos are stroked.

This bring me back to the word "respect". People like Penny, who runs the Verdun soup kitchen called Oasis on a shoe string budget I respect. People who take time in groups like Big Brothers/Sisters I respect. People who are trying to make the government respond to helping people in need I respect. People who think dead eels are more important I don't.

As I said, respect is earned. Every single one of us can affect change, albeit it on a small scale. But each small change compounded with other small changes can bring about big change. For me, these animal right activists aren't helping us, let alone the planet. If you want the average person to start to respect the animals around them, maybe it is time we instill respecting each other first. If a person cannot respect their fellow human, there is no chance in hell they will respect an animal, let alone a dead eel. But to get this into action requires work. Something I believe most of these activists don't want to do.

Do onto others...

2006-07-26T20:48:00.000-04:00

My last post I talked about taking time for yourself. This post is about doing things for others.

There is that famous adage about do unto others as you have them do unto you. Nice sentiment but not something you see too often these days. People like to complain when people are rude to them, cut them off, etc. etc. and then quote this. Yet they have no problem doing the same things to others.

I see that at work every day. People call in to get LAN lines with me or before cell phones. To get what they want, they start to get pushy, belligerent and just bully. They see on the website that the promotion is $10 for 4 months, a free cordless phone or one free month. They call up and want all three promotions. When I explain it is one or the other, they start to bully. "I want all three promotions". I explain they can't. Then comes a litany of "you can do it, I know" to "then I won't sign up" to "that's not fair".

Now, if they were treated that way, they would be the first to bitch about how they were treated. But they don't care if they do it. It's okay for them to be pushy but people shouldn't be pushy with them.

This selfish, egotistical attitude is pervasive in our society. People only care about themselves and could care less about anyone else. And where it hurts society the most is in the area of helping other people.

Today, I spent a little time, after work, at a place called Oasis. It is place run by the church I go to occasionally to help people in Verdun who are hard on their luck. Wednesday is the main day for providing a supper, a small bag of groceries and connecting.

I started volunteering there last year because I felt compelled to. Not because of obligation or duty but because I wanted to give back. Having lived on the streets for 9 months, I know how it is to be shunned by society. Have people ignore you & treat you like dirt.

It is amazing what one can get when they freely give of themselves with no strings attached. I'll give two examples, both similar. One that happened today and another some months ago.

A few months ago, a young man came into Oasis. He had the deer in headlights look I know so well. I've been there. I could see he hadn't eaten in a few days and didn't know what to do. He walked with a heavy weight on his shoulders.

Sheepishly he came up to the counter and asked if he could have some food. No problem. I filled up a plate and gave it to him. He quickly ate what I gave him. When he was done, he looked about furtively, not knowing what to do. Slowly he got up and came up to me. Even more sheepishly he asked if he could have seconds. We have more than enough so not a problem. A ghost of a smile came to his face as I gave him another plate.

As he was devouring the second plate, it was quiet so I headed out for a cancer stick. I was about half way done when he came out. He saw me smoking and I could tell he wanted one. But he was having a hard time getting the nerve to ask for one. When he finally did, I immediately pulled out my deck and handed him a couple. He thanked me and the smile got a little stronger. And I noticed as he walked away, it seemed as if the weight he had when he came in was a little less.

The same thing happened today. A young guy came in and also was sheepish about asking. And once again, when he left, there was a little less weight on his shoulders.

Thing is, one I treated them like human beings. I was polite and kind to them. I was cheerful and smiled at them. And the positive emotions I was giving out was genuine. They could see it. The small act of kindness I did gave them a little bright spot. And hopefully a little hope.

But it feels great when I see that happening. Today, one of the regulars, Barb needed someone to talk to. So I stood there with my coffee and just listened. The fifteen minutes I spent with her let her vent and blow some steam. And she felt good when she left. All the regulars leave feeling a little better because there were some people there who cared and was willing to give a little of their time and kindness without wanting anything back.

And there are not enough people out there who are doing this. There is one couple who occasionally work at Oasis. But they are doing this out of a sense of Christian duty. And you can sense it. They serve the meals but don't engage the people there in conversation. They don't smile too much. They just do the job and no more.

The people there can sense it. I hadn't been there for a few months, because of being self-absorbed. So today, many of them were surprised to see me and were honestly curious what had happened to me. I was stunned to see that I was missed.

More people should get off their fat asses and go out into their community to help out. And the bullshit about not having the time doesn't cut it. I rushed out of work today to get to Oasis in time. I got home around 8:30. Yeah, I am tired but it is a good tired. In a little way, I made a few peoples lives a little brighter today. And it feels good.

The excuse of not having time is bogus. Be it soup kitchens like Oasis to Big Brothers/Sisters to reading books at daycare centers, it is only a couple of hours in one week. Most people can afford that little time in a week. And it makes no difference if you have a family or have a busy job.

I look at my friends Brian and Jude. They both work and have kids. But they will make time to do things with their church. They give back when they can. It is the same for some of the people who volunteer at Oasis. And the thing is, it doesn't have to be a couple of hours each week. It could be just once a month. I can't think of anyone I know who can't put aside two or three hours one day in a month to help out other people.

I suppose the big problem is the "what is in it for me?" I saw that years ago when I was giving blood before I wasn't allowed to. Until they banned all gay people from giving blood, I gave two to three times a year. A lot of people I knew didn't understand why I did it. But if there was money involved, then they would be there, first in line, to give blood. Something like "this will help someone in need" wasn't a good enough reason.

It is the same for soup kitchens and other places that rely on volunteers. If they put up incentives like money, they would have volunteers coming out of the wahzoo. Or you get the calculating, cold attitude like I saw with one person I worked with a couple of years ago. She did volunteer work because it looked good on her resume. And it allowed her to strut around work, feeling superior. Her callous attitude stunned me but I'm not surprised.

I honestly believe by putting out positive energy, it comes back to you in different ways. A positive action causes a ripple effect. Someone leaving Oasis feeling good about themselves can be passed on to another person they meet later on. And in time, I believe it comes back to me.

And except for a little time, it costs nothing to help out. A simple smile, a cheerful "have a good evening" costs nothing. But gives back to much. Today I lost count of how many people who said "thank you" or "I appreciate what you've done". The hour and a half today gave me more than what a paycheck can give me. What I gave out came back ten fold. And the joy I feel right now cannot be bought or sold. It can only be honestly given.

Try it some time. See how you feel when someone who has less than you smiles and thanks you for being there for them. There is no drug or drink that can replace or reproduce the feeling you get when that happens. Nothing can describe the feeling you get when you honestly help someone else and they turn around & recognize what you have done. Isn't that the whole point of being part of a community?

Honouring The Sabbath

2006-07-23T21:13:00.000-04:00

A little while ago I read an interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times by Henry G. Brinton. He is a pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia. The piece was about honouring the Sabbath and it made me think.

The Fourth of the Ten Commandments says to remember the Sabbath Day. Now, of course, there are people who are not religious who will be quick to dismiss this because there is nothing in the Old Testament that is relevant for today. And there are some that take the Sabbath to the other extreme and won’t even turn on lights on the Sabbath.

But remember the Sabbath, as many other “rules” in the law books of the Old Testament actually make sense and are relevant today. Our lives and society would benefit from some of these ancient “rules”.

As Brinton wrote:

The problem with ignoring the Sabbath is that it hurts us as individuals, families and communities. Wayne Muller, a therapist, minister and best-selling author, is convinced that modern life has become a violent enterprise.

We make war on our bodies by pushing them beyond their limits, war on our children by failing to give them our time, and war on our communities by failing to be kind and generous and connected to our neighbours. To bring an end to this destruction, we have to establish a healthier balance between work and rest.

Whether religious or not, people know that they need to take a day off in order to maintain their sanity and remain efficient and productive at work. But I'm convinced that downtime is not enough.

We need a formal day of rest. A true Sabbath gives us time to refresh and renew ourselves, regain proper perspective and redirect our lives to what is good and true and worthwhile.

Thing is, we live in a society were taking a break or resting is seen as wasting time. It is not considered a positive thing. Our society constantly “rewards” people who are focused on their work seven days a week. Even worse, the technology helps reinforce this. Be it our computer, Blackberries or cellphones, we are more and more connected with our workplace. And it is considered odd and suspicious if we try to have them disconnected from work.

Dennis Olson, professor of Old Testament Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, is quoted as saying:

Modern culture's time values often seem enslaving and oppressive. Work time seems increasingly to expand and rob us of time with family and friends. Computers and the Internet bombard us with a constant flow of data, messages and information.

So we are putting more time “at” the office. People might be working 9 to 5, but when they come home, they bring home work. Or use the Internet. And it doesn’t have to be obvious and active.

A good example in my own life, when I was part of a campaign to sell cellphones, when I was here at home, checking out news reports & articles, if one popped up about cellphones, I would make a special note of it. And then the next day, bring it to the attention of my colleagues. Thing is, I don’t own a cellphone and really care about them. So subliminally, work would sneak in and take some of my down time.

According to Brinton, back in 1910, the average amount of sleep an American had was nine hours a night. Today it is less than seven. The result is that we feel harried and hurried. We feel out of balance and even worse, out of sync.

Be it here or in Europe, until recently, the laws of the land kept businesses closed on Sunday. This forced people to focus on going to church, resting and relaxing. But many people did not like the restrictions so laws started to change allowing businesses to be open on Sunday.

Part of the reason was because, already, we were feeling the demand to work harder. It became increasingly difficult to get everything done on Saturday, balancing shopping, work and family life. So we needed to have things open on Sunday.

I saw this in Germany, when I was working back there in 1994. Groups were trying to have stores open in Sunday and there was quite a controversy about it. But I saw people at the Institute, having to come in on Saturday to do a few things leaving only Sunday to do laundry or shopping.

As Brinton points out, and I wholeheartedly agree, the Sabbath is not a Saturday or Sunday as it has become over the past long while. The Old Testament points out that six days are for work and one day is for rest. It does not specify the day of the week. It could be a Wednesday.

The word Sabbath is related to the Hebrew verb meaning “to cease, stop, interrupt”. This is a day to break away from work patterns. A day to recharge our batteries. Refresh ourselves. This should be a time to do things like hobbies, sports or artistic activities, not sitting in front of the boob tube. Or as theologian Marva Dawn, author of Keeping the Sabbath Wholly: Ceasing, Resting, Embracing, Feasting suggests:

Spend more time with people in a friendly way, with meals (and) extended conversations, but no talk related to work.

Over the past while, I have been starting to try to give myself some down time. Be it, after work, sitting in a park near my place and just reading. Sitting on a bench on a busy street and watching the world go by. Or just going for a walk in part of the city I don’t know.

I am finding that little time I am giving myself is really helping me deal with the stress I am currently under. I am finding my thinking is becoming unstructured. The stress starts to melt away. And potential solutions to what is vexing me pop suddenly into my mind.

And I actually believe that during these short periods I am giving to myself, I am close to God, the Cosmic Muffin or whatever you want to call him. This time allows me to hear what he or she has to tell me without the clutter of the life around me.

I know there are some that will be scratching their head at this point. With all the crap that has happened and is happening, isn’t it naive or grasping at straws believing in the nebulous concept of a God? I don’t think so.

My concept of God is still in flux and everchanging. But I do believe there is something that is greater than us out there. Something that believes in us, even if we don’t believe in ourselves. Something that wants the best for each one of us, even though it means going through a rough time.

For me, be it the Christian, Jewish or Muslim God, those are just facets of what really is God. How can you represent something that is infinite. We can’t help construct an anthropomorphic object to explain the unexplainable.

But I have seen too much not to believe in God or the Cosmic Muffin. And see the basic truths revealed in some of the sacred texts I have started to read. Yet we are too stiff-necked to see it or are not just listening. And for me, that is part of the point of the Sabbath.

It is not just about going to the mosque, synagogue or church. It is setting aside a day where the most important thing is you. This is not work. This is not the lawn that needs mowing. This is not the toilet bowl that needs to be cleaned. This is about you.

Life has a tendency to separate us from what is really important. An artificial construct is formed and presented to us as what we should consider important. But at the expense of what makes us important. The essence of who we are.

The most important person in my life is myself. Yet I do not live alone. I live in a community, be it those I know at work or people I have built relationships with. One cannot underestimate the importance and impact of the communal dimension of rest. It is important for maintaining healthy relationships in our families, extended families and communities.

This can be as simple as going up to someone cottage to having a few people over for a BBQ and videos. Or like I had some years ago with Dungeons & Dragons. It was a time to just chat, share in something and have some good food.

This is a time where you get a chance to talk and share without time pressures or interruptions. Away from the demands of work. Also it can be valuable for decompression, allowing people to bitch for a little while about work.

The reality of it all is that we remember and cherish these times. Far more than the time we toil at work. Be it sitting quietly in a park, watching the world going by or being with a group of friends, that gives us something positive to focus on and remember. As the saying goes, no one on their deathbed says:

I wish I had spent more time at the office.

And the positive energy we get from giving ourselves a break makes us more productive at work. It can make the week go faster and/or more smoothly if we have something positive to look forward to. If you know that on Saturday you are getting together for a BBQ with friends, there is less chance you will focus on the negative happening at work.

We have to get back to the idea that we don’t live to work but work to live. And taking time for yourself reinforces that. That is what the Sabbath is all about.

It reminds us what is really important in our life. It isn’t money or the job we have. It isn’t the PlayStation or Acura. It is first & foremost ourselves and our mental health. And then our friends and family. It is our honest happiness that is important. Taking time for yourself is one big step toward that, not the pay cheque we have become a slave to.

Then again, this is easy enough to say. Now putting it into practice is harder. But I know I am going to try. After all, I am worth it.

Ancient & Modern Weirdness

2006-07-15T16:01:00.000-04:00

Australia is a fascinating place. They have exotic animals not seen anywhere else and do research on dingo urine (check one of my previous posts). Now Australia gets more exotic and fascinating.

Palaeontologists are digging in northern Australia and have found fossil evidence of at least 20 previous unknown creatures. The team from the University of New South Wales are currently digging in the north-west part of the state of Queensland, in the Riversleigh fossil fields. Professor Mike Archer has said that the dig has turned up:

truly extraordinary material

I dare say they are correct. One of the fossil finds they are calling a "killer kangaroo". They estimate that this flesh-eating marsupial is estimated to have lived between 10 to 20 million years ago. And is it suggested that these killer kangaroos would not be like the kangaroos of today.

In an Australian newspaper, Professor Archer is quoted as saying:

There were meat-eating kangaroos with long fangs, and galloping kangaroos with long forearms, which could not hop.

But it doesn't stop there. Palaeontologist Sue Hand, who is also part of the dig, told Australian radion of another find. There is another potentially frightening creature there, as she said:

Very big birds... More like ducks, earned the name demon ducks of doom, some at least may have been carnivorous.

Obviously there are plans to study the fossils in detail, so they can learn more about these species. And in time, they hope to determine what effect the changing of the climate over time in Australia affected their development.

As I read this, an old Bugs Bunny episode came to mind. One of my favorite characters is Marvin the Martian (where's the kaboom, there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom). In one episode he zaps Bugs with a devolution beam, turning him into a Neanderthal bunny. Who is large & threatening and can eat metal.

The image of the two ancient species just sounds so strange. Kangaroos with fangs, Demon ducks. And people thought dinosaurs were scary. Just think of it, kangaroos with fangs and longer forearms. In a herd, galloping toward you. And with demon ducks hover over you. Thing is, if someone wrote this, people would dismiss it as silly. Kangaroos are cute and cuddly. Even if you add fangs to a picture of one, they don't look scary.

Actually, this might be a boon for PETA. They want us to become vegetarians and stop wearing animal skins. Look how the kangaroo evolved. It was once a nasty carnivorous animal, hunting poor innocent smaller animals. But over time, they have become cute, herbivores. The kangaroo could become a mascot for them. If kangaroos can do it, so can we.

Just think of it. The ads can show a cute kangaroo & have a byline like: They evolved, why don't you? This is more soothing than showing gory pictures or throwing red paint on people wearing fur. Pamela Anderson could run around with a stuffed kangaroo. They could merchanize stuffed kangaroos, getting more money.

Maybe this find might start a new trend. Or maybe a scene in a planned Dr. Who novel. The mind boggles.

Ah, to be a computer geek

2006-07-09T11:40:00.000-04:00

For me, programming is like writing. You sit down with a nebulous idea and slowly create something from nothing. The program slowly evolves as you poke and prod at it, trying to shape it into the form you want. And all too often, it goes off in directions you don't expect.

Since late last year, I didn't do any real programming. Like writing, I had lost my drive. But over the past while, it has been coming back, partly because of necessity. And it feels good to be back in the saddle.

Last week, I was groaning about updating the Brutopia website, since it is now a little more complicated being in French and English. As I was putting the info in, double checking the dates, I thought 'fuck, there is an easier way to do this'. And there is.

So I fired up my main C++ platform and wrote a quick and dirty program. Now I have a calendar in front of me so I can click and enter the artist for that day. And with a click of a button, it generates the HTML code which I can put into the main entertainment page of the website. And it generates both the French & English versions, so I am set.

And this brought me back to some old packages I wrote last year. The above screen dump shows a program I was working on to take care of historical information for Tangled Threads. With this package I can work with key historical details and keep track of what happened when. Which makes my life easier because when you are dealing with over 900 years of history, pieces of paper can be confusing and get lost. On top of that, I can keep track of bloodlines, like the following screen dump shows.

Revisiting my old software, I see I have a package to maintain my glossary, organize my calendar so I know the phases of the moon and other goodies to help me handle the massive amount of information I am building for Tangled Threads.

It feels good being back into what I do well. I never was, and never will be a pure programmer. I am a prototyper. Someone to get something done quick and dirty. Anything that needs to be solid and marketable, let a grunt take care of it. That is why I never tried to 'sell' some of my software ideas.

The little nitpicking stuff like debugging, bullet-proofing and test cases bore me to tears. When I develop a program, the jazz I get is from seeing it come from nothing to something and basically does the job. It is the creating I get off on. The fine-tuning and debugging is just boring. Which is one reason I am not still in the computer field.

It is hard to describe, though, the excitment you can get when creating a program. You have a blank slate and start to develop code, organize objects. Bit by bit, the program starts to do what you are expecting. A graph appears, a word is recognized, HTML code is generated. Be one day or four weeks later, you have created something that is doing something you wanted it to do.

But the scary thing is that this is also a Dr. Frankenstein scenario. This, often, is what drives hackers to write viruses, Trojans, etc. There is that unexplainable thrill when you can create something that does what you want. I've been there, but never to the point of writing a virus.

Years ago, I was one of those that cracked into software, finding keys and even modifying code. I tried to figure out passwords just because I could. If I could get past a security feature, I was excited. From the beginning I was an anarchist when it came to computers and a major supporter (still am) of open source. And it was a thrill if I could break through a barrier put up by someone else.

But all too often, be it TV shows or movies, don't show computer geeks like me in the right light. Yeah, when I get into my program, I can spend hours in front of the computer screen debugging and coding. But unlike those out there playing video games, I am creating. I am deriving something new. I am not being passive, I am being active.

For me that is the crux of how computer geeks are presented. We work in a world of symbols many do not understand. We have acronyms which make no sense. All too often, we don't have the best of social skills because a computer is easier to deal with than a human being. A computer, usually, is more predicable than a person. But in the end, we are creating something. Some of us are Dr. Frankensteins, while others are little gods. Bluntly, we can do something that most people can't. In the darkness of our rooms, lit only by the light of our monitors, we are creating.

Be it this blog, the wordprocessor you use, the spreadsheet program for your budget, to the torrent client you use, little geeks like me made it possible. We took an idea and made it concrete. So when you look at a TV show or movie and see a malajusted computer geek, with tape holding his glasses together, weighing in around 250 pounds, think again. We come in all
shapes and sizes and mentalities.

Back in 1995, I was in New Orleans for a computer conference. Thousands of computer people descended on one of my favorite places in the world. You had the stereotypical geeks that never left the hotel. If they weren't at sessions or birds of a feather, they were in front of the banks of computers available to them. All too often to be kicked out at 2:00 AM. Then there were the geeks like me coming in, at 3:00 AM with a to-go cup, drunk heading up to my room. I remember the pub down on Decatur, where I played pool & had Guinness. I had great food and my liver divorced me that trip. And there were others in the between.

But be it the pale fat geek or the drunk thin geek, we all share on thing: creating. So next time you see on your screen a computer nerd, glued to his computer, just think that he is creating something. What may seem passive isn't. And remember one of the best computer geeks is the richest man in the world. Even though he ain't much of a computer geek, in my opinion. But that is another post.

Danger in the Womb

2006-07-04T20:38:00.000-04:00

Okay. Some researchers have too much time & money on their hands. Dingo urine, that makes sense. This doesn't. There is an article on the BBC website with the title:

Womb environment 'makes men gay'

Now, according to a Canadian study, a man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb. Supposedly, previous research has revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay. But the reason for this phenomenon has yet to be discovered.
New research has been published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, trying to discover this phenomenon. The lead researcher, Anthony Bogaert studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either:

“biological” brothers - that is share the same mother
“non-biological” brothers - that is adopted, step or half siblings

Bogaert found a link between the number of older brothers & homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother. And he found the amount of time the guy spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation. So he writes in the journal:

If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not ... These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men

And now to the crux of the article, which had my jaw drop. Bogaert suggests the effect is probably the result of a “maternal memory” in the womb for male births. He suggests a woman's body may see a male fetus as “foreign”, which prompts an immune reaction. This reaction may grow progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created might affect the developing brain of a male fetus.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University state:

These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons. But the question of mechanism remains.

What a complete piece of utter shite! These researchers are getting grant money for this bogus research and publishing it. And even worse, the gay activists jump on this, like Andy Forrest, a spokesman for Stonewall, a gay rights group. He says:

Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice. It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour.

Excluding this piece of shite can't explain lesbians, it does not explain many gay men, including myself. I am the first born. Some gay men I know are not only first born but only children. So there weren't any antibodies in my mother's system when I was conceived.

Also, I feel a thread of misogyny in this study. A male fetus is considered “foreign”. Please, give me a break. But I can see a linkage here that some researchers would use: the Rhesus factor. Something I quite familiar with.

I am O+, my mother is O-. So when I was gestating in her womb, antibodies formed because I was seen as a foreign body. This, in the end, caused any O+ fetuses to be attacked and aborted. My mother lost two children before my sister came about She is O- so the antibodies did nothing. Then there were two more children that were lost because of the Rhesus factor.

So yes, there are physical situations where the mother's system builds antibodies. But antibodies just because the fetus is male? What is it that would cause this reaction? Also, antibodies, from my knowledge, kill the 'foreign' bodies, not affect the bodies. As I just mentioned, my mother lost 4 babies because of the Rhesus factor. So the idea that antibodies ‘changes’ the brain of a fetus sounds just absurd. And, it does not explain a broad spectrum of gay men, let alone gay women.

In some way, I can understand the importance of showing that homosexuality is nature not nurture. For some people, they believe it will mitigate the homophobia out there. For me, that is utter bullcrap.

Homophobia will still exist if it can be proven, without a doubt, being gay is a natural occurrence. We are dealing with an irrational reaction. Prejudice against groups like the Jews or African-Americans are long running and not matter what is said, people still hate them. It isn't going to change with homophobia.

What frustrates me about some of the gay activists is they believe that showing gay is natural and with some education, homophobia will be eliminated. This naive view drives me crazy. There are people out there, doing research, trying to prove black people are inferior because of the size of their cranium. There are people who still hold onto The Protocols of the Elders of Zion even though it has been consistently shown to be a hoax and forgery.

Anti-Semitism has been around for over 2000 years and be it education or discussion, I don't see it changing in the future. It is the same for prejudice against blacks, Muslims, Christians, whatever.

I really like how Elisabeth Young-Bruehl defines prejudice in The Anatomy of Prejudice. She breaks them into three basic categories:

obsessional,
hysterical,
narcissistic.

Obsesssional prejudice, by her definition, sees its objects as omnipresent conspirators or enemies set on one’s destruction. Hysterical prejudice interprets the hated individuals as “other”, as inferior, and as sexually threatening. Those who suffer from narcissistic prejudice cannot tolerate the idea that there exists people who are not like them.

Within these categories, one can see anti-Semitism, racism and sexism. For Young-Bruehl, she argues that homophobia, alone of all prejudices, fits into all of these categories.

Homosexuals are all-purpose “victims”. To many, they are clannish and dangerous, like Jews. They are sexually obsessed and predatory like people of colour. They are like women and therefore are not real men.

Homophobia has take various forms and arise from many sources over the vast time we have been on this planet. Over time, homophobia has been invented, fostered and supported by different agencies of society including religion, government, law and science. It tends to bring out a special venom when people imagine a threat to the security of gender roles, of religious doctrine, or of the state & society. And we shouldn’t forget the sexual safety and health of the individual.

To conclusively show that being gay is in the genes isn’t going to change anything. Being natural is not going to change the argument that it is better that a child be brought up by a man & a woman. Being natural is not going to get rid of the disgust many men have at the thought of gay sex. Being natural is not going to rid of the inherent threat straight guys feel around gay men; believing that the fag beside them is trying to get him into bed.

And education isn’t going to change anything. There are segments of the gay culture that are clannish. There are groups who are sexually obsessed and predatory. There are some that are just like women. And they help reinforce the stereotype and prejudice.

Of course, there are just as many heterosexuals that fit the above categories but they do not fit in the equation. When I bring this up, it is quickly dismissed as irrelevant.

Sorry, if you want to point to the bath-houses, I can point to the places straight people gather to have group-sex and orgies. You cannot point to a gay man who is hitting on a straight man, hoping to get him in the sack without pointing to a straight guy doing the same thing with a woman.

Agreed one of the major stumbling blocks we have is how so many gay people want to define themselves only by the sexuality. This narrow-minded focus hurts any kind of advancement of the average gay man or woman.

Sexuality is an important part of a person, that I do not deny. But the majority of heterosexuals do not see themselves as just heterosexual. There is more to them than just who they fuck. For me, it is the same thing for me.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am gay. And I am white. I was born left-handed but forced to be right-handed. I am a researcher. I am a writer. I get severe migraines. I will be 49 this year. These things define me as much as who I want to sleep with.

Yes, as a gay man, I would like to have conclusive proof that my sexuality was not a choice. I know it wasn’t. Then I can dismiss any argument thrown at me about being unnatural. But it isn’t going to change anyone’s opinion of who am I. I will still be part of a minority that people spit upon, want to curb my rights and prefer I not talk about my dates.

Research should be unbiased and focused on getting to a truth or solution. It should not be clouded by an agenda. Yet any research, pro or con, on homosexuality is tainted with an agenda. And should be viewed that way.

All I can say to Anthony Bogaert is that your research says nothing about me. And for me, what I have read, it is shite. I know that there were no antibodies in my mother’s system that ‘adjusted’ my brain chemistry.

But I do know, she flew to Canada when she was about 6 months pregnant, to emigrate here. Maybe it was something about the cabin pressure in the airplane. Or the change of climate she encountered. Or the stress moving to a new country.

This is making me wonder. Maybe I have the basis of a research project here. Oh, I could get some grant money for this. If Anthony Bogaert can get money to do his research on a dumb idea, why can’t I?

Happy Canada Day, More or Less

2006-07-01T19:03:00.000-04:00

It is July 1st, Canada Day. A day for some to relax and enjoy a nice summer day. But for some, July 1st is a day from hell. It is the day of an annual gruesome ritual called moving. As I just experienced over the past 10 hours, helping a buddy from work out. So I am tired, sore and a little cranky. That's what I am posting twice on one day.

For those who live outside Quebec, you don't know what a horrible day July 1st can be. You see, years ago, the Quebec government, in their infinite wisdom, decided that leases for things like apartment rentals would start on July 1st and end on June 30th. Why, I don't know and I don't have the energy to research this. So if you sign a lease on October 12th, it goes only to June 30th.

So for most people, they move around July 1st. Moving is already a stressful situation. But this imposed time of moving adds so many more issues to the situation.

The first is cost. Because of the demand for trucks, vans, U|Hauls, moving people, etc, the price sky rockets a couple of weeks before July 1st and a couple of weeks after. A U|Haul that would normally cost you $19.95 for a day now is $19.95 for three hours. The price for professional help doubles or triples in price. So what might normally cost you $50-$100 now goes into the $200-$300 range, if you are lucky.

And because of the demand, there is the booking issue. You have to book the van or whatever early to get a time that fits your schedule. Otherwise you have to take what they have left. You might be moving between 8 PM to 11 PM. Which makes planning a complete nightmare.

If you are lucky, you are moving into an empty place. But all too often, you aren't. So you are affected by the schedule of the other people. This happened to my friend Kate. We had the truck from 8 AM to 11. But the people in the place we were moving her to weren't getting a truck until 11.

We were lucky and the weather was decent, so we could put stuff outside in front of the building. As could the other people. So we ended up playing an intricate ballet to get Kate's stuff into her new place. If the weather had been bad, we would not have had a place to put her stuff. There wasn't a garage or enclosed area large enough to hold her stuff.

Then comes the traffic. Since there are many vans, cars, etc. out there moving people, traffic can be hell when you are moving someone. Today, as we navigated different streets, we were weaving back and forth because of truck jutting out from drive ways. Or swerving to avoid a car that pulled out of a parking spot because the driver wasn't watching what he was doing. And mostly like stressed out because of the move he was involved in.

Of course, we can't forget getting help here. Most people I know don't like helping people move. It is as exciting as helping paint an apartment. But if you don't ask early enough, ten to one, your friends have already committed to helping someone else. So you get a situation like Angela, where there were only 4 people to help her out.

And my last point of this rant before relaxing is Angela was lucky. July 1st was part of a weekend. She can relax tomorrow. But when it is during the week, yes we get the day off but we don't get the day before & after off. All too often, people have to take vacation time just to be able to move. What a wonder waste of well earned vacation time.

So if you are visiting Montreal some time around Canada Day, our day for celebrating our country and hear people bitching about having to move, take pity on them. Unlike most people in the rest of the civilized world, they are involved in cruel and unusual punishment imposed by the government. You have no idea what a move is until you are involved with a move here in Quebec.

But enough ranting. To all the Canadians out there, Happy Canada Day! Enjoy the long weekend. And have a beer on me. And to all the Americans out there, all the best for your day coming up. Have a good beer on me.

Ah, Deutchland!

2006-07-01T06:07:00.000-04:00

I have a soft spot for Germany, partly because I worked with Germans here in Montreal and worked there for a little while. So I am rooting for Germany in the World Cup.

So with all the news reports coming from Germany hosting the World Cup, one came up I had to address. This, to me, is a major PR blunder. Which has lead to the logo that starts off this post.

One of the seven US sponsors of the World Cup is Anheuser-Busch. I was surprised to see there were any US sponsors since the US is one of the only countries in the world that doesn’t give a shit about the World Cup.

Anyway, Anheuser-Busch paid $40 million for “pouring rights” at 12 stadiums across Germany. This has, as expected cause some major problems.

To put it simply, Germans hate Budweiser. And I can’t say I don’t blame them. Now weeks before the inaugural games, Germans were furious at the prospect of having to drink Bud at some of the stadiums. Many Germans refer to Bud as “dishwater”. This prompted a website, BudOut - we’re into beer that has the above logo. As the logo shows, it lampoons the American brewer and expresses their disgust.

The first quote from the website include:

Human dignity is inviolable

which is quoted from the German constitution. The site goes on to call Bud:

an insult to all true beer lovers

and

insult to your tongue

Ah but things get worse over the Germany. FIFA (the Federation Internationale de Football), soccer’s governing body did little to improve Bud’s standing. During the first round Holland-Ivory Coast, thousands of Dutch fans had to watch in their underwear. Now why was this, some may ask?

Well close to a quarter million Dutch fans purchased orange coloured shorts to support their team. And they carry the logo of Bavaria, which is a Dutch beer. To protect Budweiser’s rights, FIFA forced the Dutch supporters to remove their shorts.

In The Guardian, a Dutch fan, Sjoerd Schreurs was quoted as saying:

It's ridiculous. I took my trousers off. I managed to chuck them over the fence to some friends. But another official spotted them and took them away.

The World Cup is a marketer’s wet dream, in most countries, except the US. In 2002, more than a billion people watched the World Cup final between Brazil and Germany. FIFA says that 32 million cumulative viewers will watch this year’s month long tournament. And they estimate that each match will draw in 350 million viewers. To put this into perspective, the 2006 Super Bowl had 95 million viewers worldwide.

These titanic numbers in international audience are the reason companies will spend $1 billion in advertising before the end of the World Cup. Anheuser-Busch expects to spend $70 million in advertising and marketing. This is more than it spent on the Super Bowl and Olympics.

So, as Tony Ponturo, VP for global media and sports marketing at Anheuser-Busch points out:

For us it's the No. 1 beer consumer event in the world

He also points out that they have been a World Cup sponsor since 1986 and it markets heavily at the event. It makes no difference if it is in France, Korea or Germany.

But, true to character, the Americans come in like a bull in a china shop and are surprised at any kind of reaction, especially negative reactions.

We are talking about Germany. A place where, in 1516, the Beer Purity Law was established. This limits beer ingredients to yeast, water, barley and hops.

Over time, some adjustments were made to allow other ingredients for speciality beer, like wheat and rice. This was the loophole that Anheuser-Busch tried to use in the late 80’s to get their ‘beer’ to be imported. You see rice is a key ingredient in Bud. And that explains alot.

There were various legal challenges that kept Bud from the German market until 1996. But Bud can only be sold as “Anheuser-Busch Bud” so it will not be confused with the popular Czech beer: Budweiser Budvar.

One way Anheuser-Busch thought about appeasing the German drinkers was that they made a deal that the German-made Bitburger beer could be sold in the stadiums, albeit in unmarked cups. Ponturo pointed out that Bud was outselling Bitburger at a 70 to 40 percent rate.

Which doesn’t surprise me because Bitburger, in my opinion, isn’t much better than Bud. It is one of the mass produced German beers, exported to places like here in Canada.

What surprised me was that Ponturo actually pointed to the extremely competitive beer market in Germany where you will have over 1200 breweries. And Bud represents less than 1% of the market share. He is quoted saying:

It's difficult for even German beers to grow in certain areas of Germany because there are so many local beers. There are so many options, and they take pride in that.

Now he is right. What impressed me when I was working in Germany was the different beers, local and national, that were available. Be it bock, wheat, lager, whatever, you had quite a choice. When I started working there, I was in heaven trying different local Bavarian beers. And it seemed, each small town had it’s own small brewery.

But some of them were pure utter crap. I quickly found out that many of the mass-produced beers were not much better our mass-produced Canadian beers. But generally better than mass-produced American beers.

Thing is, Americans have some amazing beer. Be it Samuel Adams, Sierre Nevada, Pete’s to name a few, I have had great American beers. And found amazing brewpubs. But the giants like Anheuser-Busch, Coors or Miller pump out their piss at a cheap price so the average person generally buys their crap instead of the good stuff.

But what is happening in Germany with Bud just shows the arrogant attitude many of these businesses have toward their customers. And it isn’t just American companies.

A few years ago, I was part of the St. Patrick’s Parade here in Montreal. And one of the primary sponsors was Molson, a Canadian beer maker. I was wearing a Cat in the Hat style Guinness hat. Which I was not allowed to wear because it would cause problems with the sponsor. My take was: Huh? This is an Irish parade. What is more Irish than Guinness. But that is not how the sponsors see it. The cameras would pick it up. The parade was sponsored by Molson so only Molson ‘ads’ could be shown. So I could not down Ste. Catherine showing the word Guinness.

Which was stupid because along Ste. Catherine, there were tons of people on the sidewalk wearing the same hat which got on camera. At least Molson didn’t go into the crowd, like FIFA with the Dutch fans, to get the revellers at the parade to remove their hats.

For me, it is an arrogance that permeates the corporate mindset. They see people as stupid sheep that get confused if they see more than one brand of the same thing advertised. If someone saw Budweiser being shown along side with Bitburger, they might have a melt down. They might not know what to buy!

Instead of believing in their quality of their brands, they hope that minimizing the competition, people will not go out and try other things. This might work in your own country where you have a large market share but it doesn’t work internationally.

Beers like Heinken or Corona use a mystique to hook new customers here in North America. But people keep buying them because they are good beers. Bud sells because it is cheap way to get a buzz. It isn’t good.

American wines are doing well internationally. If beer like Samuel Adams were to show up here in Montreal, I would pick it up. In the end, Anheuser-Busch should have been a little more considerate about how they pushed their beer.

At the same time, we can’t blame all of this on Anheuser-Busch. FIFA dropped the ball also. They pandered to a sponsor, leaving an interesting image for many football fans after the Holland-Ivory Coast game.

Their action, to me, shows that the sponsor is more important than the fans. Money is more important than the World Cup itself. It shows that they, like all the other organizing committees are seeing these events not as a celebration of excellence but an orgy of greed.

I know it costs money to put these events on. But they make money on the ticket prices. They make money on the television rights. The World Cup brings in thousands upon thousands of fans, as I saw when I was in Italy in 1990.

The World Cup has been around for a while. FIFA should know how to run the tournament without the strings attached when it comes to sponsors. It is not like the Olympics where new venues have to be built and new infra-structures need to be created.

Each German city has a football stadium. From what I can see, nothing new was required to be built. So what are all the expenses needed for? I suppose that is the unanswered question that is at the root of this post.

More and more of these events are just giant billboards for products and the reason for them are being lost. Be it the World Cup or the Olympics, we should be celebrating the sport and the athletes. But they are just becoming a big business themselves.

But I am not hardened by this turn of events. Be it the St. Patrick’s Parade here or the World Cup, the people who participate are the heart of it. And if we have to sit in our underwear, we’ll let the sponsors and organizers know who is important here. Now if only they would stop and listen.

Golden Showers

2006-06-30T09:36:00.000-04:00

An interesting research tidbit from down-under. Australian researchers say they have discovered a new repellent to help them with problems with kangaroos. And it is all natural.

Down in Australia, they are rehabilitating old mine sites to reduce the amount of roadkill. What they are doing is trying to reestablish plant life on the old mine sites. The problem is that kangaroos are chewing on the new-growth vegetation. So researchers are looking for a good repellent. And they think they have found it: dingo urine.

Researchers at Curtin University have been surprised by the effectiveness of dingo urine to scare off kangaroos. They were looking at the effectiveness of chemicals found in urine of dingoes and non-native predators like coyotes.

Michael Parsons, one of the researchers, said:

When we presented tame kangaroos with coyote urine, they became interested in the new smell, but when presented with the dingo urine they were startled and fled.

And supposedly, the effect of urine on wild kangaroos was even more dramatic. The problem now for Parsons and his team to a way of delivering the repellent effectively and how much would be needed. And hopefully this will reduce the number of accidents with kangaroos & vehicles in the outback.

The goal is to try to isolate and synthesize the active chemicals in dingo urine. This would allow them to synthesize the active chemicals so it could become a commercially viable product.

He said the university was also trying to isolate and synthesize the active chemicals in dingo urine so that it could be made in quantities large enough to be commercially viable.

Of course there is the question about how the dingo urine is collected. Parsons said that they are receiving their supplies of the real thing from the Dingo Conservation Society. Yet how it is gathered is a tightly held secret. But Parsons is quoted saying:

At one stage we fashioned a little urine catcher to walk dingoes and collect it from, but that tended to be risky.

Okay, I could get really snarky here but I'll wait. Personally, I am glad to see researchers trying to find a natural way to take care of the problem. For all too long, we have relied on man-made toxins which are destroying the earth and harming the people who live on it.

Nature has many solutions which are ignored. The main reason, I believe, is patents. You can't patent dingo urine but you can patent a chain of chemicals that does not naturally occur. I see the same situation in remedies for diseases that are based on naturally occurring plants. Companies can't have a stranglehold on a solution if it is naturally available. And make zillions of dollars.

Thing is, since these chemicals are man-made, we are poisoning our planet and ourselves. We have no idea what the long terms effects these chemicals will have. And all too often for no good reason.

People are spraying crap around so bugs and mold don't kill their plants. Or keep it green. Or produce a bigger result. Natural pesticides are not as effective as chemical but so what if some of the leaves are munched on or instead of 30 tomatoes, you only get 25.

So I am glad to see research like this one but it also makes me laugh. Some of the images that came to mind were somewhat crazy. The weirdest one has to do with the dingoes. I could see dingoes, running around in the wild, with little pails around their waists. And every so often someone would go out and collect these pails.

Of course, we could have little dingo waystations and train them to take a whiz there instead of anywhere. It could be as simple as a concrete floor that has a hole in it, with a slight bowl around the hole. That way they can pee anywhere and the urine will still go into the hole.

So not only can we make money on dingo urine, money can be made with these waystations. But the key thing is to make sure only dingoes use it. I know this is segregation but we can't have koala urine mix in with the dingo urine. Separating other species urine might make the process cost prohibitive. So we need to find a natural scent that would repell all but dingoes. But it is a small price pay for the advancement of creating a natural kangaroo repellent. I would buy it.

The Evolving Concept of Friendship

2006-06-26T18:04:00.000-04:00

Professor Lynn Smith-Lovin, from Duke University, is the lead author on an interesting study to be published in the American Sociological Review. The study finds that Americans are more socially isolated than they were 20 years ago.

The study reports that nearly a quarter of the people surveyed said they had "zero" close friends with whom to discuss personal matters. More than 50% named two or fewer confidants. And more often than not, they were immediate family members.

Smith-Lovin's group used data from a national survey of 1,500 American adults that has been going on since 1972. An interesting stat is that there was a surprising drop in the number of close friends since 1985. At that time, Americans commonly said they had three close friends whom they had known for a long time. And saw often & with whom they shared a number of interests. At that time, the majority were as likely to name four or five friends and often, those relationships came from their neighbourhoods or communities.

Smith-Lovin comments:

This is a big social change, and it indicates something that's not good for our society

She also points out that

Ties to a close network of friends create a social safety net that is good for society, and for the individual. Research has linked social support and civic participation to a longer life

The people surveyed were not asked why they had fewer intimate ties. For Smith-Lovin, Americans are working more, marrying later, having fewer kids and commuting longer distances.

Personally, I see these points as just a superificial set of reasons. You have to dig a little deeper. Over the past 20 to 30 years, we have gone through some major paradigm shifts in society. One of the key points has to do with jobs.

Until the late 80's into the 90's, people generally were guareenteed a job. If you went to work for GM, IBM or Boeing, ten to one you would retire from the company. You would settle down, all too often in the city you grew up in. Often your childhood friends would also stay in the same area, possibly working in the same company.

We had a nuclear family. And an extended family. Some members might move elsewhere but the majority of the people you grew up with stayed around you. That paradigm started to shift in the 80's.

Another social paradigm would be the 'me' culture. From the ashes of the 60's, came a narcissistic attitude. Free sex became fucking anyone and everything. Money was not for sharing but for gathering. Society started to value the self, not the people.

People were not gauged on who they were but what they were. I saw that happening in the 80's. I had good friends who, when they finished university, started to get caught up in the rat race. And I am talking of friends that I had for years. The job became more important. The marriage became more important. The toys became more important.

Couple with that how job stablility became job instablity. I can remember a friend, Mario who I had known since 1976. When he lost his job in the late 80's, he was stunned. This should not have happened. And this instability started to seep into his life. And it affected it. And when his marriage fell apart in the early 90's, a good friend of over 10 years was gone.

I've seen too many friends have to leave because of getting a job. My friend Mike is talking about moving to Vancouver. Another friend had to move back to Kazakhstan because things weren't working out here. Another moved to South Korea, to teach. Or to Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, New York City. The list goes on.

The same thing happens with a family. Brothers & sisters have to move away. Aunts & uncles find better opportunities. The concept of a nuclear family is become extinct. And this affects the circle of friends one could have.

I look at my friend, Brian or his mother Blanche. Many of their friends are extensions from their family. Some friends of Brian's brother or sister are friends of Brian and Blanche. And some became my friends.

And there other factors like just going in different directions in life. Priorities change. People get married and have kids. You get involved with a person your friends don't like. You get into raving and drugs. You find religion. Things get in the way of a friendship.

And it also evolves. I look at the friendships I have. I've known Brian since 1979. But there were a few years where our paths did not cross. My life was going in a completely different direction than his. But we reconnected and a new friendship has grown.

I look at my roommate Errol. I've known him since 1982. Our friendship has had its peaks and valleys. Right now, we are just roommates. Our friendship has cooled off but who knows what will happen in 6 months?

But it is sad to read that so many people do not have friends anymore. This social isolation means that be it in their personal life, during personal emergencies or even national disasters, people are finding they have fewer resources available to them as they did before. It could be as simple as a call for advice to asking for assistance.

As Smith-Lovin rightly points out:

It's one thing to know someone and exchange e-mails with them. It's another thing to say, 'Will you give me a ride out of town with all of my possessions and pets? And can I stay with you for a couple or three months?'

I should know. I was lucky when I completely self-destructed and ended up on the streets. During those 9 months, friends like Brian or Jeanette did the best they could to help. But they used the tough-love aspect of friendship. If I wasn't trying to help myself, they would not try to help me. But they were there.

I wish I could end this post with a solution but I can't. We live in a society that seems to be forcing people more and more into isolation. Be it cellphones or email or IM, people are not getting the personal connection you need to be a friend. People are becoming objects in our society, not people.

Also, being a friend does require work. It is easier to have buddies and acquaintances. When someone you know gets into trouble, you can sympathize and offer dollops of advice. And then move on. A friend will be in the trenches with you, doing the best to their ability to help out. They are there through thick and thin. A friend isn't there just when the times are good.

I am lucky to say I am not part of the stats from Lynn Smith-Lovin's study. All my friends, 2 close and 4 good, are not family members. And I thank God or the Cosmic Muffin I am that lucky. It is too bad I don't know of any solutions. Then I could write a book, sell videos and be on shows like Oprah or Dr. Phil.

But if you have a friend or two, just remember how precious they are. They may not be forever but they are there right now. Cherish them.

Is It Done Yet?

2006-06-25T20:32:00.000-04:00

Today was one of those days I can relate with J.R.R. Tolkien. I rearranged my room to take advantage of the air flow and do a 'spring' cleaning. It also afforded me a chance to attack the very growing pile of research notes I have for Tangled Threads.

In some of my previous posts, I have mentioned this ever-growing, neverending project I started back in 1996. It had started innocently as 10 pages of prose I saw as a potential short story. I brought the pages and a growing timeline of my world to work on when I went on a three week vacation in Ireland. When I came back, I had 70 pages of prose. I tapped into something but I didn't know what.

To be blunt, it was quite scary. Up to this point in my writing career, I had just written short stories. Back in the 80s, I started on a story, My Dearest, which grew out of control. After about 60 typewritten pages, I put it aside. I wasn't ready to tackle a novel. The same feeling surfaced in September 1996 with all that I had written for Bitter Drops, as it was called then.

One thing many people do not realize how difficult it is to write good science fiction or fantasy. When writing fiction, the reader already has the requisite anchors, land & time marks. If in my story, I write about the day JFK was killed, even if you are 18, you have a vague idea what I am talking about. But if I write about the day Gwefldn died, all there is a huh?

It becomes more complex because in a sci-fi or fantasy realm, aspects like social mores, laws, religion, etc. need to be 'invented'. A good example is Dune. Frank Herbert developed a desert planet and needed to conceive the ecology of the planet and the social mores of the native Fremen. It is the same for Lord of the Rings. Tolkien had to create a time and 'world' that was consistent. A place that felt real yet different.

A sci-fi or fantasy writer has the advantage the reader is willing to put up with more 'explanations' than an average fiction reader. To get the know the new world, some history has to be given. Some explanation on things like magic is necessary. But the writer has to walk a fine line not to make things dry and boring.

So to create a classic like Dune or Lord of the Rings, it takes time and hard work. People do not realize how long it can take. Tolkien started the mythology of Middle Earth that was eventually published as The Silmarillion in 1917. In 1937, after the publication of The Hobbit, he started on a sequel which evolved into Lord of the Rings. By spring 1953, he completed the final revision of The Fellowship of the Ring. It took him sixteen years to get his opus completed.

I have read the original drafts of the first chapters of the Fellowship. Save the names of the hobbits are different, there is no Strider. Their guide is a hobbit named Trotter who wears wooden shoes. Be it notes or comments to people around him, Tolkien always claimed he had no idea who this character was or what his purpose was in the story. Yet in time, Trotter evolved into Strider and a critical part of Lord of the Rings was set.

For most people who have read Lord of the Rings, they don't see the work that went into produce this classic. I find myself on the same journey. As Tolkien wrote his opus, he had people around like C. S. Lewis who saw the epic evolve. And most likely asked the same question I get every so often: "Is it finished yet?"

Unlike Tolkien, I see more stories and novels for the world I am creating. Tolkien's main interest was always The Silmarillion. And writing a good long story. With Tangled Threads, there is the Elegy Series, The Nordst Quest plus some ancillary stories on the backburner. This puts me a different position than Tolkien.

In some ways, I am embarking on the same task Robert Jordan has done with his World of Time series. The big difference is things are not going to burificate with my series. But like Jordan, I need a consistent framework with things like religions, philosphical schools of thought, laws, constitutions, social details like birth & death rites.

Some people have said I am going overboard. But when writing fiction, if I have a Jewish character, things like bar mitzvahs do not have to be explained. An Irish wake is well known. But an elvish wake, or caoine is not known because I am creating it. But when it comes into the story, I had better have a good understanding of it so the reader will also quickly understand the ritual.

Yet all the research I have done into ancient Celtic and Amerindian rites, folklore, etc. etc. hasn't helped me with brick walls and cul de sacs I have gone down the past ten years. When the first two volumes were finished in 2001, I could sense there was a problem with the story. It didn't have a good hook. It didn't have a sense of danger or threat that you need in fantasy. And, no, not some evil dark lord out to destroy civilization as we know it!

And there were a couple of characters like Brân or Máth who were not revealing to me who they were and why they were there. And for some reason, one character Dalldav kept haunting me. It wouldn't be until January 2002, when I was living on the streets of Montreal, things started to click. I saw the threat, dark and evil, and I had my hook.

The next draft of the first two volumes were written and I was much happier. But during the summer of 2005, as I reread the pieces and listened to peoples' reviews, I could see it was still not working. The style I was using wasn't working. Some of the main characters were starting to sound the same. I had not captured their voices.

So the last half of 2005 was experimenting with ideas on how to play with the style to let each character's voice come out. And now I feel I have found it. Which has meant a massive re-edit which I am currently doing.

What is the point of this babbling? Well, when you pick up a book like Lord of the Rings or the Wheel of Time series and marvel what you are reading, don't forget what you are holding took years to create. Many ideas were thought up and discarded. Whole sequences were written to be thrown out. Characters evolve. Things change as brick walls come up and need to be torn down. You have the finished product. Yet the writers of these books had to deal with the constant question: "Is it done yet?"

I Feel Safer Now

2006-06-23T06:52:00.000-04:00

I feel so much safer now. In the States, The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a suit, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Yum Brand Inc. They are doing so because they own KFC. And they say some of KFC meals are “startlingly” high in artery-clogging trans fat. And this is because of the partially hydrogenated oils used for frying their chicken.

The suit seeks to force KFC to stop cooking with trans far or prominently warn customers about the health hazard. CSPI's Executive Director, Michael Jacobson points out that it is harder to avoid trans fat at KFC than at other fast food joints. He says:

Trans fat is almost everywhere on this menu. By frying in such a dangerous oil, KFC is making its unsuspecting consumers' arteries Extra Crispy.

The group, in their legal complaint says KFC

does not properly warn, disclose or even tell consumers that they are eating food items prepared with the worst oil available

According to CSPI, a typical three-piece combo meal with an Extra Crispy chicken drumstick, two Extra Crispy thighs, potato wedges and a biscuit contains around 15 grams of trans fat.

Thing is, health experts suggest we should minimize trans fat consumption as much as possible. Research shows it raises the bad cholesterol (LDL) while lowering the good cholesterol (HDL).

Well duh! You mean KFC isn't healthy? You mean that fried chicken might not be good for you? Where did these yahoos come from? Even worse, who are they to go to court to force KFC to either stop using trans fat or posting up a warning sign?

First of all, experts suggest we minimize trans fat consumption. Key word: suggest. Every week, these experts suggest something new. One week coffee is bad for you, then the next week it is good for you. Research suggests it affects cholesterol. Then again, I bet there is research that refutes this.

Second of all, hello we are dealing with fast food. We are not talking about healthy food. We have known how unhealthy things like Big Macs or Whoppers are, let alone the fries. And some of the fast food joints are starting to change their menu or how they cook their offerings.

A week or so, Wendy's said it would significantly cut trans fat from its menu. They are switching to a new blend of corn and soy oil for the french fries and breaded chickens items. McDonald's vowed in 2002 to remove trans fat from their fries in the States but have yet to do so.

What bugs me about this situation is that the CSPI is going to court about this. I have no problem with the CSPI trying to educate people through PSAs, press conferences, etc. etc. But to go to court is ridiculous. It is a waste of court time. And who died and elected the CSPI as the protector of the general public?

Groups like this really bug me. They take it upon themselves to save people from themselves. But they treat them like children. They don't want to try to educate the average consumer of KFC or other fast food joints. That would take time and energy. And it isn't too flashy. Going to court gets air play. Gets you on the news. And to me is completely arrogant.

The effects of things like fast food is a serious issue. Forcing KFC to change the oil or to place a warning sign only addresses part of the problem. They need to go to the root of the problem, why is it the average American or Canadian eats so much junk food?

Instead of clogging the arteries of the judicial system, they should focus on educating people. Yet that isn't easy. Also, we are running with suggestions here, not solid facts. It is quite possible, next week there will be a study that says something different.

We need watchdogs to keep us alert. But the minute the watchdogs start to take action upon themselves, I get worried. These are rabid people who are zealots and will do things come hell or high water. I don’t want people like that to stand up for me.

And of the people that eat fast food may not be rocket scientists. They may not understand PSAs or news reports that warn them of the suggested dangers of trans fat. And ten to one, they really don’t care. They like their fried chicken the way KFC makes them.

Yum, like McDonalds and Wendy’s are not stupid organizations. Look at the new, healthy items they are putting on their menus. Yum is not some evil entity that purposely uses trans fat to kill Americans. Yet they know that a different style of oil will change the flavour and texture of their fried chicken. Their trademark. This is not something that can be changed over night.

Then they could, as the CSPI is asking, put up signs to warn people about the danger of trans fat. As if that is going to help! Here in Canada, we have had major warning labels on our cigarette packs. It hasn’t stopped people from smoking. I know every time I light up a fag, the dangers I am putting myself in. A warning isn’t going stop me.

I don’t see a large warning sign telling people they are about to embark in an artery clogging experience when they order their Extra Crispy will make them decide to order a healthy salad instead. But we have to be careful because next week the experts might find something dangerous about lettuce or tomatoes.

It seems every second day the news reports tell us of a new danger. We are told of the danger of being in the sun unprotected and now a report has come out that we need some sun to stay healthy so a little time in the sun unprotected is important.

These experts and groups like CSPI aren’t addressing the real issue in front of them: excess. The trans fat in KFC chicken isn’t dangerous when taken in moderation. Same thing for sunlight. Or beer. Or coffee.

Yet we live in a society where people do not eat a healthy diet. Or drink properly. I do my best to have a balanced diet. Last night, I had a simple supper of a good salad and some pasta in a simple tomato sauce. Tonight, I most likely will have some salmon patties with asparagus.

People need to learn how to eat properly and responsibly. Going to court does not address the problem. To address the problem would require money and work. And time. People like their comfort food. And many are just lazy. It is easier to hit McDonalds or KFC for supper than go home and cook something healthy.

Fast food and its ‘dangers’ is a complex issue. Going to court does nothing save waste time and money. The courts are clogged with frivolous and useless cases like this one from CSPI. So important cases that need to be addressed are delayed or ignored. But that is not important.
Groups like CSPI say they do this because the average person does not have a voice in the system. They cannot stop big companies like KFC from using their deadly trans fat concoction. That is crap and pure arrogance. Average people like me have a bigger voice than CSPI in court. It is called money.

If they really wanted to affect change and not grand-stand, all they would have to do is start a boycott of KFC. Then you would see how fast they changed their oil. But that would take work. Can’t have that, can we?

The Prisoner

2006-06-18T09:06:00.000-04:00

There is a rumour going around on the net that Christopher Eccelston is slated to play the lead role of a new version of The Prisoner.

For me, The Prisoner is one of the seminal television shows that is timeless. Originally aired in 1967, The Prisoner is one of the most unusual and challenging series ever filmed for TV. I believe there has never been anything like it before.

This is a show that has action and adventure, but of a highly unconventional type for TV in the 60s and even now. What also makes the show unique is that some of Britain’s most talented and attractive actresses were on the show but not for the standard romantic role. And it had only one leading character, while only one other running role was of a diminutive butler who never spoke.

The show was originated by Patrick McGoohan himself. He deliberately set out to create a very different image from the one he had in his successful show Danger Man or Secret Agent.

The premise is simple. The opening episode, The Arrival sets the scene. It starts with a character played by Patrick McGoohan resigning from a highly confidential job. The scene shows, without dialogue, an angry man who is determined. When he leaves, he looks relieved, happy with his decision.

Yet as he drives away, a black hearse starts to follow him. As McGoohan parks in front of his place, the hearse parks behind him. And a man dressed in black, looking like an undertaker, follows him.

The character, in his home, starts to pack his stuff. He is placing what look like holiday brochures into a bag when a jet of vapour hisses through the keyhole and he loses consciousness. When he awakes, he is still in his own house. But when he looks out the window, he does not see the skyline of London, but a new world. The Village. Almost subsequent episodes of The Prisoner starts the same way.

The character rushes out of his place, confused. He finds himself in the Village, a gorgeous resort set on the edge of the sea, surrounded by mountains. The Village seems to be cut off from the rest of the world. As the character goes around the Village, he find the people living there represent no particular nationality but every nationality. It is very cosmopolitan. And every one seems to be resigned at being there.

The Village is complete in every way. It has its own shops, cafes, newspaper, recreation centre, you name it, they have it. They even have their own cemetery. The Village is so self-contained, the initial reaction is that the character has found a haven, a place where a man or woman can live contently for the rest of their life. As the character finds with some of the people he speaks with. But all too quickly we, as he, find out you have to be willing to sacrifice your individuality and the will to think.

What makes the Village more sinister is that no one has a name. Everyone has a number. All are watched, continually by unseen eyes, both in and out of the homes that were given to them. Escape is regarded as impossible by those who have come to accept their captivity; those who have acquiesced to the ones running the Village.

The Prisoner meets Number 2, who is the person in charge of the Village. The Prisoner is given a number: 6. When he asks who is Number 1, the question is ignored. And those in charge have no known governmental or political affiliations. The Prisoner nor us know who is running the Village.

And all too quickly, the Prisoner discovers that no one can be trusted. Not even one of his oldest and closest friend who he finds in the Village. And even the women he meets.

From then onwards, we are captivated with his attempts to escape and his rebellion against the efforts to make him conform. It is with the constant demands why he resigned from his job and why should he, of all people, dare challenge authority.

There is no knowing who are friends and who are enemies; who are fellow Prisoners and who are spies. Each episode deserves close examination. And an open mind.

Many of the 17 episodes revolves on the aspect of trying to break Number 6. Each episode has a different Number 2, but a couple do recur. The only recurring character is a diminutive butler who is the right hand man to Number 2.

The Prisoner offers more than a tremendous pictorial appeal and intriguing stories. Many of the stories provides the viewer an opportunity to think and not merely observe. The viewer has an active role in the show.

This is not a simple series. It raises many questions which do not have answers. It makes scathing comments on society and the people in it. And that is reflected in what McGoohan wanted. He said that it is up to each individual viewer to interpret the series in their own way. And to use their imagination. He said:

I believe passionately in the freedom of the individual

He also adds The Prisoner is basically about the dehumanizing, the loss of individuality that is happening to us all in society. Every person is a prisoner to the society they are in, there is no escape. Even if you move to another country. In the end, the series is a comment on life.

But the beauty of the series is that it had generated interesting debate. Be it a scene, a line or image, the viewer can pull out when they want. Some of the points I believe The Prisoner was saying will differ from others. The series is unusual and challenging. Which is original, not only for the 1960’s but also in 2006.

As one website dedicated to The Prisoner brings up that the show provides many questions. Who is the Prisoner? Could it be the viewer him/herself? The Prisoner is kept in a strange but lovely village. Where is it? Who runs it? The answers are open to a myriad of interpretations. Could the village symbolize the prison that is one’s own mind? Could the unseen Number one, the man ruling the village be the symbol of every man’s desire to be the top dog? An evil which must be removed if we are to be free?

And it is just not the aspect of the Village or Number 6. There are so many other details that add to the discussion. Rover, the menacing guardian, is a white balloon-like creature which brings back people who are trying to escape. But it can also kill. Does it symbolize repression and the guardianship of corrupt authority?

Then there is the main Village symbol, the penny-farthing bicycle. It is anachronistic in our current society, a novelty. But could it represent the slowness of progress in our modern civilization?

Then there is the little butler who never once speaks in all of the 17 episodes. He serves without question each number 2 that comes along. Could he represent the little man of every community who is prepared to follow, without question, any established leader? And switch his loyalties as the occasion demands?

The tons of questions is what makes The Prisoner such a provocative show. But McGoohan made sure the show was not just a modern morality play. Each episode is gripping, fascinating and tense. Each story is complete unto itself, save the last two episodes. And the constant theme is showing one man’s fight for freedom. And it is just not physical freedom but also freedom of mind.

Also by using a complete village, with every amenity possible, we don’t feel like we are in a prison yet we are. Number 6 is constantly trying to escape and we know, in the end, he will not be able to. But many of the episodes give small victories to the Prisoner. And a few episodes use highly imaginative techniques so the show does not become claustrophobic or dull.

One story is set in Paris. Some of the action takes place in the Village but there are cuts to sequences in Paris. One episode has Number 6’s mind transferred into another person’s body and this person is sent to London to find a specific person. Which leads to Switzerland.

The Prisoner pushed the envelope. One episode was a Western drama. Another was a comedy where Number 6 is a secret agent trying to stop a madman who thinks he is Napoleon. You never knew what to expect from the next episode.

This is a show that looks at times dated while other times is looks futuristic. And this is a show that is almost 30 years old. They have cordless phones, the speakers have no wires yet receive radio waves. They can transfer the mind of one person to another. A computer, using sublimable suggestion can help in teaching. The Prisoner has science fiction aspects but it looks like something that is ordinary in the Village.

So now they are talking about a remake. The current information is that Sky One is planning a six-part “thrilling reinvention” of The Prisoner. The director of programmes Richard Woolfe describes the project will be a

sophisticated, high-concept drama to rival anything on the terrestrials and the best of the U.S. It's our biggest drama commission ever and every penny will be evident on screen. We want to capture the imagination of a new generation of viewers.

Also, it is reported the mini-series will be more of a “ultimate conspiracy thriller,” than the sixties fantasy pyscho-drama, executive producer Damien Timmer states.

The new series will entrap you from the opening scene. We hope it will tap into this iconic show's existing cult following, whilst creating a whole new generation of fans.

He also says:

The series is like Pandora's box. Like 24, the new series will entrap you from the opening scene.

I have mixed feeling about a remake. It can be done and done properly. I had my doubts about Battlestar Galatica but they pulled it off. The worries are even heightened by the studio, Granada promising a “radical reinvention” and a plot that will make sense to viewers who the six-episode series.

Originally McGoohan envisions 24 episodes. But because of cost and other things, it was cut to 17. Which is one reason the last two episodes feel rushed and open ended. But at the same time, the show was out to challenge the viewer. When I read things like “make sense” it sends up alarm bells. Make sense to who? The general, mass population so doesn’t want to think?

I suppose I will have to wait before rendering a judgement. Until then, I can curl up with the original episodes and enjoy a thoroughly unique and timeless TV show. And in a day or so, I’ll post a synopsis of each episode for those who are interested.

Poor Superman

2006-06-17T15:22:00.000-04:00

Alright, when I thought I had heard everything, the current debate on the new Superman has gone where no one has gone before. For some, Superman really is gay and other others he is a Christ figure.

Bryan Singer has had to play down speculation from newspapers, magazines and the Internet that his version of Superman is gay. The Advocate, a gay magazine, on its cover asked:

How gay is Superman?

To push this even more, some see Superman as a gay icon because he is forced to live a double life, with his super-self in the closet. Argh! I think some people have too much time on their hands.

It seems that some of the speculation over Superman's sexuality is because of his appearance in promotional posters. I'm not joking here. Singer actually had to respond that his version of the superior is

"very romantic icon" - handsome, virtuous and vulnerable.

And definitely not gay.

Those who are debating this absurd concept should check out the synopsis of the film. After a five year absence, Superman returns to Earth to find things changed, including Lois Lane (his true love) has a new boyfriend and a child.

Now I doubt this shock would turn this veritable American icon gay. Lois has been his focus of attention since forever. Larry Niven even wrote a short piece in the 70's about why Superman and Lois could never get it on. So what Lois has a new beau & a kid. By the end of the film, she will be back in his arms, ready for the sequel.

What bugs me about this is just the audacity that some people even considered the possibility that Singer would do something this radical. We are not talking about a secondary character like Batwoman. Or a sidekick.

Superman has been part of our culture for ages. From my knowledge, there never was a stint where his sexuality was vague or questioned. Even someone like John Byrne or Frank Miller wouldn't go that far. We are dealing with a major, mainstream character. Not some throw-away secondary character.

And come off it. Singer would be committing Hollywood suicide if he dared fiddle with something like Superman. He stands for the American way. Truth and justice. He is whiter than white bread. Comic book fans start foaming at the mouth when details like the costume is changed. Or skin colour. What would they do if their favorite character, after years of being straight, announced he is gay? This is just insane. That would be akin to saying Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush is gay.

I know there is a push to have more gay characters in comic books. The new Batwoman is a lesbian. Marvel, in Young Avengers has a gay couple with Wiccan and Hulkling. Yet this is a safe avenue. These are characters that are not part of our psyche. They can leave, be replaced or completely dumped.

And let's get real here, the American public isn't ready for that. Then again neither are Canadians. Or many other countries. They have a hard enough time wrapping their brains around things like gay scientists or politicians. There is no way they would be able to hand a gay Superman. Except in a Bizarro world.

As if the gay issue isn't enough. There are some that are seeing Superman as a Christ figure. Steve Skelton wrote a book examining parallels between Superman and Christ. He writes:

"It is so on the nose that anyone who has not caught on that Superman is a Christ figure, you think, 'Who else could it be referring to?' "

Tom DeHaven, in a book about Superman's status as an American icon points out that in the 1930's, Superman was the hero of the New Deal. He was seen helping the destitute and cleaning up American slums. By the 1950's, he turned into a tireless crime fighter because of fears of postwar urban lawlessness. And his early TV persona showed him as an idealized father figure.

This is standard with any comic book hero. Batman was a vigilante in the beginning. He worked alone. It was over time that this solitary crime solver got a sidekick like Robin. Heros change to reflect their times.

Now, Steve Skelton in The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero looks into the comparison between Christ and Superman, which Skelton said started almost immediately since the origin of Superman in 1938.

Let's look at the situation. Superman is a hero, sent to Earth by his father to serve mankind. What gives even more of a Biblical overtone is Superman's real name is Kal-El. "El" is the Hebrew word for God. Yup, sounds like Biblical to me. Really Old Testament.

What is sparking this is not just the book by Skelton. The preview for Superman Returns is sparking debate. The preview shows Superman with his eyes closed as the voice of his father telling him he was sent to Earth because humans "lack the light to show the way." On top of that, Jor-El continues with "For this reason, I have sent them you, my only son."

Of course these lines have resonated within Christian circles, especially with bloggers. One blogger wrote:

The allusion to Jesus Christ could hardly be accidental

To stretch this out even more, speculation is even more rampant because Superman returns to Earth, after a long absence. For some, this is likened to Jesus' death and resurrection. And to make things worse, supposedly in the movie, there is a point where Superman gets a stab wound similar to the spear jabbed in Jesus' side. Also, there is another scene where Superman poses with his arms stretched out, as if crucified.

This flurry of comparing Superman to Christ is causing some interesting reactions. One person, Amy Pedersen, who is writing her doctoral thesis in art history, on superhero comics is jumping into the fray. She points out something about the creation of Superman.

According to Pedersen, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who were Jews, were inspired by the Old Testament story of Moses and the golem character from Jewish folklore when creating the Superman character.

Singer brings up a good point in this discussion. He says the notion of Superman as a messianic figure is simply another case of contemporary storytelling borrowing from ancient motifs.

But for someone like Skelton:
"The way in which the Christian population can get behind a movie that they can agree with is a huge push financially. It's a smart move in terms of attracting an audience"

At the same time, it should be noted Skelton also distributes Bible-study kits that draw scriptural lessons from classic television episodes. He sees parables in shows like the Andy Griffith show.

Here we have an American icon that is being hijacked by different groups. The sarcastic guy I am says:

Duh, look at Superman! Have you ever seen anything more gayer than Superman. He would fit in a pride parade!

As to the Christian thing, once again Christians are trying to grab something that is Jewish and make it theirs. Agreed, once Siegel and Shuster moved on, the next set of writers, etc. might have thought about Christian themes but I doubt it.

For me, I never was a major Superman fan. I preferred darker characters and more angst. But in the end, hello, he is just a fictional character. Those who are wasting their time trying to find parallels with Jesus or being gay have way to much time on their hands. Then again, so I do for spending all this time babbling on this. The joys of a dead day at work!

Shameless Plug & Babblings

2006-06-15T13:51:00.000-04:00

With the changing of the look of this blog, I have been also organizing a portal for my writing. I wanted to have an ad-free area where I can showcase my stuff. So anyone who is interested, click here to check out my little corner of writing.

Writing has been a major part of my life since the early 80's. I wrote close to 50 stories and over 15 technical papers which were published in conferences and journals. Even two got reprinted as articles in books. Alas, my non-technical writing has yet to be published, but I have rejection letters.

Not all of my stuff is on-line because of a heinous act by a bitter, nasty bitch I had the displeasure to spent a few months with. When things were starting to fall apart in my life, back in the early 2000s, this person, Marie, offered to help me out. A place where I could get back on my feet. Little did I know I was moving in with a psycho control-freak.

I am not an easy person to live with. I'm moody, self-centered and could continue with this list. And Marie knew of this. But once I moved in, I became, from what I feel, a surrogate for a boyfriend and a son. She tried to take over my life and mould it.

But I resisted and sparks started to fly. It all culuminated in March 2002 when she demanded I leave days before we had agreed I was to leave. This meant I could not move my stuff out.

I owed her $388. And the original agreement was that she would hold onto my electronic stuff, like my speakers and stereo until I had the cash to pay her back. Of course, her conditions changed daily to the point where she would not give anything up until she was paid. So she held not just things like my computer as ransom but all my writing, research books, CDs, etc.

In April, my parents agreed to front me the money so I could get my stuff and move on. Yet Marie went into complete psycho-mode because my parents wanted to pay her with a cheque. The whole incident ended with her telling me if I wanted to fuck her over, she would fuck me over. I was able to talk to her again, a little later and thought she had calmed down. But I was wrong.

When I tried to get in contact with her again, to give her cash, she never returned my calls or was in. So I went to get legal advice about the situation. The result was I sent her a registered letter letting her know she could have the cash in return of my stuff, undamaged. That got a response from her.

She called me and then let me know that she had thrown out all of my stuff back in April. Everything. Over $20,000 worth of stuff. But the worst part had to do with my writing.

Back in the 80s, we didn't have word-processors. So most of my short stories were typed up using an IBM Selectric. And over time, I had not transcribed most of the stuff onto a computer. All the original drafts were at Marie's. Plus there were notebooks for ideas for short stories, plot concepts, etc. which were all hand-written. All lost because of a complete psychotic breakdown of one nasty, bitter bitch.

And yeah, I am still bitter, years later. The fucking cunt destroyed stuff that is not replaceable. I would jot down ideas in my notebook and then go back to them another time. My first notebook was started back in 1982. The ideas, the images, the concepts are gone, there is no way I can remember what I jotted down. And let us not forget the original drafts of many short stories. There are a few copies out there I gave friends but they have yet to find them. So for all intents and purposes, close to half of my output in the 1980s is lost because of her. I cannot go back to many of these stories and edit them for potential publication or incorporation into another story.

Plus I lost map ideas, scribbles and stuff for Tangled Threads. On top of that, I lost most of my research books I was using, including one which I picked up in a second hand store which gave archeological information on the ancient Celts. A book that is out of print and not readily available anymore. The same could be said of a dictionary on folklore and mythology I had.

So my little corner of writing has some of my stuff. In time, if I can get the other stories, I hope to fully populate the site. But right now, it will give you a good sampling of my writing, old and new. And one day, when some of my stuff is published and I can live on my writing, I can stick it to Marie. One thing she forgot is don't fuck with a Scorpio. We don't forget. Our motto is:

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Under Construction

2006-06-10T12:50:00.000-04:00

Over the past while, I have been playing around with templates and cascade style sheets to spruce up my website. At the same time, I decided it was time to give my blog a new look. And I think I now have, for this blog, a new, fresh look.

It is amazing how many templates are out there just for blogging. The past week I have seen some amazing templates and some down right ugly ones. When my friend Error showed me this one, it clicked and now it is the template du jour. And I cannot forget to mention the person who created the original template: Simone Plebani.

Over the next while, I will be playing with the fonts and other things to personalize the new look. So this little sliver of propoganda will be under construction but not off-line. My little tweaking isn't going to stop my babbling and ranting. And after some of the things I've seen and read this week, boy do I have some babbling to do!

An Absurd Situation

2006-06-04T12:53:00.000-04:00

Some time ago, I read an article that had me gobsmacked. A 62 year old child psychologist from Lewes, East Sussex, Patricia Rashbrook became pregnant via in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Now she could not do this in Europe because of restrictive laws on assisted reproduction. So she and her Italian doctor when to an unnamed former Soviet republic to do the procedure. As of few weeks ago, she was seven months pregnant.

It is not as if she did not have any kids before; she has a 26-year-old daughter and a 22-year old son. And now at 62, she will have a newborn. And her second husband is about her age also.

I am not against having kids or being ageist here, but let’s get real. Yes, she could live for another 20 to 30 years. But at the same time, she could get sick and gone within 5 years. Or what if she were to get Alzheimer's? Or the husband?

Some may argue that a young couple face similar issues when they have a kid. One could get sick or something serious could happen, liking being in an accident. Yet the other person of the couple is young enough to possibly raise the child on their own. Also there is, often, an extended family to help.

These people are in their 60’s. Their friends most likely are of similar age. Their own kids wouldn’t really want to help take care of the new brother/sister. They have their own lives to live. Do they know what they are getting themselves into?

The husband is quoted as saying:

A great deal of thought has been given to providing for the child's present and future well-being, medically, socially and materially

And I really wonder. Fine, she wants another kid. But what about adopting? There are so many kids out there looking for parents, why bring in another one into the world? And have to traipse off to another country because what you are going to do breaks the law of the country you are in?

If she was in her 20’s or 30’s and could not conceive, I can see it. There is something special about having your own children. But at 62? And after having your own children already?

She is a child psychologist. Did she think about how this will affect her child as it is growing up? When the child is just starting school, both parents will almost be 70. When it hits high school, they will be about 75.

All it’s friends will have parents half their age, which will be strange enough. It is hard enough for ‘normal’ aged parents to understand their growing kids, what of parents almost twice the normal age? Be it music, TV or movies, what connection with the child and these parents have?

Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should. If these two really want to have kids and make a difference, there are so many other options. I already mentioned adopting. There is fostering also. There are ways they can make a difference in a child’s life without having one of their own.

It makes me wonder if they are doing this for the right reason. I would like to be sitting in front of them because I have tons of questions to ask. The key one is why?

We are living in a society where many people get children for the wrong reasons. All too often, they are meant to be trophies. Neither parent wants to quit working so they dump the kid in day cares.

Yes, there are cases where they both have to work to be able to support the kid. Then again, why have one at this time? Why not save up, put money away, so when the kid comes, one parent can be home for a while?

I see too many kids, with young parents, who only see their parents at night, when they come home from work. And then, because they are tired, the parents don’t have much energy to do anything with their kids. And the weekends become time for household chores, so quality time with the kids is restricted.

These kids are growing up without full parental control and guidance. Their mentors become the daycare, school, other friends and the TV. And then the parents wonder why they are out of control or hold onto values they don’t agree with.

Years ago, we had a nuclear family. If mum and dad weren’t around, there were grandparents, aunts, uncles and the extended family unit. That is extremely rare nowadays. The necessary guidance for kids growing up has become skewed.

I suppose one advantage this kid is going to have, is that both parents most likely are close to retiring. They most likely have saved up some money. So they can provide quality time. But for how long?

It is just that I see people out there having kids for the wrong reasons. Raising a child is one of the most important responsibilities someone has and should never take it lightly. The welfare of the child comes first, all focus should be there. Two people in the mid-60’s can only give so much.

Yeah, I am gay and won’t have kids. But I see the responsibility having children entails. It is not like getting a dog or cat. But more and more, I am seeing couples who feel that way. And the loser in the equation becomes the children.

I am 48 and would like to have children, be it fostered or adopted. But at the same time, I know my own mortality. Right now I am healthy and plan to be so for some time. But be it my smoking or genetics, who knows what will happen in a few years. To bring a child into my life, at this age, adds complications which hurts the child more than me.

I suppose we live in a selfish society where we come first and everyone comes in second. This may not be the driving factor for Ms. Rashbrook. She may honestly want to have more children. But at what cost to the child about to be introduced into this world? Did she and her husband really consider all the aspects of bringing up a child in this brave new world? I really wonder.

For me, at 62, if I had been working consistently and saved, the idea of having a new born wouldn’t come to mind. I would want to enjoy my free time. What ever happened to the idea of retiring and travelling?

The Tax Man! Argh!

2006-06-02T18:44:00.000-04:00

Normally I am not one to use my blog just to rant and rave about my life. Yet today, I need to vent a little. The past week has been one giant speed bump and it is all because of the tax man. First some history to set-up what happened this week.

Up front, I owe the government some money. Back in January 2000, I cashed in what we in Canada call an RRSP. It is savings plan where you can put money in for your retirement and get tax credits. When you cash it out, you get hit with taxes.

This was the time when my spiral started. I was in a depression, had to pay for my medication and bills. As some of my previous posts mentioned, this lead to me moving in with a psycho and eventually ending up on the streets. So I wasn't too focused on doing my taxes for 1999, let alone 2000.

Once I got my life back on track, I did my taxes and found out I owed the federal government over $8000. What? When I met with the tax man (really a woman), I tried to contest it but to no avail. So money started coming out of my bank account.

Last year April, I lost my job at a place called LeeTwo. Then I moved to my current company, Sitel after a month. At first, I did not have direct deposit. I got a check and cashed it. Leaving my account dormant. Which within a few months was closed.

Now the twit I can be, forgot about the tax man. Things were a mess at my old place on Queen Mary, much of my own doing. But in July, things became unbearable because of other reasons and I moved out to my current place, here. And never organized my bank account. Or change of address with the government.

Bluntly, I slipped into a old, bad habit of ignoring a problem. I should have addressed it but I didn't. I was focused on sorting out my life here, in the new place. Making sure I paid my bills on time and try to stay within a proper budget. Which hasn't been easy for me.

Well, last week, I got a rude surprise. I opened my paycheck and found close to $200 missing. I thought there had been a mistake. The hours added up yet I didn't get the $500 odd dollars I should. So I headed to HR to find out what was happening.

The HR person looked at my stub and commented: "oh, you are being garnished." What? I was never notified. The company never told me. What the fuck is going on? The HR person eventually found the paper work they had received and it was marked May 5. I flipped.

Alright, I screwed up when it came to the address. Most likely a letter arrived at the old place, advising me of the garnishment and I did not get it. Yet I never received any phone calls from them about the closed bank account and organizing a new payment plan. My phone number is unchanged. And my new address is in the phone book.

But what had me livid was what the company did. Years ago, I screwed up my taxes and I was garished. When the company got the letter, they called me in to advise me of what was happening. It have me a couple of weeks to organize either a new payment plan or take the garnishment as is. Yet Sitel did not do that.

I don't know if they have to legally, but it is a courtesy most companies would extend to their employees. They should have notified me, thus allowing me to do something. If I had known back on the 5th, I would have called the government right away to organize a better payment plan. And be prepared for the May 26th pay period, when rent is due and our electricity bill. Let alone getting a bus pass.

But they didn't. So I was stuck with very little money in my pocket. I had to explain things to my landlord. Hold back on buying some things I needed. Some plans for dinner were thrown out the window. And now I have $4.00 to my name until next Friday.

Luckily, I have cigarettes to last me until then, so I don't have to deal with this stress and the shit that comes from quiting cigarettes. I have bus tickets so I can get to work. But I will have to forgo things like beer and coffee for the next week. And some of the planned meals, like the meatloaf and pork dishes I had planned. Time for Kraft Dinner and other inexpensive goodies.

The funny thing is that a few years ago, this would have thrown me for a loop. I would have stressed myself out to the point of insomnia and migraines. Possibly pushing me into a mild depression. Or a severe one. But I'm not letting that happen.

I'm annoyed and pissed off at the situation. I screwed up and so did the company I work for. But what is happening is just an inconvenience. Yeah I prefer not to have KD for supper. I would like to have my coffee in the morning. And my beer when I get home. But things could be worse. I could be back on the street. I could be sick. I could be alone here. I could be living in places like Indonesia.

I suppose the 9 months on the street taught me more than I expected. Week before last, I was downtown. I walked down Ste. Catherine and recognized some of the people I bunked with in the shelter. They looked older and were still pan-handling. I have moved on the past couple of years.

I have a job. I have a great apartment. I have my friends and buddies. I have my health. And for now, I have my cigarettes. But even after I organize a restructuring of my garnishment, I will still be paying out $100 per pay check. So it is time to look into quiting. I know for some people, this will be a major silver lining that will come out from this crap.

Anyway, that is my rant for the day. I suppose the important thing is to stay positive. It is easy to get cliched about this. Things aren't all bad. This is just a hiccup and life moves on. There is a silver lining. It will make me stronger. Why am I suddenly getting the urge to sing Climb Every Mountain? Argh! It is time to stop!

I Am Going To Be Ill

2006-06-01T06:59:00.000-04:00

I don’t often pull headlines and news stories straight from the pages and rant about them here. But this just is disgusting. There are two things, one here in Montreal and another in Holland.

In Montreal, back in November 2005, a 32 year old man, father of 4, was found guilty of sexual assault and of producing, possessing and distributing child pornography. The man cannot be named as to protect the identity of his daughter.

What makes this crime so heinous is that the assaults started when his daughter was two years old and lasted for two years. On top of that, the sick fuck posted pictures of the abuse on the Internet.

He received 10 years for assaulting his daughter and 5 years for the child porno charges. But on Tuesday, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled, 2-1, that the man’s crimes were not amongst the worst sexual assaults ever committed. And they agreed to reduce his sentence from 15 years to 9.

In the ruling, Judge Lise Côté wrote:

There was no violence, such as gagging, threatening or hitting the child

Huh? What? At the same time, when the court reduced the sentence, the honourable judge cited the man’s young age and the fact he only had one other criminal conviction. And guess what, it was for sexually assaulting another child when he was 17.

Another important aspect to this is that the prosecution’s case was based on roughly 5,000 pictures and videos found the man’s computer. And some of these were featuring very young children.

On TV, yesterday, they had talking heads, some saying that legally the original judgement was to severe. Yet most of what covers sexual assaults deal with older people. Not a defenceless two year old. What does the honourable judge know of what really happened, save the snippets this sicko put on the net? Did she ask Ms Cleo to read tarot cards to confirm there was no gagging? There was no hitting?

What man, in their right mind, wants to have sex with a 2 year old? This isn’t sex. This is just getting your rocks off. It masturbating with something larger than your hand. How could a father look at a defenceless 2 year old and even entertain the idea of having sex with them?

Did these honourable judges ever think about the life long scar his daughter is going to have? It is bad enough that he would be coming out of prison when she is in her late teens but now he will be out in her early teens. What is going to happen to her then?

And I don’t give a shit about prisoner’s rights here. All reports during the trial said he never showed remorse. At the same time, this was not a one off. He did this for two years. Two whole years and proudly showed his pictures & video on line to other sickos out there.

His daughter may be just the tip of the iceberg. He has assaulted before. Then he assaults his daughter. Who knows who else might be out there?

Of course, this is just one outrage. Let us turn to Holland. A new Dutch political party has formed there. And guess by who? Pedophiles. They want to cut the legal age to 12 from 16. And eventually scrap the limit all together. Oh wait, this gets better. They want the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals.

One of the party founders, Ad van den Berg is quoted saying:

A ban just makes children curious

On top of that, the Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party

supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said. [Reuters]

Crap like a ban just makes children curious is ludicrous. In places like Holland, they get good sex education, from what I gather. Yet even then, with their own peer group, teenagers will do it. But for most, they would not be interested in doing it with a 40 year old. They are not curious about that. They are looking about their own age group.

Sexuality with young people is a hot-button topic. Some people become sexuality aware young, whilst others are late bloomers. And there are problems with an arbitrary age limit. A 18 year old with a 16 year old would be illegal in many different places. They could be completely in love, the 18 year did not coerce the 16 year and they’re having sex is fully and completely consensual. But the 18 year old could end up in jail. But the NVD has no interest in them.

And the sheer absurdity that toddler should have sex education boggles my mind. They are not old enough to understand what sex entails. The responsibilities, the pressures,. the consequences. They have a hard enough time dealing with learning manners let alone sex.

Yet the most vile thing of their manifesto is the idea that teenagers should be allowed to be in porn and prostitution. Are they also suggesting on career day, in school, of having a booth: you could have a career in porn? I don’t think most teenagers, as they grow up, think of prostitution or porn as a career option. And shouldn’t.

The problem with groups like NVD is they are focused on one thing: themselves. These are grown men who want to have sex with young boys and girls. They could care less about the couple I mentioned above. Or the mindset of a toddler. These guys want to get their rocks off, no matter what. And with whomever they want. That is why they want young people in porn and prostitution.

But this whole thing is infecting our society. It is bad enough there is porn that advertise that their models are barely eighteen but it is also in the main stream. It is all around us. We are turning young kids into sex objects.

Young models are used to sell anything and everything. Celebrities like Brittany Spears dress like young school girls then sluts. Young male models are sprawled out to hawk underwear. Madison Avenue is blurring the age of consent to sell stuff.

And because of this, kids can’t be kids any more. I’ve walked down Ste. Catherine street and see young girls who, if lucky, are 16 but with their clothes and make-up look 18 or 19. Young guys are struggling to get that six pack and flocking to places to have hair removed. It is almost as if they are being told once you hit puberty, skip being a teenager and go straight to being an adult.

The sad thing is society at large is allowing it. Be it the disgusting judgment here in Montreal or the NVD, more and more the message out there is children are sex objects. And throughout all this, it is the children that is being forgotten.

Child abuse affects the children in different ways and leaves long lasting scars. It affects their ability to be intimate and trusting. Often they cannot have a long lasting, loving relationship. Some just abstain from sex.

I know I don’t have all the details about the case here in Montreal. I am not a lawyer. Legally, maybe the sentence was too harsh. The judges that reduced the sentence most likely are applying the law as they read it and are keeping to the point that justice is blind.

But here, justice cannot be blind. You cannot remove the daughter from the equation. You cannot remove the heinous act this man did, even if there was no violence, threats, etc. etc.

This sends out a chilling message. People who have been abused may not come forward if they see the system is being to be lenient or may change their mind. So children of child abuse become victims all over again and marginalized.

The case here in Montreal, for me, diminishes the impact of child abuse. It almost sends a message, if there is no violence, it is okay to do it. So if it feels good, go ahead. Just don’t hit, threaten or gag the kid. What does that say about our system and values?

Doctor Who

2006-05-30T06:00:00.000-04:00

Doctor Who is guaranteed to generate a reaction from anyone in science fiction. It would since it was a show that ran from 1963–1989, produced by the BBC. It ends up being one of the longest running science fiction television series in the world.

Whether you like it or not, Doctor Who has been recognized for it imaginative stories, creative low-budget specials effects and the pioneering use of electronic music. The opening theme, I believe, is known to almost anyone nowadays.

Around the world, Doctor Who has become a cult favourite, at times surpassing Star Trek and Star Wars. At the same time over the past few generations, British television writers have been influenced by the series.

For me, what makes Doctor Who work is the basic premise. “The Doctor” is a mysterious time-travelling adventurer who can explore time and space with his ‘space ship’ called the TARDIS. He would take on companions and go about the universe fighting evil and injustice.

Initially the programme was intended to be educational and focused on family viewing. The original idea was to present stories set during important periods of human history. So The Doctor went to the French Revolution and the Roman Empire. And met historical figures like Genghis Khan. The stories set in the future or outer space was designed to help enlighten children about science.

Thing was, the science fiction stories started to dominate the series. The historical stories were not popular with the production team. So the history lessons were dropped with the first couple of years. Historical settings were now used a backdrop for science fiction stories.

Excluding the original, open-ended concept of Doctor Who, the producers used an innovative way to tell stories. Each of the weekly episodes formed part of a story, basically a series of several parts. So a story may span four episodes while another would span 6. This allowed the writers to explore a story without the strictures of an artificial time slot.

Some stories covered longer story arcs. The Daleks’ Master Plan aired in 12 episodes, while The Trial of the Time Lord ran for 14 episodes.

One of the trademarks of the serial feel of Doctor Who was that each episode within the story arc would end with a cliffhanger, usually the Doctor or one of his companions in danger. So the viewers would tune in the next week to see how they got out of the sticky mess.

And because of the ‘free’ format, this allowed the writers to explore various things. They could explore the dangers of cults to social issues to political commentary. Nothing seemed to be sacred for the writers of Doctor Who.

And quickly the program became a national institution in Britain. It became the subject of countless jokes, newspaper articles and popular culture references. Because of the popularity of the show, many renowned British actors asked for or accepted guest roles in different story lines.

From the beginning, the Doctor was shrouded in mystery. All that was given to the audience was that he was an eccentric alien traveller of great intelligence who battled injustice whilst exploring time and space. To do so, he had an old, unreliable time machine called the TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension (or Dimensions) In Space).

The TARDIS is stuck in the shape of a 1950s-style British police box which has not changed over the long period of time Doctor Who spanned. Yet one could see it was much larger on the inside than on the outside.

From the onset, the Doctor was irascible and slightly sinister. But as the series progressed, he mellowed into a more compassionate figure. Eventually it was revealed he was on the run from his own people, the Time Lords of the planet Gallifrey. And it was revealed that other TARDISes had a “chameleon circuit” to disguise it but the Doctor’s TARDIS did not have a working circuit, so it always appeared as the blue police box.

In time, it was revealed that Time Lords had the ability to “regenerate” his body when near death. This simple device allowed the writers the convenient ability to recast the lead actor when need be. As of 2006, ten actors have played the part of the Doctor.

The other brilliant thing about regeneration is it allowed the Doctor to have his own quirks and abilities. So each actor could put their mark on the Doctor and the story lines could move from quirky and silly to dark and brooding.

Within the original run, it was hinted that a Time Lord can regenerate twelve times. For some people, this is canon while for others there is no solid evidence there is a definite number of times a Time Lord can regenerate.

Even with the changes in personality, the Doctor has always remained an intensely curious and highly moral character. He would rather solve problems with his wits and his sonic screwdriver and through the use of violence. Yet at time, through his actions or inaction, violence would occur, people died and it would affect the Doctor in different ways. One of the most famous lines goes something like: “There should have been another way”.

Because of the longevity of the show and different writers, certain revelations were made, like the number of possible regenerations. In The Brain of Morbius, it is hinted that the first Doctor may not have been his first incarnation.For the era of the seventh Doctor, it was hinted that he was more than just an ordinary Time Lord. And in the movie made in 1996, it was revealed the Doctor is actually half-human, on his mother’s side.

During the old run and now the new run, the Doctor almost always shares his adventures with companions. Sometimes he would have just one, while other times he could have three. The idea was to provide a surrogate with whom the audience could identify with. It allowed the writers to further the story by asking questions. Or create suspense with the companions getting into trouble.

Regularly, the Doctor gained new companions and lost old ones. Sometimes they would return home. Other times they would find a new cause or loves and move on. And the writers were bold enough to even have some die during the course of the series.

All too often, the companions were young, attractive women. But the show had a long standing “ban” on any overt romantic involvement between the Doctor and his female companions. Of course this has not prevent fans from speculating possible romantic involvements. This was extremely apparent with the fourth Doctor and his fellow Time Lord companion, Romana. But if anything happened, it was off-screen.

What made the companions interesting was that they were not all humans from Earth. He had a mechanical dog called K-9. Some were aliens were other planets or dimensions, like Leela, Adric, Turlough or Romanadvoratrelundar.

Of course we can’t have a show without the bad guys. From the beginning, they did not want to perpetuate the cliché of the “bug-eye monster” that pervaded the films of the 50’s. But all too quickly, monsters became a staple of Doctor Who.

Some of the notable adversaries in Doctor Who included Autons, the Cybermen, the Sontarans, the Sea Devils, the Ice Warriors, the Yeti and the Silurians. Yet the two that standout are The Master and the Daleks.

Of all of the villains created by Doctor Who, the Daleks were the creations which lodged into the psyche of the viewers from early on. They are mutants in tank-like mechanical armour from the planet Skaro. They appeared in the program’s second serial, The Daleks and have become the standard villain of Doctor Who.

The Daleks is a ruthless race bent on universal conquest and domination. They are utterly without pity, compassion or remorse. Their infamous catch-phrase was “Exterminate!” or “Ex-ter-min-ate!” with each syllable individually screeched in a breathless electronic voice. The salt and pepper look with their electronic voices made for one of the most unsettling villains which became a staple to copy from.

I came into the Doctor Who universe some what late. Thanks to my friend Mike, I started to watch some episodes and got hooked. Yes, the sets are cheesy, the effects silly and some of the monsters look like a man in a rubber suit, but like the original Star Trek, the stories were what pulled you in. There was mystery, there was wonder and often there was a story.

Be it Tom Baker with his long scarf and bug-eye wonder or Peter Davidson with his longing to help out or Sylvester McCoy with his vaudevillian movements, each Doctor had unique adventures and something to say.

Be it stories like The Happiness Patrol or Vengeance on Varos, writers could tackle aspects of political repression and the pressures of society to conform. Or The Warriors of the Deep showing the futility of warfare and misunderstandings, leading to a tragic ending. Or just simple murder mysteries like the Robots of Death or a vampire story like State of Decay. Any story could be told in the Doctor’s universe.

But throughout the old and new run of Doctor Who, there was always a sense of wonder and optimism which is missing in many of the current shows. In the midst of an escalating situation, the Doctor would always try to find a non-violent solution. There is always another way.

Yes, Doctor Who is not up to the standards set by Star Wars or Star Trek, but there is a heart and soul both often miss. Be it by torrents or DVDs, I highly recommend checking out Doctor Who. There are bad episodes, but which show doesn’t have them. But the Doctor is worth travelling with at any point of time and space.

George Lucas: A Hack

2006-05-28T23:09:00.000-04:00

I am going to stay within the realm of science fiction for a little while. As you can tell from the title, I don’t have a high opinion of George Lucas. He may be a man with ideas and a good producer but after that, he is nothing more than a hack.

When the fourth Star Wars film came out, The Phantom Movie, one magazine had a shot of him and called him an überdirector. I was stunned and flabbergasted. Especially after I saw that piece of shit.

I will give Lucas his dues. He changed the landscape of film-making. And for me, generally for the bad. Don’t get me wrong, I love Star Wars (The New Hope) and The Empire Strikes Back. But then he lost it afterward.

Yet the media salivated whenever he spoke, like Bill Gates. Projects he was involved in made major bucks so he was a force in the industry.

Let us look at the output of the überdirector, over 30 odd years (1971 to 2005).

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Star Wars (1977)
American Graffiti (1973)
THX 1138 (1971)

Whereas his friend, Steven Spielberg did 26 films over the same time period. I know volume is not a determining factor in how good a director you are, but 7 films in 30 years? How does that make Lucas an überdirector?

The myth that has been generated around George Lucas is based on the projects he has been involved in, like the Indiana Jones series. People don’t realize he did not direct Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi, let alone the Indiana Jones series.

As a producer/executive producer he has been involved in over 40 projects. And the same can be said as a writer. So he has not been sitting on his butt doing nothing.

The main reason for my bitching about Lucas is two-fold: a lost opportunity and a wrong direction. Star Wars started with such promise. I can remember, one evening, after my friend Cathy and I had just seen Empire Strikes Back. We were pumped. We sat in the Old Dublin, with our pints, wondering who the other was and where Lucas was going with this trilogy. Then came Return of the Jedi.

Instead of a great denouement to a long story, I watched a hackneyed mixture of slapstick and T&A. The dark aspects introduced in ESB was dropped for cute Ewoks and a cackling Emperor. And we must not forget the chains and gold bikini.

Instead of a good story, we got eye-candy and a flimsy plot. Luke needed to return to see Yoda, who just ups and dies without finishing the training. We have little furry creatures dancing around the forest who can bring the Empire to it’s knees. We have a mediocre reunion between Luke and Darth, all culminating in a silly scene with bolts of lightning and a supposedly malevolent Emperor cackling for Luke to die.

Yet by this time, Lucas was starting to focus on, what I believe, is what Star Wars really is about: merchandising. That is what Lucas brought to film-making.

Merchandising wasn’t anything new. Star Trek did it, Space 1999 did it. I even had some of the models of things like the Enterprise and some books. But Lucas brought it into the 21st century. Star Wars heralded a machine, be it for figurines or product endorsements.

With Star Wars, suddenly we have images of characters on Burger King or McDonald’s cups. The products could not be featured in the film, so have a picture of Luke on a soft drink bottle or a cereal box. With Return, I could not walk around without seeing something of Star Wars around me.

For me, this is the negative legacy this überdirector has left. I can see why he is called that, because the films he has been involved in, has brought in billions and billions of dollars into the Hollywood system. The minute his name is attached to a project, you can expect a better dividend.

Yet the title überdirector should be for someone who does good films, not good box office. The new trilogy was completely atrocious. There was no story telling. Things like what the Force is, gets retooled and becomes parasites in the blood not a Zen like field that comes from every living thing. Save a couple of characters, the universe was populated with boring and dull people.

But what the new trilogy was good for was sheer eye-candy and merchandising. Be it all the new types of ships to the massive amount of characters, the three films are a boon for the collector. But not for an audience that wants a decent story.

And this hurts people who want to try to promote good science fiction. The standard now is a screen full of space ships, impressive explosions and tons of funky aliens. We need ships weaving in and out, for over ten minutes, giving the audience a roller-coaster ride. Overload and impress the audience and maybe they will not see you don’t have a story. They will ignore the bad dialogue and flimsy premise.

This hurts people trying to bring good SF to the big and small screens. The studio knows how to promote a Star Wars but are at a loss with a film like Serenity. For me, Joss Whedon put more in Serenity than Lucas did in all three prequels when it comes to story-telling. Yet the studio did not promote the film and only the Firefly fans and word of mouth brought people to check it out.

As I mentioned in the previous post, we have a wealth of science fiction that can be harvested. Right off the bat, I can think of Consider Phlebas by Iain M. Banks. It is high space opera but a good story. It would make an amazing film but it does have space battles, a huge number of aliens and a base for merchandising. But it would make a fun SF romp with some serious points to bring up.

I know a good SF film or show is expensive to make. Be it the modelling or CGI, audience expect a certain level of effects. This drives up the cost. But that is the box people like Lucas put SF and fantasy into. And moulded the mindset for the bean counters in charge.

Yet with the advent of inexpensive CGI for PCs and digital cameras, independent film makers can start to make science fiction films or shows. They don’t have to be as clean and slick as Star Wars. There is an audience for a good story and minimal special effects. Many of us have no problem with a little bit of cheese with the story.

The problem is that too many look at Lucas as the überdirector. When he speaks about the future of film making, people listen and lap it up. For many, his vision is the way to go. That is sad because that regulates science fiction to just special effects and toys. The idea of investigating the future, good or bad, becomes secondary or unimportant. Looking into the human condition is irrelevant. Science fiction becomes the playground of the mediocre and bland. If it looks good, then it sells. That may be Lucas’ legacy to us over the next few years.

Science Fiction: An Untapped Vein

2006-05-27T08:48:00.000-04:00

I have been gone for a little while, focusing my energies on writing. When it comes to writing, I need to focus and this blog has become an orphan because of that. Yet, as always, I come back.

One of my new short stories, I Thought, has been a foray back into science fiction. This is the main genre I started with many years ago and left for a long time working on my two fantasy series, Tangled Threads and The Elegy Series. It felt good to be back in the saddle. And it got good reviews on urbis.

But coming back into SF had my mind meander into the state of SF on film. This summer we are getting blockbusters like X3 and Superman, comic book films yet no real SF.

And this post has been bouncing around since watching the season finale of Battlestar Galactica and checking out the second season of Dr. Who. So today, I want to look at the lack of good SF, on the big and small screen.

From the onset, I was a vocarious reader. Both my parents were readers so I had access to tons of books. And because of an interest in science, I preferred science fiction. I was not a nine year old kid reading the kiddie stuff. I was reading Heinlein, Clarke, and Herbert.

Yet there wasn’t much on TV. To give you an idea, here is a smattering what was available, when I was a kid:

Doctor Who (1963 - 1989)
Lost in Space (1965 - 1968)
Thunderbirds (1965 - 1966)
Star Trek (1966 - 1969)
Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons (1967)
The Invaders (1967 - 1968)

Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet were puppet shows which people consider for kids yet had a dark edge to them. I did not get into Doctor Who until much later. Lost in Space had camp but how many times does a kid need to be disappointed because once again they can’t get home? And a giant chicken does not look like an evil bad guy.

Star Trek was a breath of fresh air. Yes some of the effects and sets looked cheesy but when the stories were good, they were good. And they ran the gamut. A monster kills humans but with a twist (Devil in the Dark), a taut cat & mouse game between enemies (Balance of Terror), comedy (The Trouble with Tribbles, I Mudd) and a time travel story done properly (The City on the Edge of Forever).

Of course there were episodes which were utter shite (The Omega Glory, Spock’s Brain to name two). But for a kid who was craving decent SF, I finally got it. And it showed that good SF could be done for the TV.

A quick note on The Invaders. This was a series where aliens were invading Earth and only one person knew of it. As he is on the run, he is trying to tell the world and stop their plots. For me, it was a good show.

The sad thing was that Star Trek did not spawn other SF shows. Yet on the big screen, there were attempts like:

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Charly (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The Andromeda Strain (1970)
Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Silent Running (1972)
Dark Star (1974)

But they did not bring in the big box office bucks. Then came Star Wars (1977).

George Lucas’ simple story wrapped up as a space opera was refreshing. I was not expecting hard SF like 2001 or Silent Running but it was a romp and visually eye-popping. And it made money.

At the same time, Star Trek was gaining cult status. It got resurrected in 1973 as an animated series and lasted for 3 seasons. For me, the two ushered in a belief that SF might be a viable genre. Which gave us Space 1999 (1975 - 1977) which was a complete travesty of acting and story-telling.

But, for me, Star Trek and Star Wars also was bad for SF. People started to use them as templates for shows and films. In many ways, they focused on space opera not SF.

A good example is Battlestar Galactica (1978 - 1979). At first, I was excited. Visually, nothing like this had been done on TV. But the show was hobbled by inconsistent story telling, camp and some very wooden acting. Here was an interesting space opera that could have been good. Even though it was getting good ratings, it was cancelled because it was too expensive to produce.

What came after were weak films, trying to be Star Trek or Star Wars wannabees. Even the first Star Trek film was extremely weak. But it was not a complete wasteland because we got, so example:

The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Alien (1980)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1980)
TRON (1982)
Blade Runner (1982)
Enemy Mine (1985)
Aliens (1986)
The Fly (1986)
Robocop (1987)

In the box office, SF was doing well, especially with the Star Wars and Star Trek franchies. But in TV land, there was a wasteland for SF. But great TV existed like Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere for example. And in 1987, for me, SF came back to TV with Next Generation.

But the curse of both haunted both the small and big screens. Star Wars started to became vehicle of merchandise and not story telling. Star Trek alternated from good to pathetic.

Real SF on the big screen got replaced by comic book stuff. We got crap like The Lawnmower Man, Timecop, and Judge Dredd. There were bad attempts to make cyberpunk films or use comic books. And, over all, SF languished. As the 90’s moved along, Star Wars was over and Star Trek was losing steam.

In TV land, things were even worse. Next Generation was losing steam so we got overloaded with Star Trek spin-offs. I loved DS9 but could not believe the utter shite of Voyager. Shows like Stargate SG-1 and Quantum Leap were simple shows with little or no SF.

Yet there was one beacon, one potential shining light was Babylon 5 (1994 - 1998) which completely non-Trek or Wars but it seemed to be retooled each season. I loved the idea of long story arcs and things not being wrapped up at the end of the episode. Yet the stations that were airing it either pre-empted it or moved it around. Babylon 5 never got a real chance. But for many, it was refreshing to have something original.

I know some people would want to put X-Files in here, since it started 1993. But, for me, the show was never SF. It focused on this paranormal and conspiracy theories.

But things, for me, changed drastically in 1999. The first was the release of the complete and utter shit called The Phantom Menace. I was completely stunned by the lack of story telling, contradictions to things previous established and wooden acting. It was just a movie trailer so Lucas could masturbate and sell toys.

Yet 1999 heralded an important change for TV. I came into Farscape (1999 - 2003) a season or two after it started. I was blown away. The aliens were not cute and fuzzy. The characters were not paragons of virtues. And the show was genuinely funny. I was extremely pissed off when it was cancelled. Dark Angel (2000 - 2002) started with an interesting premise but fell apart all too quickly. As did Enterprise (2001 - 2005). And I won’t get into the crap like Andromeda or Earth: Final Conflict.

For me, the biggest tragedy was Firefly (2002 - 2003). Here was something completely new and different for SF on TV. Let’s have a SF show with no aliens. Just humans with human problems as they expand outwards. Like Farscape, Firefly focused on a rag-tag bunch of people who were not that loveable. And the story telling was strong.

Then came Battlestar Galactica (2003 - today). The stories were completely riveting and engrossing. Effects were top-notch for TV and I couldn’t wait to see the next episode.

And last year came the retooled Dr. Who. For me, the first season rocked while the jury is still out on the second season. That is going to be another blog.

So what is the point of this meandering post? Dr. Who and Battlestar Galactica have come back with a vengeance. Shows like Firefly and Farscape broke the barriers Star Trek and Star Wars put on science fiction. Yet why aren’t there more good shows and movies out there?

Just look at the current line up on the Sci Fi channel. Most of the programming is pure, utter shite. Monster shows, alien invasions and super-hero stuff. Not much when it comes to hard-core science fiction.

And it is as if there isn’t a wealth of material to work from. The stories from Larry Niven in the 70’s has some amazing stuff to cull. Joe Haldeman has some great stuff about war and identity. James P. Hogan has mystery and intellect in his Giant series. And there is so much more.

Yet we get crap like Battlefield Earth (2000) and Andromeda (2000 - 2005). As I have pointed out, above, there have been some great SF films and shows. This is a genre that screams to be explored. SF allows us to explore the human condition without the constraints of our current society. It allows us to dream of the future, good and bad. It reminds us we do have a future. But the studios just squander it on ray guns, stupid aliens and/or hackneyed dialogue. And, lest we forget, merchandising.

What is Next?

2006-04-29T14:31:00.000-04:00

I don’t know if there is a sign in Revelation about the oncoming Apocalypse but this should be.

Just recently, an Italian restaurant in Vicenza was fined 688 euros ($855 US) for displaying live lobsters on ice to attract patrons.

This ruling came about because of an strong anti-cruelty law in Italy. You see, Italy has some of the world's toughest animal rights laws. The city of Rome in October banned goldfish bowls, seen as cruel Up in Turino, they passed a law last year that would fine dog owners 500 euros unless they walked their canine friends at least three times a day.

It seems this case was brought about by Gianpaolo Cecchetto, a former environmental activist, who took his two young children to the Vicenza restaurant in May 2002.

According to reports, Checchetto said his children were shocked by the display and he immediately got in touch with the ENPA, which is a national animal protection entity in Italy. For course ENPA took care of this horrible and despicable abuse of animals.

The court ruled that the display was a form of abuse dooming the crustaceans to a slow death by suffocation.

And I thought only in America did the legal system go wonky. Absurdity lives in other countries. Once again misguided intentions become retarded.

If Rome banned fishbowls, then aquariums can’t be far behind. If I could be fined for not walking my dog at least three times a day, this leads to a scary scenario. I can see the misguided nuts setting up a hotline for anonymous tips to catch the nasty pet owners who don’t take Fluffy out enough times.

Thing is, I am not being flippant here. How would the authorities know if you didn’t take Fluffy out three times a day. Someone would have to keep tabs on that. That would be for family members and neighbours to do.

Now to the yummy crustaceans. What is the most absurd thing about this whole thing is Checchetto and/or his children were shocked by this display. Why? They are coming to a restaurant to eat. And eat meat.

If the lobster display was a way to attract clients into a furniture store or book store, then I can see something wrong. But the display is there so if you want lobster, you know they have it and can chose which one you would like to fill your gullet with.

And then the ruling. The display was dooming those poor crustaceans to a slow death by suffocation. Well, I hope not.The goal is the hot, boiling water. And then it is a fast death by scalding. Yet that is okay.

Once again, here we are seeing society with a skewed sense of reason. Women are out there being brutalized by their partners. And some men. People are living in abject poverty. Sick people are stalking kids on the Internet. Politicians focus on their personal gain, raping the people they represent. Old people have to stop taking meds because they need money just to eat.

Yet making sure an owner takes his mutt for a walk three times is important. Making sure crustaceans don’t slowly suffocate is court worthy.

Peoples’ priorities are becoming completely fucked up. All the money groups like PETA make, the money spent by celebrities to stop the seal hunt, the money wasted with this court case could have been all used to help our fellow man and woman. But no. I am seeing more compassion for the little seal pups or lobsters than I am for the people living on the street or for the woman trying to escape the abusive world she is in.

I said it before and I’ll say it again. If we can’t be kind and love each other, how can we do the same to the animals that live on the same world we do? But a homeless person or a battered woman doesn’t make a good poster and bring in the money, does it?

On the mend...

2006-04-24T18:25:00.000-04:00

What I hate the most about being sick is not being able to concentrate. Having a crappy paycheck coming up ain't too hot either, but that is not what frustrates me.

The past while I have been hit by a nasty bug. It started off like the flu but by Friday degenerated. Sniffing, sneezing, being lethargic, no problem. But the bug hit me in the gut and I was completely useless.

If I wasn't on the can, I was in bed with no energy. And if I was up, I couldn't focus. Last week I had finished a new short story and tried to edit it on Saturday and Sunday, but couldn't. And I was on urbis to do reviews and couldn't focus.

It is this thing where my brain is active but things are so scattered I can't do anything with it. To make things worse, I only have 3 channels on the TV and no mindless fluff to plunk into the DVD or VCR. And no new simple reads in the apartment.

For someone like me, this is frustrating. I wanted to write. I wanted to get some more credits. I wanted to attack the next chapter of my novel. But all I could do was run back and forth from my bedroom to the can & back. A prisoner in my own mind. And because of that, I couldn't shut my brain off so I had a hard time to sleep.

Late yesterday the fever broke and today my trips to the can were less frequent. And food actually stayed down. But as my luck would have it, today, urbis is down. So all I had was 3 channels of TV.

I had forgotten what a waste land TV is. We have bubbly, moronic Regis and Kelly. The shrill sycophants on the View. Different shows on how to improve your house and yourself. And the ever pompous Oprah and trite Dr. Phil.

Lest we forget the soap operas. One utterly pathetic one, Passions, has a plotline where one of the characters is in the catacombs under the Vatican being prepared for some sort of sacrifice. With an evil looking monk around. Must be evil because you never see his face.

In many ways, I wished I was at work. I can be mindless there and get money. But I couldn't risk it today. Yet now my system is starting to settle, I can go back and mend there.

It will be a couple of more days before my system is back to normal and I will be able to eat like a pig again. Argh! I hate being sick but then again who does?

Thus ends my rant.

Reviewing

2006-04-19T15:45:00.000-04:00

One of the toughest things about be an artist, is the reviews. People you do not know end up commenting, criticizing, or sucking up to you. This is patently obvious on the writer’s website I am submitting to. I wanted to share one in particular with you, on a short story I wrote, The Sacrifice. Here it is, in full:

I applaud your effort in writing this piece. I think this was a good writing exercise for you. Writers don’t like to hear that, and especially after writing 7,000 words. When you’ve written about one million words you’ll get the hang of writing. I’m not being condescending here; it takes that long.

The sentences structure was very staccato. Usually I have to tell writers to cull out their adjectives and adverbs, but you need to add a few. Color the scenes a little more. A few suggestions on grammar:

`I hope to be as him when I reach his age.’ Single quotation marks are only used inside of double quotation marks(in fact most all of these single quotations marks are misused)
Too many obscure reference “An áfÿlan echoed…” Just use a sprinkling of these words.

“Before eating himself…” dangling modifier. Was the king eating his own body?
Don’t fool yourself into think a publisher will fix all these problems because your idea is so great. He will not; in fact, he will throw your manuscript in the trash bin and move on to the next manuscript that is better prepared.

This is your best paragraph
“Every night, as he [lain] laid…. were extended to his hounds.” I really got a sense of the character of the king here. Write more like this.

I would write a few more of these short stories before tackling the novel. A short story is the best way to hone your writing skills. Do keep wring; it’s the only way to improve. Best of luck.

Tom

Denver, Colorado

Now, urbis is meant to be a place where people review other people’s stuff. When I review a piece, I focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. For me, the reason we are there is to improve our craft.

Whereas he had some points about the story, it was wrapped with this condescending tone. What immediately irked me was the comment about writing one million words, and then I’ll get the hang of it. I have passed that point some time ago. I have written over 45 short stories and about 1000 pages for Tangled Threads. Of course then there was the comment on publishers. One of the reasons I am on urbis there is to improve my pieces so I can submit my stuff to a publisher.

True, he has been published through Ghost Road Press, an independent publishing company in his home town. Which has a catalogue of around 18 books. I have yet to be published. And he most likely has more time to focus on writing, I don’t.

As I said, I take reviewing seriously. And I do not make asides like that. Even my most critical reviews focus on the work, not the person (save one). The only way an artist can get better is by receiving constructive criticism.

In a previous post, I mention the importance of a mentoring system. People like me really want to help other writers improve their craft, take them under our wing. Let them learn and grow in a nurturing environment. Of course, we cannot protect them from the harsh reality of the real world, but we can temper it.

And I want to have people help me. Over the past while, it has been interesting to see how a small community of writers have formed around me. Of the five or six people in this circle, the minute a new piece is available, I review it. And they do the same for me. A great camaraderie is evolving.

I am not naive about the publishing world. I know when a publisher gets an unsolicited submission, you are lucky if they read the first whole page. You have to grab them, fast. Then you have to be consistent because the minute they put the manuscript down, it will be forgotten and sent back.

That is how I approach reviewing a piece on urbis. There have been pieces I’ve finished only because I need the credits. And then I will let them know about setting up a hook. And if it doesn’t make sense, I say so. Here is an example of one of my reviews:

Whereas your piece starts off interesting, it veers off into directions which make no sense. At the end, you don’t pull the threads together in any way.

I have no problem with going off on tangents but what does graven images and Islam have to do with a bleeding rectum? Or the Red Sox? In the end, I didn’t get it.

For me, reviewing means one must put aside one’s ego and focus on the piece. Does it work or not? Are there structural problems? Does it flow? Are there other problems. And then provide suggestions or points for the writer to ponder when revising the piece.

I have had many excellent reviews for all 5 pieces I have placed on urbis. Many of them have pointed to mistakes or problems with suggestions. It has allowed me to revise Morbid Angel into a better piece. Here is a good example of a constructive review, for Sédanta:

My suggestion is that you invest in a Thesaurus…not just any old thesaurus, one you will be comfortable enough to fall in love with. A book so second to your nature you carry it with you – can’t imagine life without it, use it.

I offer this advice to you because your story-telling capabilities are sound and kept me intrigued but your consistent and repeated over-use of the same words completely turned me off. It was a struggle to continue reading.

For example: At the very beginning of your story, you used gaze four times within two paragraphs. I was already losing interest by then (thinking – OH Man, does he do this all the way down…and sighing).

Let me know if you post any revisions. I enjoy the re-drafts!

-Paula

Paula pointed out a few things I have to work on. And when I went back, I could see her points. Because of this review I will be able to tightened the chapter and maybe entice a publisher.

Finally, a review can also be words of encouragement. And voices of an audience you did not think of. Here is a review from a British 16 year old:

a brilliant story! have you planned on writing another story abou the evil that will decend?
And i love all the names (both people and place names), they help set the scene just as much as the description does

or a 46 year old who writes pulp fiction style novels:

Very Good, there is some very interesting backstory here just waiting to be revealed! Are the druids behind the former king’s dementia? Who is this second son, a rogue bastard prince? Your style reminds me a great deal of George R.R. Martin and his Games of Thrones series. I look forward to seeing more. I believe you will be a writer to watch for.
Bill

Reviewing has two functions: help the writer improve his/her craft and give him/her encouragement to continue. And anything personal should be left at the door. If you can’t be objective, don’t be a review. Become a critic.

The Dangers of a Community

2006-04-11T18:06:00.000-04:00

When I saw this picture, it captures the mood and point of this post (I think).

Well, I read this interesting piece on urbis today. I wanted to share the pearls of wisdom catherinethegreatdammit wrote and my response to it. And then some comments. The piece is called: I like the Circle Jerk of Friends... I am going to watch until I go blind.

You know, I joined Urbis at the urging of a friend. Since joining I have come to realize that this is nothing more than a circle jerk of writers, by writers, for writers. It makes me giggle, but at the same time, I want no part of it.
I care less about any of the shit on here.

I write because its in my blood. I care less if I get published and I care less if anybody from the dumb fucking site with its ghey pictures of wanna-be publishers giving wanna-be editors handshakes likes any of my shit.

I write for my friends. And, because they hear what I am trying to say, they urge me to get published and all that yadda-smadda. You see, I write about how my life has been affected by bipolar disorder and alcoholism. I write about being a mother and a woman who is true to herself, regardless of what others may think.
They need my voice and I give it to them because I love them.

But, as for making my writing meet a criteria set by other amateurs, I think its laughable.

I abuse commas…,,,,a,,,a..as and spelling and pucntuation because I see the words as my craft they are as malleable to my hands and my imagination as I want them to be.

I care less if anyone understands or reads this, because I have already had my say. I am just getting my rocks off by posting this.

I am fulfilled beyond measure and I feel sad that this website panders to the same ego-stroking dumbfucks who buy into vanity publishing.

So…No, I am not going to read your shit and comment. I don’t care two dicks and a dogfart about your damn credits.

I have my satisfaction.

And, it responds to the stroking of my fingers on my keyboard like a lover who hungers for my touch.

Now, go fuck off all of you.

I am going back to staring at the sun.

My response to this piece is as follows:

I hope one day to get your Zen attitude, so I can also look down from your lofty heights. I’m here because I was hoping to get some tips so I can get published, but not via vanity publishing. Maybe I am just naive or misguided. Or just delusional. I suppose I just don’t have in my blood like you, chasing a zephyr of a dream that I may never attain. Sigh!

I suppose I have a long way to go before I can be like you, only see myself as being important. Putting everyone else beneath me. Living in a little space where my rules dictate and everyone else is subordinate to me. Where I don’t have to listen to anyone else because they are all inferior to me.

I wish I could achieve that Zen loftiness you have achieved, being able to push reality away, for my own little safe verity. But instead of being like you, I am just a credit whore that this place has turned me into.

You hit the nail on the head with some of your points. It is just that, in my humble amateur opinion, your tone takes away from the points you are trying to make.

It just seems to me that they don’t have you on the right meds; you may want to check with your doctor. Or you are failing your anger management courses & need new ones. Once that is taken care of, then you can touch up with piece and give it the punch it really needs.

But I did notice one thing, at the very end. You write I am going back to staring at the sun. That could be the problem. The sun can be extremely damaging to the eyes. In the end, affecting and clouding your vision. Possible leading to blindness.

I left the mistake in the last line on purpose, since I can write using my own rules when I want to!

Obviously, this person has issues. Yet the sad thing, you will always have assholes like this in a community. And that is the point this post.

Urbis is a community of writers. Each community, be a church, pub, painters, bowlers, whatever will have their share of sycophants, those that only want their ego stroked, the assholes, the doom-sayers. And they revolve about the real people who make up a community.

Agreed, an artist community has more vocal extremes. The sycophants are more cloying. The ones that want their ego-stroked ignore any and all critiques. And the assholes, well will be assholes.

I've seen, be it at Hurley's or Brutopia, people who are 'special' and the cloying groupies around them. These groupies catching each word dripping from these people's mouths, for their little sacred chalice to hold close to their heart. Not seeing through the flimsy veneer that is in constant peril of becoming ripped at any time.

For me, on urbis, over 90% of the reviews I have received have been constructive and pointed things out that I didn’t notice. Or gave me encouragement to continue. It has helped put a fire back in my belly that was missing for some time. This long weekend, I plan to revise a short story, a non-fiction piece and try to finish a new short story. So urbis can't be half bad, in my humble, amateur opinion.

Unlike other times, we have lost the mentoring system for artists. So communities like urbis become more and more important. Inexperienced writers, painters, etc. need a place where they can experiment, learn and grow. Throughout history circles of artists were important to the growth of artists. Experienced artists would take inexperienced artists under their wings. We really don't have that in great numbers today.

A good example of a recent writer’s circle is the Inklings. They were a literary discussion group that met between the 1930’s and the 1950’s. Some of the books that came out from this group include Lord of the Rings, Out of the Silent Planet, and All Hallow’s Eve. I wouldn't say that group of about 19 writers was a waste of time.

Yet you get people who look at the idea of community as a waste of time. They will not learn from anyone else. They don’t need to. That is what I find unforgivable about this piece: the sheer arrogance that is behind something like:

But, as for making my writing meet a criteria set by other amateurs, I think its laughable.

I abuse commas…,,,,a,,,a..as and spelling and pucntuation because I see the words as my craft they are as malleable to my hands and my imagination as I want them to be.

This, for me, encapsulates catherine. She most likely can’t write for shit so when people point out mistakes, we becomes amateurs that know nothing. To abuse commas, spelling, etc., you bloody well know the rules. James Joyce was able to do his thing because he knew the rules and how to bend or break them. catherine wants to play in her sandbox and only allow people who let her play by her rules in. And only her rules.

And she says:

I write for my friends. And, because they hear what I am trying to say

Boy would I like to live in her little bubble. Just from my own experience before coming out. I wrote some gay-themed stories, about the pain I was going through. No one got it, save one person. It was only once I was out, my friends went: oh, it was about you?

Most friends say they will be honest but often they are not. They don’t want to hurt your feelings, so they couch what they say. And no matter how close you are, there are things they don't fully know about you.

One thing I can’t leave alone is:

You see, I write about how my life has been affected by bipolar disorder and alcoholism.

Oh, oh, oh, I have problems with alcohol and raise you three nervous breakdowns. And living on the street for 8-9 months. But now I am being silly!

Yet she has some valid points. One is:

ego-stroking dumbfucks who buy into vanity publishing.

There are those there. Yet every community you find yourself in, there is the dangers of panderers or people who want to tear you down. There will be those who ignore your advice or think you are full of crap. And then there are the genuine ones there that want to help you the best they can.

Life is rough. You need a thick skin to survive in any kind of community. You have to roll with the punches. Whether catherine is bi-polar or not, the vitriol and arrogance in her words shows someone who is not happy and doesn’t want to be out in the real world. To come out and play with us.

urbis is not perfect. What community is? You just have to know the good parts you want to use from it and ignore the rest. And a hissy fit isn't going change things.

I’ll leave you with two things. The first is a review catherine wrote on a piece my buddy, Jason wrote:

I am sorry to say but this whole piece was so utterly was superfluous in the wording and the dialogue that the storyline came across with far less impact then it could have.

And if you want to check out her blog, the site is:

http://blog.myspace.com/catherinethefookingreat

Peace!

A milestone...

2006-04-09T17:50:00.000-04:00

The past while, I have been a bit slack when it comes to this blog. When I started back in February, I had something to say almost every day. Yet over the past few weeks, I have let days go before coming back with my opinions and propoganda.

This is my 50th post. As I wrote in my 25th post, I did not expect to last so long. But the reality is that I wasn't writing when I started. I have now gotten the fire back, which means this little sliver of cyberspace doesn't rank as number one in my focus.

Yet this place is one of the reasons I started to write again, and of course urbis set the water boiling.

At times, it is difficult to explain the passion I have for writing. I love to write. It is amazing when you come to the end of a piece and you are stunned that you wrote that. Yet there is a sense of loss because it is finished. Be it an hour or nine months, you are absorbed in what you are trying to say. The energy is high when you are creating. So when you get to the end, it sluices out of you. And you feel empty. So you eagerly jump into the next idea, hoping to fill the blank pages in front of you, to grab that energy again.

I have not had that in a while. Agreed my life has been a little fucked up. Things like nervous breakdowns or living on the street does hamper the creative spirit. But now I am back in the saddle.

The past couple of weeks, I have written one brand new story, Morbid Angel and have a second near completion, I Thought while a third is lingering on the pages. Plus I am now reediting an old piece, Remembrance. It has been a while I have had this kind of a creative rush. And I'm riding it for all it is worth.

Yet this has made a little orphan of this blog. I'm not closing up shop, just focusing my energy. I would like to keep the pace of a post a day, but I can't. I still have tons to say, and plan to say it. It will just be sporadic over the next while.

Then again, who knows? I never expected to hit the 25 post, let alone the 50 post milestone. But if I am not around for a couple days, gentle reader, don't be surprised. But know that what energy was poured here is being poured into an equally important thing.

A Personal Recollection

2006-04-06T21:50:00.000-04:00

After spending a couple of days, at the beginning of the week, in silly mode, I have been kicked back to Earth. The reason is a story I reviewed on urbis, called Benevolent Curse and it deals with rape. I’ll give you my opinions later. Yet the piece opened a flood gate which I am going to share with you.

I was hoping to get it on earlier but I have been going over it a couple of times, fiddling with it. Ah, fuck it, I decided today. This is raw, let it be. And word of warning, this is going to be a long piece. So if you have them, smoke them, if you have a shot glass, get a highball, if you’re low on coffee, brew some before you start.

Back in the summer of 1984 (or 83 I honestly don’t remember), a good friend of my Patty was brutally raped. That act of violence not only scarred Patty but her friends like myself. And I hope to express some of that today.

Before I start, I need to give some background. Patty was from Coral Gables, Florida. She was a breath of fresh air in Mechanical Engineering at McGill. She was a little flighty, bubbly and at times way too sunny.

In contrast there was Kathy, who was also American. She was hard as nails, in your face and took not shit for anyone. And didn’t really like Patty. The two personalities were radically different. And I loved them both. Each touched different aspects of who I was at the time.

Well, it was a hot summer and Patty was living in a small apartment in the McGill Ghetto. Her windows were open and she was not wearing any clothes. She had a sheet over her, but that was it.

She was awakened by someone coming into her apartment. Of course, sheer terror came over her. But the guy just grabbed some stuff like her stereo and disappeared. Some time later, she called the cops.

The next morning, she came in to tell us about what had happened. And because of her personality, she started to make light of the situation. She even commented that she was surprised the guy did not attack her. I was stunned when she wondered if he left her alone because she was a ‘fat cow’. She got quite a earful from Kathy about making light of the situation. Kathy was horrified Patty could make take rape so lightly. Patty just fluttered her hand and ignored the jibe.

The police had warned Patty that she should move her stuff and not stay in her apartment for a while because this guy was known for returning to the place he had previously burgled. So she organized to move in with a friend a couple of floors down.

At this time, she was working on a project and had my father as an advisor. Being the erstwhile guru of the lab, people like Patty relied on me for help. Especially if they needed to come in early.

I have always been a morning person. Up at the crack of dawn. It also didn’t help that living out in the armpit of the universe, Chateauguay, I would have to leave home by 6:00 to be in the lab by 7:00. That is during the summer. During the winter, taking the 6:00 bus might mean I would miss my 9:00 class.

Anyway, I was helping out Patty with her project. A week or so after the burglary, she asked if I could come in early. She needed access to equipment & the computer and a deadline was looming. So I said no problem.

I got to the lab by 6:45, because traffic was light. I unlocked the lab and I set up the coffee maker as I always did. And waited for Patty. By 7:30, I was starting to get concerned because she wasn’t there yet. We had agreed 7ish. By 8, I was worried.

By 8:30, my gang had started to roll in. They were quick to dismiss my worry because Patty is a will-o-wisp. She most likely forgot. She decided to sleep in. She’ll saunter in around 11, with a sweet smile and say she was sorry. And then I would forgive her. But, for me it didn’t ring true.

My father was a task-manager with the students he advised. Patty knew that. She needed to organize some initial results for the report he wanted soon. No, something was wrong.

It was around 9 when she came into the lab, escorted by a female police officer. Her hair was dishevelled. She was pale, her shoulders hunched. And there was something wrong with her eyes. They seemed to be lifeless. Distant.

She came in, all apologetic. She was sorry that she had not shown up. Hadn’t called. Please don’t hate me. I’m so sorry. I didn’t know what to say, I had no idea what was going on. Then she asked if my father was in.

He had arrived a little earlier, so I told her he should be in his office. I need to talk to him. I’ll be back. And she just bolted out of the lab. I, as the other people in the lab, were stunned and confused. But I do not if any of them caught the look on the policewoman’s face. The look of sadness, of anger, of impotence. I still shudder from that memory.

I cannot remember how long she talked to my father but when she returned, she once again apologized. All I could do was stammer and told her not to worry about it. She then came over to give me a hug.

The hug was shattering. It was not a Patty hug. She and I are huggers. When I hug, I hug, as Patty did. We barely touched. Our bodies met but there was an invisible barrier; something separating the two of us. She then said she had to leave and we would talk later.

My mind was in chaos. Immediately it went back to what happened earlier. The guy had come back. He had attacked Patty. Total visceral anger started to course through my veins.

But I needed information. Ignoring my gang, I bolted to my father’s office. There was no preamble, just what the fuck is going on? Which put my father into a slight hissy fit. I had no time for his control-freak antics. He grumbled and started to tell me what Patty and the policewoman told him.

My personality split completely in two as my father confirmed my suspicions. Sheer utter fury competed with waves of grief.

My father had been told that Patty had gone back up to her room because she had forgotten some of her research stuff. Instead of returning to her friend’s place, she stayed in her place. Because of the deadline, she had been pushing herself so she was tired. And fell asleep at her desk. To be awoken by the guy from earlier and be brutally raped by him.

Each one of us, in the lab, went through our private hells when I told the gang of what had happened. The swear words flew, the anger was projected out impotently. The disgust clung to the air like a thick fog. This happens to people on the news or in the papers, not to someone we know. I remember Kathy looking shattered.

The details of the whole rape took time to be told. It had not been just the physical act of violence but also psychological acts of violence. Yet the details are of no import here. She was brutally attacked.

And now the once bubbly Patty was now a completely shattered husk of a person. Her female friends had to stay with her during the night because she could not sleep properly. A palpable distance separated Patty from her male friends for some time.

Yet one thing that is often ignored is the devastating effects on the friends of a rape victim. Patty actually lost some friends. They believed she brought this upon herself. She should have known better. And look at how she reacted at first. Maybe she was teasing him and she wanted it.

I do not know what was going through their minds, just supposition. Yet those who stuck with Patty had their own emotions to deal with, be it about the friends who abandoned her or seeing Patty in the state she was in.

For me, I ran the gamut of emotions. But what scared me was what I became for a couple of weeks. From the vague descriptions we got, the man who raped Patty was black, around 6 feet tall. She could not remember what he wore. Even his hair was non-descript. It could have been a short Afro, but she wasn’t sure.

Yet based on that description, a group of us started to look about the campus and the Ghetto for someone who might fit the description. We were looking for blood. When we didn’t have classes or obligations, we were out, searching.

For myself, I was not out to kill this person. I wanted to castrate him. Put his balls in his mouth and let him live a long miserable life without his jewels. There were even times I thought about going for all of it. Leave him completely without balls and a dick. Then he would never be able to do what he did again.

Every black man on campus became a suspect. I would walk down, though the campus, toward Sherbrooke and pass by a black man who vaguely fit the description and stop. And find the dark spectre of fury welling in me. Was it you? Did you do this to my friend? I’ll make you pay. Going down Milton, I had my radar out, in search for this one non-descript black man. Be it during the day, or in the shadows of night, we wanted to find this man.

This was an ugly mirror that was thrust upon me that I had to deal with. I have never had thoughts of violence toward anyone before, in the extreme I was thinking. Even worse, I was targeting any black man between 5’6” and 6’2”. Based on little or no evidence.

I was shocked by the welling in me. I was ready and willing to do serious, major harm to a human being. That reflection of me shocked me. I never thought I could be capable of what I was thinking, letting my fury become my guide.

But I was not the victim in all of this. Patty was. I do not want to take away from what happened to her but all too often those around a rape victim are ignored or not discussed.

For me, one episode stands clear as today in my mind to show what damage this act of violence does to a woman or man. The steps they have to take to rebuild their demolished lives.

It was a some time later. Patty could not walk about alone. All of us became shadows for her. When she left home, someone was with her. If she went into town, one of us would be with her.

With the therapy and help she was getting, this was one thing that had to be addressed. I was part of the first experiments of being able to walk alone.

We were walking down Ste. Catherine, and Patty said it was time she should try to walk alone. For one block. But her eyes did not reflect what her mouth was saying. A thin film of cold sweat came to her forehead. She was trembling even though it was hot. Sheer terror welled in her eyes. We stood at the corner for a moment before Patty finally decided to try.

At first her stride was strong but once she was on the south side, she was alone, me on the north. She stood for a moment at the corner, unsure. But the light changed. I had to wait for her decision: go forward or return.

I have no idea what was going through her mind as she decided to walk that block alone. I only have a visual memory. I matched her stride and kept looking at her. She tried not to glance at me but occasionally snapped her head violently, to remind her I was there. At times she walked as if she was drunk, other times as if she was walking against a strong wind. Her whole body was straining from the excursion. And when we reached the end of the block, she almost bolted back across the street, back to me.

This scene, for me, encapsulates the damage rape does to someone, be it a man or a woman. Here was a once vibrant woman who could not walk down the street, for one block, alone. Her free spirit was chained by fear and other emotions she could not share with us.

Some of Patty did return before she graduated. And just before she left to return home to Coral Gables, she vowed to keep in touch. But I knew she wouldn’t. Once she was home, she would have to put Montreal away. Heal and move forward. Montreal would be a source of pain for a long time and I would have to be forgotten. I was part of that pain she would have to get past.

Twenty years later I am still saddened by the loss of this friend. Many of my McGill friends moved away and we lost touch because of distance. But I lost Patty because of an act of violence. And I lost her the day she came into the lab.

So what started all of this? A short story called Benevolent Curse. It deals with a rape victim, for the first time after a rape, trying to be with a man again. And the male protagonist says that the narrator was given a benevolent curse because what she went through has given her inner strength that many never find in their life.

I can see what the writer was trying to say. We often don’t think we have the inner strength to get through a major crisis. I didn’t think I had it in me to survive living on the streets.

Each rape is different. The rape the writer presents is nothing compared to the violence, both physically and psychologically, that Patty experienced. And the writer of the short story did not make light of the damage rape does. Being a male, I have idea of the damage this act of violence does to a woman. I only have what I saw and heard. I could never understand what a person having gone through how they truly feel. Yet I cannot see rape being a benevolent curse.

I was a bystander through all of this. I don’t have any friends about me now, who have gone through a similar situation to get a sense of their reaction. All I can do is react from what I feel and have learnt. What little I went through has made me more sensitive about rape. As some people have found out when they have joked about it. Trust me, you don’t ever want to be around me and make light of rape!

God knows if Patty is now a happy person, living some of the dreams she had back in the heydays of the McGill lab. I really hope so. I hope she has found some peace.

Part of me wants to know, yet part of me doesn’t how she is now. I really want to have a happy ending to this tragic story. But the realist in me dreads finding out because all too often there are no happy endings.

Catkins

2006-04-03T21:07:00.000-04:00

This is a male catkin on a willow.

This is a male catkin on a common hazel in January before opening.

But what is a catkin, you may ask. I will let Wikipedia tell you:

Catkins, or aments, are slim, cylindrical flower clusters, wind-pollinated and without petals, that can be found in many plant families, including Betulaceae, Fagaceae, Moraceae, and Salicaceae. They contain unisexual flowers. Often one plant has only male catkins, while another has female, but it is also possible for a plant to contain both male and female catkins.

So what profound and deep post is in store today? I think I have uncovered something major here. A major problem deep in the forest. And I had to share it with you.

I came onto the word by accident looking up the proper spelling of a word in the dictionary. I just loved the sound of it. Catkin. It just sort of flows off the tongue when you say it out loud. Well, it does for me, anyway.

Yet I do find it interesting that one plant may only have male catkins while another will have only females. And some of the luck few get both. Sounds almost kinky. I can just see the plants out there whispering to each other, so do you have a male or female catkin dangling there. Oh, you have both? Lucky you! I wish I had both!

But then I started to see the danger that lurks deep in the forest. Something wikipedia dare not mention. Willows and hazels have catkin envy. What they don't have a catkin? What would the other plants think? I can see it now, in the middle of the forest, a willow standing tall and proud with both male and female catkins while the grubby little willows without any being relegated to the fringes of the forest.

And of course, we cannot dismiss the pain of having a small catkin compared to having a large catkin. Think about it. Would you would want to be caught dead at a tree function with a dinky catkin, while others parade around with big ones?

This is an area we need to investigate. What are the profound, psychological damage catkins could do to the well-being of a willow or hazel? Are they really necessary or just an appendage used for status? Right now, as I type, there could be severely depressed willows or hazels, preparing themselves for the chain-saw. With no regard on how their death might affect the balance of the forest. This is something we need to look into.

I thought the look of those innocent baby seal's eyes begging me to let them live was a cause. I am seeing a bigger picture. I think I have just scratched the surface here. There may be a black market for catkins out there. Maybe spam advertising catkin enlargement. My mind boggles at the potential abuse here. Then again, my mind just boggles!

And Now For Something Complete Different (4)

2006-04-02T09:07:00.000-04:00

The last in this series, for now, is still in Erlangen, Germany. This took place during one of the roughest weeks I had there, November 28/1994 to December 4/1994. To get to the Monty Python part, we have to get a little heavy first. Bear with me.

It was then my good friend, Johnny died. Johnny was the father of one of my best friends, Brian. Yet his parents, Johnny and Blanche never treated me as just Brian’s friend. I was Loekie. I was, whether I liked it or not, part of the family.

I had known Johnny since 1979-1980. He was a gentle man with a mischievous glint in his eyes. And when he asked you how your day was, he meant it. He wanted to know.

Anyway, Johnny died late on November 28th, 1994. He was bowling with his wife & friends and had a heart attack after having a strike. They tried to bring him back a couple of times, but the family decided it was best to leave him in peace.

Because of the time difference, I did not find out until Wednesday. I came into work to find an email from a friend at work back in Montreal. All it said was there was an emergency and to contact him or my friends Errol or Brian. The first thought was something was wrong with my mum.

I had to wait over an hour because I was the only one on the floor and did not know how to dial out international numbers. When my co-worker, Wieland came in, I finally was able to call and found out Johnny died. I was stunned.

My grief grew worse because I wanted to be there for the funeral, the wake, for everything but I couldn’t. I was stuck alone. But be my mates at the Institute or the Dartmoor, I had support.

The next day, an idea came to me. If I could not be there for the funeral or wake, I would do something in Erlangen. And that is when a PBS show called Andre’s Mother came to mind. I won’t go into details about the show, but at the end, after a funeral, the crowd release white balloons as a symbol of starting to let go and guiding the dead person’s spirit upwards. And I decided I wanted to do this for Johnny.

And now the Monty Python theme music kicks in...

The plan was to do this Friday at sunset. It would about the time the funeral would be over and the wake would be starting in Montreal. I choice two balloons: a red for heart, a white for peace.

Friday morning was the adventure to find helium. My co-work and mate, Wieland knew many people around campus. So he organized to get helium for me. And off we went to get some at the physics department.

It took some time to get it. First some of the tanks weren’t working. Then we didn’t have the right helium. The helium they used was pure and the molecules would go straight through the pores of the balloon. We needed dirty helium. Which took forever to find. Now I will let my own words of that evening speak for me:

Wieland drove me out to the highest point around Erlangen. It wasn’t the place I thought we were going to. We pulled off the main road, to a parallel dirt road. As the trees cleared, I saw a cross, with Jesus, lit up by our headlights. Across the street was a cylindrical tower, which had an old, Roman look. It was like a turret of a castle without the castle.

Before Wieland went off to leave me alone, he handed me a small shot bottle of something, to fortify me. It was something like schnapps. He walked away down the dirt road and I was left with my thoughts.

As I walked from the car, I opened the bottle and drank it. Didn’t have much taste to it. Then I stopped and I stood there in the dirt road, for a couple of minutes. I couldn’t think of what to say or think. The wind was picking up, so the lines of the balloons became intertwined. I finally thought a few words and it was time to say good-bye. I decided not to untangle the balloons since, for some reason, they were now together. It had a nice symbology to it. Heart and peace together.

There was a line of trees and bushes on my left, so I move away from them. I released the balloons and they rose into the air. Only to be pushed, by a sudden wind, into the trees. Damn! I went up to the trees and pulled the balloons out. They had hit the branches, just at arm’s reach.

Moved down and away a bit and let them go again. Once again as they started to move away, the wind shifted. Only to get tangled in the trees again. This was getting a little ridiculous.

This was not going the way I envisioned it. It was starting to look like a Monty Python skit. This time, the balloons were a little higher and further in. So I had to get into the bramble, to get near the string. And there were quite a few thorns about.

I shook the branch, to get the balloons loose and scrapes over my exposed skin. After a bit, the white one shook loose and rose up into the sky, unencumbered. I shook the branch again, to get the red one out. But something happened, with the branch and the red one popped. I stood there, in the bramble, watching the white one rise in the air. The wind didn’t pick up this time. It quietly rose into the air.

Was this some sort of sign? It was Johnny’s heart that stopped. Why was it that the white one, for peace, was now floating freely in the air while the red one, for heart popped? In the end, I stood there and finally said good-bye. The white balloon slowly disappeared into the night air. Where it would end up, who knows? But it was free to go where it was supposed to.

I walked back to the car, feeling a little strange. At the car, I didn’t find Wieland there. I walked down the dirt road to where we had turned off the main road. He had gone around the corner, hidden by a row of hedges.

In the darkness, Erlangen spread before us, as pinpricks of little lights. Like the stars we could see in the sky. The night was clear and the moon wasn’t marring the sparkling lights.

When I walked up, he asked me how I was doing. I told him shaky but okay. He pointed toward Erlangen. “What do you see?” I looked at the twinkle of the town lights.

“Erlangen”, I responded.

“No, life” was his response. The glow of the town showed life. “The living are down there.” I stared at the lights. With the lights were people. With people was life. He grabbed by shoulder and hugged me. Then we walked back to the car.

When I called Montreal, I got Blanche at home. I told her about the balloons and she started to pee herself. Her comment was only Loekie could make letting go of balloons an adventure.

And when Brian came on the phone, as I was telling him what had happened, I could hear Blanche telling other people my adventures, filling the kitchen with laughter.

A fitting celebration for someone like Johnny. Someone who loved life and had that mischievous look in his eyes. I know he appreciated what happened and in the loss I still have, I can laugh.

Friendship

2006-04-01T15:38:00.000-05:00

I have been getting some interesting feedback on the stuff I have posted on urbis. The most interesting had been some of the responses on my poem, A Precious Few, especially the last stanza:

True friendship
Few and far between.
True friendship
Cherish the ones you have.

More than one person has commented that I am being cliched. That has stopped me and made me think.

When I first wrote the poem back in the mid 80's, it was a statement about the sad state of affairs with people. People are all too quick to classify anyone a friend. Someone is nice to them, they are a friend. Someone bought them a beer, they are a friend. Someone invited them to a BBQ, they are a friend. But that is not friendship.

I have known many people. Almost none would be classified as a friend. They were buddies or acquaintances. When times got rough, they weren't around. Their idea of support was to get me drunk or be pedantic and say things will get better.

I am not an easy person to be with. I have way too many demons haunting me. Some go back to my teenage years with my father. Yet those I call friends take me for what I am. I am moody, I have hissy fits. I pull back and don't talk to them for weeks. They know that and don't care.

But when I need support, I get it. And it is honest, unflinching support. They have no problems telling me I am being an asshole and get over it. Or drive me to the Douglas because I am having a breakdown, without judgment. Hug me when I am down and mean it. Revel with excitement when I make a positive step.

And when you lose a friend, it hurts, I mean hurts big time. Over ten years ago, I lost two friends, Mario and Colette because they broke up and I got caught in the middle. They demanded I chose sides but I couldn't because they were both important to me, so I lost both. And I still miss them.

Friendship is an intimate thing, just one step down from a marriage or partnership. You don't have many of them. True friendships are precious.

At work, I know and work with a lot of people. Yet none of them are friends. There are a couple of people where a friendship may develop, but they are co-workers. None of them will cover my back or be there is things gets fucked up. We'll go out and have a drink, play some pool. But that is as far as it goes.

It is the same at my local, Brutopia. My gang are great. We have a laugh, a few drinks, help each other out with a free DVD or hard disc, but nothing deeper. We're just buddies.

But in our current society, with the blurring of context and PC warmth, what a friend has been lost. Everyone is our friend, let's have a group hug. Argh! I don't need the immediacy they see what friendship is.

A friend is there, through thick and thin. They are a lighthouse you can rely on. They are there for the good times and bad. That is my take on friendship. And how I am as friend. I do not get pissed off when they call at 3 in the morning because they need talk. I don't admonish them when they throw-up all over my bathroom, hitting everything but the toilet. I will take a day off from work if a friend is in trouble. I will give my last 20 bucks to a friend, even though I won't get paid for another four days.

So, yeah I know a lot of people. And that is great. But I can count the number of friends on one hand. That is why I consider friendship precious. Buddies come and go. Friends don't.

Guilty Pleasures and Lost Opportunities

2006-03-30T21:03:00.000-05:00

For those who are just starting to get to know me, I am about to admit something that will may cause your jaw to drop or possibly induce heavy heaving. One of my guilty pleasures are certain soap operas.

The main one is British, Coronation Street. I have been following this serial since the 80’s. When I was young, it was Another World. Then it was All My Children and most recently As The World Turns.

But this post is about lost opportunities I’ve seen in my guilty pleasures and the visual media in general. Another World, I don’t remember too much because it was on because of my baby-sitter. I’ll focus on CS, AMC and ATWT.

This post is prompted by an episode I watch of ATWT on Wednesday, a couple of weeks ago. Because call volume is low, I got the afternoon off. I was doing some research in the middle room, and had the TV to see what I have missed over the past couple of months on ATWT.

To my surprise, one of the main young characters, Luke, is coming out. For the briefest moment I got excited and then reality kicked in.

Years ago 1995-1996, AMC decided to tackle gay issues. The plot line started with one of the characters, Michael Delany who taught at the high school, was gay. Because of him being outed, one of the students, Kevin Sheffield came out.

The whole plot line was typical soap opera, but they did tackle aspects of homophobia, and a young man trying to come to terms with his sexuality. It was a valiant attempt.

The problem was, once that major plot line was done, they did nothing with the two characters. Michael Delany faded off into the sunset and Kevin Sheffield went to university and also just faded away.

The same happened on CS. One of the main young characters, Todd, came out, which was a good plot line. They even gave him an on again/off again boyfriend. But once the plot line was gone, the character left the Street.

So now ATWT is starting up a gay plotline. Why am I worried? CS and AMC had meaty plotlines for the primary gay character. But once the plotline was finished, they did not know what to do with the character.

It is as if the only thing that defined these characters was their homosexuality. And once that was explored, there was nothing more to explore. These characters did not have enough dimension to interact on other levels with the other characters. They could not be secondary characters in other plotlines.

I saw great potential for characters like Kevin and Todd. They were young characters which could be active in so many other aspects of the fictional places of Pine Valley or Weatherfield. But the writers wrote themselves into a corner making the only defining feature their sexuality. Yet they had so much to work with.

For course, I am not naive. These shows are run by ratings and the sponsors. And especially in the States, sponsors are generally conservative. They don’t like it when a conservative Christian group threatens to boycott their products.

So the gay character is relegated to a rating sweep, a focal point for a potboiler plotline and then sweep them away. A long term gay character trying to find love does not pull in the ratings.

So now ATWT has jumped onto the gay bandwagon. Over the next few weeks, I will watch to see how the plotline pans out. But I do not have high hopes.

The Luke character is in his late teens. His coming out and interest in another character will be in the forefront for now. How will his parents deal with it? Other family members? The rest of Oakdale, Illinois?

But once that is done, are they going to relegate Luke to the background and then ship him off to a faraway university? Or will there be a voice over announcing a new actor playing the character of Luke and make him straight? Anything is possible in soap opera land.

Yeah, soap operas are over the top, exaggerated story telling but amidst the absurd stories, they do tackle important issues like rape or domestic violence. And I loved some of the silly plotlines. There was Janet from Another Planet. Rose & Lily and the desert island. Derek and his paper-clip car.

Yet soaps like Coronation Street brought in characters like Hailey, who is a transsexual. These soaps have shown the violence and devastation of an act of violence like rape. They have dealt with issues like depression, addiction, suicide and grief because of lost ones. Amongst the silly bedhopping, doomed love affairs, business deals going bad and age long rivalries, real issues are tackled. The missed opportunity still, for me, is someone who is gay.

Now for those who have that slight sneer reading this. Soap operas are not a modern mode of story telling. You want to see a soap opera or two, read Shakespeare. He wrote for the masses and his stuff is no different. Only time and ivory tower scholars have now elevated him to literature and beyond.

Commercial films and TV still have a way to go when it comes to the portrayal of gays in our society. There have been advances and set-backs. We are still not at the point where a gay character is just an ordinary character amongst straight characters.

You get shows like Will and Grace that play it safe. Especially with the Jack character. C did the same thing by getting rid of a normal character like Todd and bringing in a flamer like Shawn.

I suppose most of the straight audience out there still isn’t ready for a normal man or woman who just happens to be gay. But maybe, slowly with guilty pleasures like the soap operas, things might slowly change and echo into the main stream. All I can do is hope.

Writing

2006-03-29T06:15:00.000-05:00

My good buddy Jason sent me a link on a site about tools for writers. One section had something I wanted to babble about. Roy Peter Clark wrote:

America is not a nation of writers for many reasons. One big reason is The Writer's Struggle. Too many of us talk and act as if writing were a form of procreation without the sex, all labor and pain, all dilation and contraction, with none of the romance and excitement at the point of conception.

For those of you who want to write well, I'm about to reveal a great secret: The Writer's Struggle is over-rated. In fact, the struggle turns out to be not just a confidence game, but a con game, a cognitive distortion, a self-fulfilling prophecy, the best excuse in the world for not writing.

"Why should I get writer's block?" asked veteran newspaper columnist Roger Simon. "My father never got truck driver's block."

There is much more that resonated in me in this large website. But this brings up an interesting point: the dreaded writer’s block. For some time, this was an excuse I would use when I was not writing. I’ve got writer’s block. Or even worse, I will absorb myself in research to avoid getting back to what I am working on.

This happens often with Tangled Threads. I am creating a whole world, so I want to be concrete with things like faith systems, laws, philosophical beliefs so research is necessary. But it masks something else. I am being lazy.

There are times writer’s block is legitimate. I can stare at a page and my brain freezes. I hit a brick wall and stare at it, dazed. The problem is I let the wall stand in my way and then writer’s block becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At the same time, though, I am in a situation where I have to work. When I get home, I am tired, often stressed out. I just want to unwind and relax. And weekends, I just want to recharge my batteries. But again I have to be careful because this just becomes excuses not to write.

One interesting point Clark brings up is to get into a habit when it comes to writing. Do it in the morning, when you get up. Take your coffee and spend some time before heading off for a full day to write. He uses running as an example.

When you get up, there are no excuses. So you do your run. But if you put it off until after work, you have all day to make excuses not to run. And they are ready when you get home. You are tired, you have to clean the bathroom, you have to make dinner. And in the end, you don’t run.

In some ways, I have used that strategy for this blog. I have tons of ideas for posts I want to write. I have notes and scribbles for 27 potential posts, most in just point form. I do work on them when I get home, but most of the formation is between 5-7, in the morning.

After I have organized my coffee and checked my email, I can focus on what I want to say for the day and put the final touches on the day’s post. And except for weekends, my posts are faithfully online before 7.

But this has been dangerous. Whereas this blog is important to me, and I have tons to say, some of this time should be spent on Tangled Threads. I have to be careful not to have this blog become an excuse not to write other things.

So what is my point? This blog has helped me start to find a voice, which helps me with Tangled Threads. Many of the themes I am talking about are echoed in my series. But I have to find a balance and let Tangled Threads come forth.

My start here lead to the important step has been urbis, for me. By putting some stuff on, I have been getting honest feedback. I see that I didn't have writer's block but lost steam. My passion for writing had burnt out. My foray into urbis has rekindled my passion. I have already finished a new very short story, that I wrote on Sunday. I have the beginnings of a new short story. I am starting to look at my German journal to see if it might be something for review. I am now reviewing the first two main chapters of Tangled Threads.

At the same time, I am starting to implement some of points Clark recommendations which I will share and paraphrase from Clark's words:

Distractions

Set a work area. I find when works starts to pile up, it affects my flow. All too often, unimportant things attracts my attention, be it messages, research notes, etc. Pulling me away from my writing. So have a clean work area just for writing.

Watch your language. Be it spoken word or thoughts, negative words like "procrastination" and "delay" and "sucks" sets a negative mood. Turn words into something more productive. Call it "rehearsal" or "preparation" or "planning."

Habits

Adopt a daily routine. As Clark points out, fluent writers prefer mornings. Afternoon and evening writers have the whole day to invent excuses not to write. The key is write rather than wait.

Trust your hands. Forget your brain for a while, and let your fingers do the writing. I find just letting go often gets the juices flowing and the words pour out.

Draft sooner. All too often, writers use research to fill up the available time (I should know). Whereas research is important, it can making writing tougher. As Clark points and I am finding, by writing earlier in the process, you discover what information you really need.

Count everything. As Clark points out, for the fluent writer, every word counts. Learn to judge your own work by quantity, not quality. Some days, there may only be a line or two, while others it will be ten to twenty pages.

Rewrite. The quality comes from revision, rather than from speed writing. Fluent writing gives you the time and opportunity to turn your quick draft into something special.

Feedback

Find a confidant. Clarke suggests finding a rabbi; for me it would a confidant. We all need one helper who loves us without conditions, someone who praises us for our productivity and effort, and not the quality of the final work. Too much criticism weighs a writer down. Someone who will be honest.

Find a circle. Classics like Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Naria did not appear from a vacuum. Tolkien and Lewis were part of a group called the Inklings. They read parts of their developing stories to get feedback. What is important of this circle is honesty. Tolkien did not like Naria and told C.S. Lewis so. Yet it did not stop Lewis from getting it published.

Journal

Keep a journal. For me, this is a critical point. I kept a journal from 1981. Things like story ideas, key phrases, a startling insight, a character study is fleeting. Something jumps into your mind and then it is gone. Having a journal or notebook lets you write it down for another day.

One of the most painful things with the psycho I lived with a few years ago, is I lost all my notes I had written from 1981 to 2002. Concepts, ideas, studies that might lead to something. I remember snippets of ideas I had written in 1984 lead to a story in 1986. But now all those notes and ideas are forever lost.

But one should not obsess with writing in a notebook. I have gaps in my journal for Tangled Threads as long as a year. And then another spurt comes in. Yet the notes I have written down, at the spur of a moment, has come in handy afterwards.

For me, the journal should be paper and pen. Something you can have in your knapsack or purse. When an idea comes to mind, you can be on a bus, subway, in a cafe, who cares, but you can jot down the ideas and come back to it later.

Be it ideas for dialogue, a character issue or a bizarre thought from having a couple of pints, you don't want to lose them. And using pen and paper makes you focus, unlike typing on a computer.

Writing is not easy. Most people do not see that. Creating art is not just throwing things together and hope it works. I need a kick in the ass every so often. The past couple of weeks has given me that. I forgot why I write. I forgot the sheer excitment one gets when one creates. The amazing thrill when someone gets what you are saying. Be it Clark, or the other influences that have come together the past couple of weeks, I am now back in the saddle. I have not been so excited in a couple of years. And people at work wonder why I want to leave early so I can focus on all of this.

Certainly Politically Incorrect....

2006-03-26T02:13:00.000-05:00

Sunday, a day of rest again. Something new from dribbleglass I had to share.

You Know You're Gay When...

You wear the appropriate underwear for each of your dates.
You understand the subtle differences between at least 20 brands of vodka.
You understand the immense importance of good (or bad) lighting.
You can be in a crowded bar and still spot a toupee from 50 yards away.
You can tell a woman you love her bathing suit and mean her bathing suit.
You can tell a woman she has lipstick on her teeth without embarrassing her.
No one expects you to kiss and not tell.
You can have naked pictures of men you know in your home.
You can have naked pictures of men you don't know in your home.
You can have naked pictures of men you don't know in your home and on your computer.
Unlike your women friends, you can hang out in men's locker rooms.
You understand why the good Lord created spandex.
You understand why the good Lord did not intend everyone to wear spandex.
You know the difference between a latte, cappuccino, cafe au lait and a macchiato. And if you don't, you know how to fake it.
You know how to get back at just about everyone.
Your pets always have great names.
Nobody expects you to change a tire.
You're the only guy who gets to do the Cosmo quizzes.
You know how to get a waiter's attention.
You only wear polyester when you mean to.
At any given instant, you can recite who was gay since the dawn of history.
You are, hands down, your nephews' and nieces' favorite uncle.
You get to choose your family.
You can tell your sexual compatibility with a potential partner by the way he holds his drink.
You can smile to let someone know you can't stand them.
You wouldn't be caught dead in Hooters.
You can freeze an approaching bar troll 20 feet away.
You're good pals with women other people can't stand.
You've always got an opinion, and don't mind sharing it.
You've read the book, seen the movie, done the musical.
You know how to "air kiss."
You know exactly which cosmetic surgery to consider having, and the perfect excuse to give people who ask where you've been for two weeks.
You know how to dress strategically.
You know when to move out and move on.
You are the only one at the class reunion who looks better than you did in high school.
You've got at least one framed picture of a pet.
You know being called a "cheap slut" isn't necessarily an insult.
You wouldn't buy someone a mug for their birthday.
You know which wine to bring.
Sales clerks don't mess with you.
You have a medicine chest stocked for any occasion.
You never hold a grudge for longer than a decade.
You've just about defeated the accent you were born with.
You know the way to a man's heart is not necessarily through his stomach.
You choose the most fabulous greeting cards.
You know every film ever made with male frontal nudity.
You've got sunscreen at every conceivable SPF level.
You have the latest International Male catalogue.
You wouldn't dream of dressing out of the latest International Male catalog.
You can be bitchy without anyone blaming it on biology.

Argh, not Urbis again!

2006-03-25T14:04:00.000-05:00

It has now been 15 days since I started my little adventure on Urbis. I was hoping to include a screen dump of my account, but the image is too small.

Anyway, I have submitted four pieces. The first was a poem, the second a short story, the third the first chapter of Tangled Threads and finally a snapshot of a slice of life from my German journal.

The stats can give you an idea how busy I have been. Over two weeks I have reviewed 85 pieces, gathering credits to read the 65 reviews I received. This does not count the different comments (44) and emails (9) I have been bouncing around. Up to now, I have spent 23068 credits.

Yes I am completely obsessed. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have not been so jazzed about my writing in a long time. Let me give you a sampling of some of the reviews on my first chapter for Tangled Threads:

My eyes started to hurt after a while of reading this but, what I read of it and will finish reading of it, I liked

Fantasy isn’t my genre, so please take that into account with this review. I liked the work; it pulled me in right away, especially like the description of his madness.

I’m impressed. I don’t usually go for fantasy but, I really enjoyed this. You’ve done a fantastic job creating very real characters and your imagery brings this world to life.

This was the first novel treatment I was able to read, from beginning to end, without stopping in over a month. It held my interest, flowed, and had no errors so glaring I felt need to stop and type endlessly before I ever finished reading. Mrs. Walla is pleased. Can you see me smiling?

Of course, not all the reviews are glowing or positive.

Some of your dialogue is a bit adverb-heavy. Let the descriptions of what is going on and what the character is actually saying show us how they’re saying something instead of having an adverb tell us so.

Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t find that the old man and his sudden dialogue had too much of a hook to draw the reader in.

This seems like an interesting story but you didn’t completly hook me. The begining was a bit bogged down by trying to figure out the langauge, like is a cycle a year, a lunar month, what?

I really just felt, for a fantasy novel, that it could use a lot more life.

Yet my favourite review comes from one pompous reviewer, who I believe likes to hear his own words. His review starts:

Let’s focus on the good here. I’m sure you’ve received enough bad reviews on this piece, and if not, you will.

Let’s start a review with a bang, huh? Ah, but wait.

I’m not going over every paragraph as there is too much to fix. I think you have good basic writing skills that you can build on. Perhaps fiction is not your forte. That’s not an insult. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Oh, thank you for sharing. But it gets better:

Perhaps you would do better writing features or essays. T.S. Eliot was a bad prose writer, although he was a great poet.

At least he stays positive, by ending with:

Do keep writing; it’s the only way I know how to improve your craft. Best of luck.

Now except for his review, I did not receive one bad review. Many of the reviewers took their time to review the piece and then offer constructive criticism like:

You need to involve more of the senses, because that helps to draw the reader into your piece.

In conversation, your characters lob dialog back and forth like throwing a softball. There are several things involved. First is that you’ve left out body language and facial expression, which comprise nearly half of our communication.

You use descriptions of “eyes” a lot, and I sort of found it distracting.

The hook is there, but it takes far too log to develop.

Of grammatical issue, you are missing punctuation, namely semicolon and commas.

What has me excited is that these reviews are providing me an objective, honest look at my works. It forces me out of my absorption of my stuff and let’s me become objective.

This brings me to a link my buddy Jason sent to me some time ago. It is a series of writer’s tools written by Roy Peter Clark. One of his last tools is on Learn from Criticism. He says:

The right frame of mind can transform criticism that is nasty, petty, insincere, biased, even profane, into gold.

And the trick is:

Do not fall into the trap of arguing about matters of taste.
Do not, as a reflex, defend your work against negative criticism.
Explain to your critic what you were attempting to do.
Transform arguments into conversations.

With all the excitement generated by some of the reviews, these have been words of gold for me. A couple of times I read a review and went: “Don’t you get it?” But then I use these four points in response. And it has done me well.

The past 15 days have been quite a journey. It has validated that I have a voice, albeit one that needs work. But based on the reaction from people I do not know, people who are not even my target audience, my stuff isn’t crap. The 65 reviews and counting have reminded me to have confidence in my abilities. It has been a while since I believed in myself. It’s time to start believing in my ability once again. Thing is, at times, it isn't easy.

Meat is Murder?

2006-03-24T06:24:00.000-05:00

This is one of the most retarded slogans I have ever heard. If you look at the definition of murder in the Oxford Paperback Dictionary, murder is defined as:

The intentional and unlawful killing of one person by another.

It drives me crazy when these zealots try to anthropomorphize animals, try to raise them above what they really are. But what makes my blood boil even more, is the time, effort and money they are willing to spend to protect Bambi and Babe but don’t give a shit about their fellow human. I’ll get to that in a minute.

The real debate should the deplorable conditions animals like cows, pigs, chickens, etc. are kept in for our overindulgent consumption of meat. Here in North America, we are meat crazy, wanting pre-packaged filets, cubes and slices. To feed our meat frenzy, animals are kept in the most disgusting conditions imaginable.

But groups like PETA want to equate a cow to a human. Please, give me a break. I do not think a lion or tiger stops and considers what a zebra might think or feel before it goes for the kill. They do not waste time. It is food, pure and simple.

I was completely disgusted by one campaign from PETA comparing the Holocaust to the conditions animals are found in. That is an insult to the Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. that were exterminated by a gross regime. Of course, the salient point is not addressed. The deplorable conditions where animals are being ‘exterminated’ is not an active attempt to destroy a group. It is to provide articles to a fat, lazy and overindulgent consumer. The Nazis were focused on extermination. You cannot compare the two.

Yet from the onset, humans have put themselves above the ecosystem. A good example is Genesis. Over 6000 years ago, we are told:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. [Gen. 1-28]

We set ourselves as masters of the world, not guardians. And look at the result around us. The egotistical attitude of man has brought destruction to the world around us. We have fucked up our world and may not be able to fix it.

But groups like PETA are just the opposite of the spectrum. Animals are no different than us, we should not eat them. We should not use their skins. We should forage for berries, dig for tubers and raise bountiful harvests of wheat and corn. They try to raise us above the animals, as if we are special when we are not.

And they seem to ignore the reality of the animal kingdom. Many animals are carnivores. Be them lions, wolves or jellyfish. They feed on living animals, not on the grasses of the savanna. We are no different.

In many ways, humans are omnivores. Our structure has developed to eat both animal and vegetable products. That is the way we have evolved. Just our teeth structure gives us the advantage of both.

I know there are vegans who would vehemently disagree with me. So be it. But get over the fantasy of the nice, clean order of nature. Be it the wilds of the forest, the African savanna or the depths of the sea, it is fucking nasty. A lion does not contemplate life, philosophy and its navel before going in for a kill. That zebra in its sight is food. Good eatings.

But we must look at ourselves and ask if we are guardians of the world about us. Most people could care less that animals are kept in deplorable conditions just to feed our lust for meat. They don’t care that animals are used to test useless things like cosmetics and hair dye. We are the centre of the universe and everything else about us is here to serve us. And that is completely wrong, misguided and fucking stupid.

Because of our actions, we are causing major extinction of flora and fauna. We have totally screwed up environment, with our SUVs spewing out toxic crap. The litany is long. And sad.

Where groups like PETA lose any credibility in my mind is their single-minded focus on shock to change people. I don’t believe they really want to bring about change. Excluding they would have to close up shop and lose funding, real change comes from education and information. That takes time and effort. Can’t do that with a quick slogan or protest.

Here in North America, people need to be educated about proper diet and eating habits. I love my meat but I also love my vegetables. I have great vegan recipes that I use regularly. But I live in a society gripped by the concept of immediacy. Don’t have time to cook, don’t have time to prepare.

The end result is a gluttony of crap. Every time you eat at a McDonalds or pick up a prepackaged super-lean ground beef, you support the system. If you are willing to buy cubed stewing beef instead of picking up a chuck roast and cubing the meat yourself, you support the system. Every dime of laziness goes to keeping animals in deplorable conditions.

This is what groups like PETA should be going after. But they don’t. Showing a cute seal, a cuddly bear or forlorn rabbit is easier than going to the real problem. Which they really don’t want to do anyway.

And now we get to the biggest bitch I have about these groups. I am stunned, horrified and disgusted by the money groups like PETA bring in. To help animals. What about the person sitting on a corner, freezing, asking for a dime?

I have heard the argument that the homeless have their advocates, have a voice but the poor animals don’t have a voice. Someone must stand up for them.

Sorry, that doesn’t fly and is full of shit. If you don’t have compassion for your fellow human, then how can I take your compassion for a cow seriously?

We are all God’s creatures. To put a pig going to an abattoir above a young person who is homeless is inhuman. A cute seal in Newfoundland is more important than a woman living in a shelter because her husband abused her and she is trying to get away?

Welcome to a world of fucked up priorities. It all comes down to one simple point: if we can’t take care of ourselves, how can we take care of anything else?

And Now For Something Complete Different (3)

2006-03-22T06:04:00.000-05:00

Normally I do not have any drunken escapades. Yet in Germany I had two that was completely absurd, typical Loekie style. One in Belgium and one in Erlangen. The Erlangen one is funny, Belgium was just painful.

To set Erlangen up, I went to Amsterdam for my birthday when I was working in Erlangen in 1994. I had an amazing time. And got a tattoo. The train trip back was a bit long and I was tired but I stopped at my local pub, the Dartmoor, for a pint. Yes, they have pints in Germany.

As always, I chat with people. I got to chat with a couple of dart players and they introduced me to weißen, or wheat beer. Deadly stuff. They are smooth and pack a wallop. I had three before I had to go to the washroom. When I stood up, my body seemed to be made of rubber. Whoa!

Of course, this should have been a sign to stop. Nah! I had a couple more and then had a Scotch just at closing. The conversation was great, especially with a couple about German angst. It was a great way to cap a great vacation. And now I let my journal tell you what happened after I left the Dartmoor:

As I went through Bohlenplatz, my alcohol soaked mind started to churn. Did I pay my bill? I couldn’t remember, so I decided to go back and make sure. I didn’t like the idea of leaving without paying.

But I did it so quickly that I slipped and went flying into the mud. It had rained that day, so the ground was soaking wet. I must have looked like a complete fool, sprawled out in the mud. With my baseball cap rolling away from me.

And of course, Claus and Sondra got a laugh, at my expense, when I came back. They were putting the bar stools up on the bar, when I came back in. They looked a little surprised at me. Yes, I had paid my bill, Claus told me between laughs. So I then meandered my way back to my place. Certainly not a ceremonious way to end my Amsterdam trip.

The point is, I did not realize how bad I looked. When I woke up the next morning I saw my clothes. The left side of my jeans and leather jacket were caked in mud. I mean caked. My baseball cap was completely caked. At the same time, I saw my door was ajar. I had left my keys in the lock.

Of course, that night when I went back I became the butt of many a joke which lasted for a couple of days. It’s too bad it wasn’t video-taped. I chuckle when I think back to that time.

Definitely did Canada proud that evening!

And Now For Something Complete Different (2)

2006-03-21T06:34:00.000-05:00

In October 1994, I was lucky to get a chance to work in Erlangen, Germany. This was not a vacation but living in a new city and country for over 3 months. I had my own apartment and would have to shop, do laundry etc. All my adventures are in my German journals.
The chuckle of the day has to do with showers. Let me give a brief layout of my place, just as a set up.

I was sharing a ground level flat with a couple of other people. We each had our bedrooms and a common area. The bathroom was shared. The first part of the bathroom was the main tub with the shower and the toilet was a small room past the tub, with a door.

The tub was a large, cast-iron tub with feet. Gorgeous tub. The shower head was put up as an after thought. Immediately, I noticed three things were different.

One, there was no shower curtains. Well, the tub is large so I suppose there isn’t too much splashing when showering. Thing is, the second thing I noticed was there was no ‘hook’ for the shower head. When you took a shower, you had to hold the shower head. Okay. Then came the third thing: the boiler.

We in North America are used to wasting energy so things like hot water heaters are normal. Not in Europe. You have boilers for the shower, in the kitchen, wherever you need hot water. You have to set it and turn it on.

Now the boiler in the bathroom had a stick shift. You use it to set how hot you want the water and then turn on the burner. You wait for the flames to start and the water starts to boil. Seemed simple enough.

Until the next morning. I woke up quite jet-lagged. I did what my friend Elmar had shown me. Waited a couple of minutes and hopped into the shower. To let out a scream because of the freezing cold water smashing against my skin. I tried jiggling the shift stick but nothing seemed to happen so I gave up.

At work, I talked to Elmar and found out I had to prime the boiler. Set the shift stick far to the right, get the flames going and then it would be ready.

So I was set the next morning. Primed the boiler and the flames burst into action. Put the stick in the middle and waited a few minutes before hopping into the shower. To let out a scream as scalding water hit my skin.

It took me a couple of more tries before I got it right. Then came the intricate ballet for showering. One, I had to hold the shower head while I was showering. Two, there were no shower curtains so I didn’t want to soak the floor.

So showering became a ballet of washing and holding, using different hands to do different things. All too often, it was simpler just to sit in the tub, hold the shower head between my knees.

After that, it was hard to look at showering the same way.