Why Don't You See Asian Guys With White, Black, or Latino Girls

I can't believe I'm writing about this topic, but in some recent interactions I've had with several Asian guys, I get the sense that there seems to be a perceived inequality amongst Asian guys who seem to think that Asian women are being snatched up by white or black or latino guys, yet they can't seem to find a white or black or latino girlfriend or wife. There are tons of articles / blogs / forums which discuss why Asian-American or Asian-Canadian females (AAF or ACF) tend to be attracted to predominantly white guys, so I won't go there (although I will say some of the arguments are not as bulletproof as the writers would have their readers believe); instead, I will be dealing with the topic of why I think that you don't see as many Asian males with non-Asian females, as well as why there seems to be a perception that Asian males don't even get opportunities to date Asian females. But first...

One of the few documentaries that deal with this can easily be found online. Just do a search on "Yellow Fever" by Philip Wong. I have posted a link here:

Yellow Fever

While I think this documentary is pretty well done for a student, and there are some truths exposed in it; however, it does not deal with any of the underlying issues, probably because of the fact that the video was a light-hearted look at the area of interracial relationships from an Asian male perspective. I also take issue with the fact that it targets predominantly white girls as potential girlfriends, totally ignoring other ethnic groups like blacks and latinas (and Indians and Aboriginals).

Let me state some facts, at the outset, to provide some context and frame this discussion. 1) I am married to a non-Asian, so I have some experience I can share from a personal level, 2) Unlike the bulk of articles and blogs out there, it is not my intention nor desire to take sides here. It is certainly not my place to suggest who you should date; it is equally not my place to suggest to you who you should NOT date. Many others have taken one side (I only date whites and here's why) or the other side (I only date Asians and here's why) . In other words, I not an exclusivist in my viewpoints, and I think by arguing from a pro-ethnic dating position, you are really robbing yourself of other opportunities that may be available to you.

I will start by discussing what I perceive the mentality of the North American Asian male to be. This is hardly conclusive, but I am willing to bet that there are more than a few Asian guys who will agree with me on this. Again, I did not research any of this, so I can't quantify it for you via a study or statistics. However, what I know is by experience and this is what experience has taught me:

Throughout our lives in North America, we have been fed the media and probably societal expectation of what beauty is. While it has evolved to a more balanced perspective in the past decade or so, many North American boys (Asian or otherwise) grow up thinking that the women you see on TV in beauty pageants, in movies, in television shows, and what not are the model for women. It just so happens that most of the women that have been models, or what society considers beautiful, in the past 20+ years, have been white women. That has slowly changed to the point where more women of colour - notably, black women, are being featured as models and symbols of "sexiness", but bear in mind that men in their 20s, 30s and higher have had more exposure of the former, rather than the latter.

Add to that the vast majority of young males' (if not all young males) subjection to both softcore and hardcore pornography. Again, if you look at the vast majority of images, it is a white girl or white woman who is featured as one who is ready and willing to provide sexual services in a seductive manner to men. If you every talk with an Asian male about what qualities of white women they are attracted to, they will likely say, blonde, big breasts, probably a tad on the slutty side, etc. That is the kind of women they have been presented by their exposure to movies, TV and pornography. Case in point, and I don't know whether she is still considered this, but I suspect she is: look at Pamela Anderson. Guys go ga ga over her, but if you were really to look at her objectively, aside from the fake boobs, and the sheer volume of makeup that, to be frank, makes her look a bit like Tammy Faye Bakker, she is not all that attractive (and yes, I know attractiveness is pretty subjective).

So Asian males will tend to have that perception growing up. No question, Asian females will have the same perception from the media about what handsome men look like. A real travesty is that so many people give credence to these celebrity magazines and their yearly polls on "sexiest man alive", etc. Notice there are almost no minority men on that list, and in particular no Asian men? (to my surprise, I read last year that Daniel Dae Kim - a fantastic actor in his own right - made it to the cover as one of the top 25). I don't follow Hollywood at all, but it seems kind of dumb when you hear on the news that it's always some celebrity/actor that gets these, and it's usually the Brad Pitts/Jude Laws/George Clooneys - freaking Hollywood actors. Asian girls will inevitably look at these men as a barometer of success and masculinity.

Add to the above the fact that Asians (male and female) who have either born or raised (or both) in North America tend to work harder to assimilate / integrate with the general populace, and as a result, are likely striving to perpetuate positive images of themselves as Westernized Asian men and women, while at the same time, dispelling negative age-old stereotypes (see itemized list below). As a result, these folks tend to distance themselves from other Asians who they consider "fresh off the boat", or FOBs, whose mannerisms and cultural idiosyncrasies differ than what they have been used to in Canada/U.S./Australia/Britain, etc. As a result, Asian FOBs become the antithesis of potential dating material for both Asian males and Asian females. Stemming from this is a attitude of higher scrutiny when it comes to their fellow Asians as dating or marriage material. So with FOBby women and men out of the picture, who is left?

Many North American born or bred Asians tend to have a much more diverse friend base (this is a very good thing, in terms of rejecting simply homogenous relationships for comfort's sake, as historically has been the case), and as a result, when it comes to dating, they generally will look at their friends and acquaintances first, which are likely not very Asian-centric. Couple that with the mindset that develops from boyhood/girlhood into manhood/womanhood that I have described above, and you have all the recipes of desiring to have an extra-Asian interracial relationship. Add to that the historically prejudiced mindset of older Asian parents (born 1950s or earlier) towards black people (don't tell me this is not true - I have seen enough of it in older Asian parents to know it is), that leaves their Asian kids to consider predominantly white folks for dating and marriage.

A great example to illustrate this is simply to pay attention to any politicians/athletes/celebrities/businesspeople (I say these only because they are more visible) who are of Asian extraction, again male or female, particularly those who speak English perfectly without an accent. Nine times out of ten, they are in a relationship/marriage with someone who is likely white. Elaine Chao (U.S. Secretary of Labour) married to Mitch McConnell. Judge Lance Ito (O.J. Simpson judge) married to a white lady. Bill Lee (who married Al Gore's daughter, who is white). Jeanette Lee (amazing female pool player) - married to a white guy. Dustin Nguyen (from 21 Jump Street) - married a white girl. Andrea Jung - CEO of Avon - married a white guy. Kristi Yamaguchi (figure skater) - married a white guy (Bret Hedican, I think), Pauline Chan (local Toronto news anchor) - married white guy. Yo-Yo Ma (brilliant celloist) - married to a white woman. David Suzuki (Canadian environmentalist and scientist) - married to white woman. Tess Gerritsen (exceptional New York Times best selling author, whose books I love to read) - married white guy. Michele Malkin (conservative blogger whose blogs I read occasionally) - married white guy. Adrienne Clarkson (former Governor General of Canada) - married white dude. Inky Mark (one of very few Asian mayors of a Canadian town or city) - married to a white lady. Scott Oki - former Microsoft executive - married a white lady. Ben Chin (former Toronto TV anchor/journalist) - married a white lady. Several guys at my workplace - married to non-Asians. Lots of guys on the Asian forum that I frequent - married to non-Asians. My former pastor - married a white woman. My sister - married a white guy. Myself - married a part-French/part Native girl. My brother and my cousins - all interested in whites. The only public official that I remember being wrong on, in guessing that they were married to someone white due to the fact that he spoke perfect English without and accent and is very "North Americanized", is former Washington state Governor Gary Locke (I believe his Chinese ancestral name was Lok, but the family changed it when they moved to the U.S.). He is married to an American born Asian lady. That is rare, I think, especially in the public eye.

Here's the problem...stereotypes move both ways, both what are perceived to be positive stereotypes and also negative stereotypes. Unfortunately, Asian males (and Asian females, to a much lesser extent) are subject to some of the more negative stereotypes. I'm sure you've heard some of these before:

-Asian men are generally bookworms, nerdy types
-Asian men are shy, reserved, and quiet (in other words, not as social)
-Asian men are physically weaker
-Asian men are not aggressive or even assertive
-Asian men are not romantics, or are unemotional, or unsentimental
-Asian men do not play sports (unless it's Nintendo Wii)
-Asian men eat weird, exotic food
-Asian men practise buddhism
-Asian men poach endangered animals for herbal remedies
-Asian men do not care about their appearance or their physique
-A good time for an Asian man is to sing karaoke
-Asian men are bad drivers
-Asian men are all mama's boys
-Asian men listen to classical music

...and who can possibly forget...

Asian men have small penises

So even though many Asian guys who were born or raised in North America, and are just as Canadian or American as the next guy, racist stereotypes will set them to a disadvantage with white women (and probably black women and latinas as well).

Unfortunately, the same racial stereotypes perpetrated onto Asians in general by the North American culture (don't believe me? Look at the jokes thrown the way for William Hung - it wasn't just his singing, trust me), Asian men and women throw at each other. As a result, you really don't see all that many born-and-bred-in-Canada-and-the-USA Asian guys and girls getting together all that often because they spend too much time stereotyping and dismissing each other.

What the Canadian or American Asian male needs to do is contribute to the breaking of these stereotypes. There's a band out there that I read about, and is promoted quite a bit by Intel and online music websites is a Washington, DC band called The Speaks. I believe three of the guys are Asian, and their music is not bad. These guys definitely defy the stereotype - the lead singer is some Asian dude who is pretty tattooed, one guy has long hair and the other guy is pretty muscular. This is a much better representation of Asians, than even an established guy like James Iha (of Smashing Pumpkins) who was reclusive, quiet (though he was extremely talented). When women start seeing Asian guys as cool, then they will be more open to dating them. It's no different than Asians in sports - they are breaking the stereotype. Even look at Tiger Woods (who has a good chunk of Asian blood in him) - he defies the stereotype in probably every possible way - and he ended up marrying a white girl.

I want to address one more issue before I close up shop on this topic, and it's addressed specifically to Asian guys. This one is about keeping your mind and heart open to perhaps dating Asian girls (we're talking Canadian and American born and bred Asian girls - I can understand the no-FOB preference). A few Asian guys I have talked with have automatically dismissed the possibility or potential of dating Asian girls, even those who have the same interests, are in the same culture and are just as American or Canadian as other girls. I can appreciate that, as at one point in my life, I held that view. Over time, though, with some maturity and experience in meeting different people as friends and colleagues, my view has shifted. While I am totally, completely, unequivically dead-set against the traditional opinion of "dating within your own race only", I also completely and rabidly reject the exclusivist opinion that "I will date anyone but Asian girls" or "I will date anyone except black girls" and so forth. Some guys blame Asian girls for flocking to white guys in droves (and I mean droves), but I believe Asian men have some contribution to this, since they either refuse to, or do not want to step up to the plate to present themselves as a suitable...well, suitor, to a quality Asian girl. I'd even go so far as to say that this could constitute reverse discrimination, and while I will never use such guilt-laden terms like "race traitor" and "banana" or whatever else, I do think that the man who will date anyone else other than Asian women, or will not even consider Asian women as an option, has some serious self-esteem or identity issues. Berate me all you want - you know I speak the truth here. Anyway, I totally understand that people have preferences, but in my view, a beautiful woman is a beautiful woman, regardless of race or background. I guess it really comes down to how you define beauty. Some Asians have said to me that they don't like Asian women because of flat noses, stubby legs, short stature, bad haircuts, etc. - I think they've either been watching too much Western porn or hanging around the FOBby side of the tracks. No doubt, there are some pretty ugly Asian women out there, but trust me, there are an equal number of ugly white women, ugly black women, ugly latina women, ugly aboriginal women, ugly indian women. Attractiveness and non-attractiveness knows no ethnic boundaries, in my view, and consider this: if physical attraction is your number one criteria in choosing a girlfriend or a spouse, you will be SOL when she gets old, or if she gets into a car accident and her body and face are mangled or disfigured.

I know some people who are unmarried, are desperately looking to get married, meet some good quality women, but dismiss them only for absolutely trite (in my opinion) reasons. One fellow has told me he wants to get married badly and has, in the past, asked me to pray for him, that God will find the right gal for him. He met this one girl who was absolutely wonderful for him - mature, great personality, humble spirit, giving nature. He told me it would never work out since she was Hispanic, and he was looking for someone who was white, like him. Last I heard, dude is now around 37 and is still desperately seeking susan. What can I say? Another fellow I know, an Asian guy, told me that he is looking for a blonde, 5' 9" or taller, athletic and educated woman. Yet he's met other good, solid candidates, which he has told me are compatible with him, but he is not attracted to them. Even if he meets someone who meets his criteria, we'll see where he is in 30 years when she she will look like she's 80. I find it a bit funny that the people who expect the most perfection in their criteria will seldom find it - and they will be complaining the most about it; but those who have more mature and reasoned preferences will more than likely find perfection in places and people where they would not have looked at, in their younger days. Trust me on this one.

Should You Ever Negotiate for Hostages?

In the last couple of days, I heard the good news that 19 Christian missionaries from South Korea will be released from their Taliban captors. There were originally 23, but unfortunately, two of them were executed by the Taliban already. Two more were freed previously.

I also heard that this was not a good deed on the Taliban's part, but instead, was part of a negotiated deal that includes the conditions that South Korea pull out its remaining non-combat troops like engineers and medics (I thought it was a strange request as well, as I thought they'd pick the combat troops to pull out) as well as promise not to have any more Christian missionaries in Afghanistan.

Now, I am sure this will draw the ire of the U.S. (and I believe the U.K.), who continues to maintain a no-negotiation policy with terrorists. This was shown in the fact they these countries willfully allowed their own citizens to be executed by terrorists, while they sat by and "regretted" the circumstances.

I don't know - something just doesn't seem right with this. I can appreciate their stance, in principle, but letting innocent people die does not seem humane. On the other hand, I know that by negotiating with terrorists, you are essentially empowering them, giving them what they want, and in this case, who's to say that that Taliban won't view South Korea's actions as a victorious precedent that they can now utilize with citizens of other countries?

I was recently on a discussion forum in which I was embroiled in an argument with someone about the hostage situation with the South Koreans. They maintained that the South Koreans missionaries knew the risks of going into a very hostile and volatile country, and as a result, it is their fault that they got themselves captured and they shouldn't expect their government to bail you out. I can appreciate that point, but I countered with the fact that if no one took any risks to help others, we would have a lot more people dying on this globe, as people would stay within the borders of their own countries. And I believe it is important to rise above people who do and act evil, and continue to show compassion and support - this is one of the thing that make some Christians so counter-cultural to society at large, as they are following Christ's command to help those who are hungry, thirsty, in need, etc. That being said, I don't believe the South Korean missionaries ever asked or solicited their government's assistance to help them out - the government initiated the talks with the Taliban. To the South Korean government's credit, they did recognize the value of life, that they would do something that is considered pretty despicable in order to get their citizens back.

While I can appreciate the U.S. and British policies, I am very uncomfortable with the fact that you let your innocent civilians die. Of course, if the Taliban kidnapped Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or Nicole Ritchie, they can do with them what they wish, and I would support a no-negotiation policy in that case - maybe even pay the Taliban for their kindness. However, for people who are in the countries to help others, I think their home countries need to fight for their release, even if it means bowing to some pressure to negotiate. They may need to take their lumps and then return with a new strategy, for the sake of innocent lives.

Obviously South Korea did not meet all the hostages' demands - they are not released captured Taliban terrorists, and they are not pulling out combat troops. So from that sense, it's not like South Korea keeled over to the Taliban.

Despite this, though, and as very sympathetic as I am to the South Korean government for negotiating for the release of their innocent citizens, I see several long-term problems with this:

1) This is sending a really bad message to both the enemy and to South Korean's allies - the ones who are fighting against the enemy. Now that the Taliban knows that they can get some sort of compromise with one country, you can bet they will try to work on another country. Meanwhile, tons of countries are fighting against the Taliban on behalf of the frail Afghan government in order to raise the authority of the current government. The fact that an established country (and an ally of the good guys) like South Korea negotiated with the bad guys is not very good. It is, really, undermining the mission in Afghanistan, and who the enemy is, since you're really giving them power as a result.

2) We will now likely see an increase of kidnappings of international workers in Afghanistan, holding them hostage for money or the release of terrorists. This sets a pretty bad precedent, and more countries will likely face similar ethical decisions in the future. But then again, if the South Korean government stayed muted on this issue, there is no doubt that the Taliban would have killed all of the missionaries in due time, and this would be a serious tragedy.

I'm not really sure what I would do in this case - this is one of those issues where I can really see both sides and empathize with both sides. However, in the interest of long-lasting peace, and to not give the terrorists what they want - thereby defeating them slowly, I would ultimately have to side with not negotiating with terrorists. I know it's easy to say when it's not my friends or family being held hostage. But that is my position.

I think it would be very beneficial if these international workers all have some sort of liability waiver that they sign and the governments have on record, whereby they recognize that they are doing things at their own risk, and if they are captured, they are on their own and no one will be negotiating for their release. This may actually deter kidnappers, since there's really no incentive to kidnap, if the worker and their government acknowledge that their release will not be negotiated.

This one is controversial, but I actually support South Korea's decision not to send in any missionaries. In the past decade or so, I have thought about this a whole lot, and while it sounds harsh, I think that if you go into a hostile country and they so hate you that they will kill you on the spot and have killed others who are preaching the gospel there, it may not be as good of a time to be evangelizing now. Yes, I know - the Bible teaches that there will be those who will be killed for the gospel, and Jesus commands His followers to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. But at the same time, while those so militantly against the gospel are in need of salvation, there's no point in presenting the gospel to them, if they won't even listen. I know, I know - it's not us who does the changing of the hearts, and this is probably why I was not called to be a missionary overseas to terrorist countries (sorry Keith Green - I have to disagree with you there). I am not sure what message you send when you make Christians ripe for the picking by terrorists. This is no different than sending a Black Christian into a KKK meeting to preach the gospel. Sure, it needs to be done, but maybe it can be done a different way other than that. I'm sure that in this case, there is much value in K.P. Yohannan's view that foreign missionaries are not as effective as local missionaries (I've held this view since 1998, and I'm even more strongly in favour of it nowadays), and the best thing to do is probably to train Christian Afghanis to go witness to their countrymen, and then pull out the foreign missionaries. That way, the gospel is still being preached, but the chance of the Taliban picking off an obviously non-Afghan citizen is reduced.

We're Pregnant Again!

Well, it is with this post that I am announcing, albeit with only very slightly suppressed enthusiasm, that my wife and I are expecting another little one again. I say with "suppressed enthusiasm", as it was almost a year ago that we were in the same boat. At that point, I was absolutely delighted, and started researching baby books again and planning for the future, etc. However, it wasn't meant to be, and last October, we lost the baby through a miscarriage. If I am honest with myself, I think that it would be a fair statement to say that the miscarriage has weighed on me for the good portion of the past year (if you wish to read more about our experience with the miscarriage, please check my blog entries from the past few months).

This experience has affected me much more than I had anticipated, and while I'm sure some people thought that I should have moved on after some time, the fact of the matter is that it was difficult to do so for some reason. It's ironic that about 2-3 years ago, one of my colleagues at work lost his baby through a miscarriage. He was devastated and took a month off work. My manager at the time allowed him the time off, but seemed to think it was excessive, and in a way, I did as well - after all, who mourns for an unknown baby for that long???). He returned back to "normal" a couple of months later, but for me, I don't think I returned to "normal" until maybe 8 months later. In retrospect, I strongly believe that the reason why I took this so hard and took so long to mourn is because of my inherent belief in the sanctity of life, at any level, including in utero. I have been vociferously against abortion for years, but I've never really figured out why I seem to be so much more passionate about that issue than any of the other hot-topic issues that seem to permeate Christian discussions (like euthanasia, homosexuality, capital punishment, etc.). I really think it has to do with my personal belief that a baby, no matter now small, even a just-created fetus, is a God-created being with a soul. So when my own baby essentially died, it was, for me, was as painful as anyone close to me dying (which thankfully has been very far and few between), but it was truly worse, since it was part of myself and part of my wife dying. Sure, people may say that I did not ever know the child per se, but sorry folks, I don't believe that. I believe that every parent has a spiritual connection to their unborn child, even if it is at a subconscious level. It's hard to explain and put into words. Anyway, I think it also revaled to me that I valued life a lot more than I had ever thought about, particularly innocent life.

This experience has also helped me to be more sensitive to other people's experiences of mourning, since I never know when I will be actually walking in their shoes...

It has definitely been a few challenging years in the family planning department, for us. Part of it had to do with how long we tried to conceive again, thinking that perhaps one or both of us may have been infertile. The caveat in all this is that I am not one of those types who will try to conceive at all costs, or do anything to make pregnancy a reality. Some people may go the medical route with fertility drugs and artificial insemination or surrogate mothering, but from the outset, I told my wife that I wasn't interested in those options (though I certainly don't begrudge those who do), and I was prepared for the fact that we may never get pregnant again. While I do not know why God allowed this to happen to us, I think it's safe to say that my wife and I accepted it for what it was and hopefully one day we will know why it happened to us.

I spent the past 9-10 months or so pondering a lot of this. I stood in front of our church and told our congregation one Sunday morning this past April, that throughout the process, I was never upset or mad at God for what happened. I still believe this. I simply did not understand why it happened, though I have an inkling that God may be preparing us to minister to other couples who have gone through the same thing. But over time, I did develop both acceptance of what occurred, as well as having a peace towards the future, whether it was a future with more kids, or us enjoying the little boy that we already have, who is already such a blessing.

This brings us to a few months ago, when one day, my wife called me to come see her in the bathroom. Judging by the tone of her voice, I suspected that she had taken a pregnancy test. I have known my wife for 15 years this year, and after all that time, I have a pretty good sense of what she's thinking by what she says (or saying it in a less diplomatic way, I have pretty much figured her out and know what she's up to most of the time... :-)). I was right on this one, and as I looked at the + and - lines that indicated pregnancy on that overpriced testing instrument, I let out only a slight smile. She asked, "aren't you excited?" I said, "we'll see" and I went back to doing whatever I was doing (probably writing an entry in this here blog). Honestly, it was a bit surreal at that point, but at the same time, I believe I had unintentionally erected some mental barriers to potentially cushion me in the event we have another miscarriage. To this day, I know those barriers are still there and I have no intention of deliberately removing them. Experiencing a miscarriage has made me a bit cynical about the whole pregnancy process. The apprehension increases as the days wear on, but I have found it has provided me a more balanced outlook on life, and perhaps exposing my fallacy in thinking that I can simply plan out the future, ignoring God's will in the process, which I think I was doing to a large degree last time. The Bible does say to manage each day at a time, as each day has its own troubles (my grossly paraphrased Matthew 6:34).

My wife is around 12 weeks now, and it is only until tonight, that I decided to go back on babycenter.com to register the pregnancy and look up what the baby is doing now, and what we can expect, etc. I am getting excited again, but it is a reserved excitement. I remember last time around, doing all this at 5-6 weeks, and getting into the heavy reading again, simply assuming that it was simply a matter of time until the baby was born, simply like putting your leftovers from dinner last night in the microwave oven, setting the time and expecting a "ding" in a few minutes - simply routine. This time, I was almost in a state of denial until about a week ago, when we told our boy and filmed a video of him announcing the pregnancy, which we have since sent out to family and friends. Of course, holding this good news inside, while we both wanted so badly to tell people, was tremendously difficult, but at the same time, I think it was a wise decision, and we can certainly better appreciate why people usually wait until 12 weeks or 3 months, or whatever, to tell everyone.

Now that I set some context here, by revisiting the past and quickly touching on the present, I'd like to take a bit of time (and I mean a bit, since it's getting pretty late, according to the clock, and I'm starting to fade out a bit here) to discuss the future. Now, you may think that this is counter-intuititive, based on what I had already said, so I should explain. When I mean discussing the future, I don't mean how we will set up a baby room, what names to pick, and what keep-myself-awake exercises I will need to do for a screaming infant who can't sleep at night. Of course, all those things are fun to think about, but I not thinking in that vein right now. What I am thinking about is what kind of father will I be the second time? Would I change anything from the first time? Would my wife change anything this time around? If it is a girl, how would I relate? (honestly, this has been an interesting one, since my son and I do a lot - and I mean a LOT of what has been traditionally considered father-son activities. I have no idea what adjustments I'll have to make if we have a girl - I'm sure my wife will be delighted though, since I'm sure she's getting tired with the ever-increasing levels of testosterone that my son and I bring to the kitchen table every night).

In the meantime, I am ultra-sensitive to anything my wife is experiencing these days - she says that she is sore and I respond lightning-quick, "where??", and I proceed to mentally catalog all of our medical emergency numbers in case I need to place a call right away. She will call me to the bathroom and say, "come see this", and I think, "uh-oh...blood", when all she wanted to show me was the fact that I can't seem to aim my clothes into the laundry hamper. She will tell me that she needs to lie down, and I am thinking , "is this bad?" My son would brush up against her belly as he walked by and I'd tear a strip out of him for the accidental nudge. Yes folks, I am on edge...just a slight bit.

However, at the same time, there is no other feeling in the world like this. Knowing that God is crafting up another little child for us to take care of really brings me a lot of joy (since I found out we are expecting again, I have almost always referred to this child as baby #3). I am sure I speak on behalf of my wife when I say that we would absolutely appreciate your prayers as we go through this exciting, albeit nervous time. Thanks for reading all this.

Support Our Troops

One thing that just burns me incessantly is the amount of bandwagon jumpers who purport to be peace-loving activists, all of the sudden coming out of the woodwork. You see it in the poll numbers which seem to show continuing disapproval of the war in Afghanistan and, particularly Iraq. You see it in political debates in U.S. and Canadian politics. You see it in the amount of demonstrations and what not, denouncing the war and pressuring politicians to bring the troops home. This may well be the key issue of the U.S. 2008 elections, who knows.

The problem I have with all these bandwagon jumpers is that they tend to feed off each other as far as their emotions and factual accuracy goes. Ever notice that the people who complain the most about soldiers being in Iraq are non-military people who don't even live or have been to Iraq? They argue about soldiers going overseas to serve in dangerous conditions, but they don't seem to voice equal concern about people dying in our own countries at the hands of one another. I think much of this is either for political gain or to cast oneself into the spotlight to show that they are somehow more enlightened, advanced, and educated.

I was talking with a lady in a supermarket recently, whose nephew is serving in Afghanistan in the Canadian army (he's an equipment engineer of some sort). What she told me is the other side that no one seems to be promoting in the news and general media. I started chatting with her when I saw that she was wearing a "Support Our Troops" t-shirt, and as I passed her with my shopping cart, I said, "that's awesome that you are wearing that." (she was an older lady, so don't get any ideas as to what I meant by that, people). She asked if I was a military man (probably knowing full well that I am not, since my physique is not really built for action), and I said no, but I do want to thank her nephew for serving on behalf of citizens like myself, and putting them in harm's way. I much appreciate it, and the least I can do is to say thanks whenever I come across anyone who is serving or knows someone who is.

We started chatting a bit in the soup aisle. Anyhow, it's interesting what she told me. She said that most people have it wrong, that the soldiers are not constantly aggressively shooting at Afghans or in firefights. She said that while combat is definitely a factor in the troop activity there, there are many units who have non-combat roles - they would help repair infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), train local Afghan soldiers, help construct schools and hospitals, and there are a bunch of army engineeers who work to establish things like water supplies, shelters, etc. These soldiers are making a difference, and helping the local communities there become self-sufficient. And as a result of seeing the difference they are making, they believe in what they are doing. No question, it's a dangerous job, so we should be very grateful that they are there instead of us. But no, some of us seem to want to gripe and complain that unless there's a pullout, there will likely be more casualties. This is probably true, but I think these troops know that but are committed to help the Afghan people, even if it costs them their lives. That's why I think it is so important that we back home give them our support in that we do not criticize them, and that we show our appreciation, in sending cards, emails, etc., thanking any soldiers or families of soldiers that you may come across in your travels.

Regardless of what you may think about whether Canada, The U.S., Britain, Australia, and their partnering countries should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact of the matter is, they are there now, and they are making a difference for the local people there. Anti-war propagandists would like you to believe, by providing you graphic photos of people being blown up and what not, that the soldiers are there in vain and that all they do is fight, and even then, it is a losing battle. I wonder how many of them have talked to these soldiers' families, to get a more informed and balanced view, rather visiting Michael Moore websites? Logically, do you think that if the soldiers weren't contributing in a positive way, we would be hearing griping from many soldiers as well?

I know the whole war is complex, and it's not my desire, nor my place to comment on military decisions when I am not privy to military operations. But I do know how civil wars work, and if the allied countries were to pull out now, they would leave Iraq and Afghanistan in complete turmoil, and those countries would just descend into chaos, as there is political and governmental stability, no infrastructure stability, no stability in general. Our troops are there to do what they can to empower those countries to become more self-sufficient and independent. What they are doing there is inherently a good thing, so they deserve our support and encouragement.

Voters in Ontario, Give Your Heads a Shake

So we have a provincial election coming up in a few months. And the current polls seem to indicate that the Liberals will likely form a minority government, come October.

It seems like the general electorate are nothing more than a collective gathering of monkeys who simply get accustomed to the way it is and behave in predictable patterns.

Forget the fact that we have a Premier who, for the past four years or so, has broken countless campaign promises, and has not even done a good job to try to rationalize his actions. He has claimed that the province is constantly out of money, so he tells Toronto to get lost when they ask him for more provincial funding, and this has led to Toronto being in the process of large service cuts (now, don't get me wrong - this is equally the fault of the ultra leftist, socialist Toronto mayor, but I have to admit, the province has not been very generous, claiming that it has a shortfall, and as a result, a couple of years back, started charging a health care premium which automatically gets deducted from your paycheque and my paycheque).

However, in an election year, the provincial Liberals have somehow managed to conjure up a previous fiscal year SURPLUS of two billion dollars. That's 2 billion dollars. $2,000,000,000 dollars. Over a one-year period! Where did all this come from? Dalton McGuinty is at a loss to explain it. Hmmm...you're out of money, eh? Of course, given this recent development, I'd like to officially request my health premium back, even though I'll likely never get it back. And McGuinty is all of the sudden, in an election year, giving gifts out like Satan Claus - here's one million dollar for you, Cricket Club. For what?

More on all this later.

Cleaning Up Others' Mess

One of the things in life I absolutely hate (and I know hate is a strong word, but I'm using it nonetheless) is to be the clean-up hitter among a group of under-achievers or simply slothful people. I didn't like it in high school, when I was assigned as a member of a larger six-person project group to work on a project and myself and another gal were the only ones who did any substantive work, yet everyone got the same mark as a result - communist education system!!! I don't like it now, when I'm asked to do something with a group of people and they spend more time talking about something rather than doing; all the while, I am pulling the rest of my hair out, when it turns out that nothing is being done. While I am all for teamwork, my support hinges on the fact that everyone does their part. If they don't, all bets are off. I don't mind picking up for people who are having a hard time with something, helping them, maybe even carrying the burden for a team member. What I don't like is people coasting in life, and expecting you to bail them out. I am a huge supporter of individual responsibility, so you can imagine that I'm not gung-ho on government social assistance and what not. Yes, there are truly people down on their luck or had some bad breaks in life, but let's face it - quite a number of people put themselves in their predicaments, so they should take the responsibility to clean it up. I believe people should and need to take responsibilities for their actions or inactions, rather than expecting, and sometimes mandating others to help them out.

A prime example of this is on my bi-monthly hydro bill. I hate paying bills to begin with, but recognize it is a necessary evil. What boils me about my hydro bill is the section that indicates that the power company is tacking on a "debt retirement surcharge" in order to pay off the debt of the former Ontario Hydro. Why the hell do I have to pay this? I never farted away the money and got myself in debt as a corporation - Ontario Hydro got themselves in this mess - they should get themselves out. I've called to indicate that I do not wish to pay this, and they said, they have no choice - the province mandates that all hydro customers pitch in and help with paying off this debt - if I don't do it, they will cut off my electricity and water, and then send a collection agency to garnish my wages or something like that. I'm still diligently on the prowl, looking for alternative ways that I can do things so that the hydro company does not get my money. You extrapolate this to government waste in general, and it's no wonder there are so many tax evaders out there. You don't want to be funding absolutely stupid stuff that just squanders your money (yes, it employs people, but I'd rather have see people unemployed rather than them employed doing something that is not productive - you have heard of enough of how unionized government offices work - we're paying for this, people!)

Like some people, I closely scrutinize how my tax dollars are being allocated. Unfortunately, we do not live in a society in which we can choose how our tax money gets divvied up (this would be fantastic, democratic, as well as show what areas and services no one cares about - and can be eliminated). For instance, I don't want my tax dollars feeding convicted rapists or murderers and keeping them in jail. If you read my blog long enough, you'd know my stance on paying for inmates to stay in jail. I just hate bailing out people who made their own bed and now have to sleep in it. I'm not talking about bailing out people who had some bad breaks. That is different. I'm talking about cleaning up after people who made unwise choices - they need to live with the consequences of those choices and if that means they sit in a jail and starve to death - well, I guess that is what will have to happen.

How about the education system? They are now catering to the weaker and under-performing students with this new feel-good grading system, which doesn't seem to want to fail anyone. As a result, the overachievers and good performers are being dragged down, and if not, they are enrolling in private schools where they are allowed and encouraged to excel. Meanwhile, we are producing more people who can't spell, who can't speak English or French (and this seems perfectly acceptable these days), who seem to think that it's perfectly acceptable to cheat on exams to get ahead. Again, I don't care if they fail the underachievers. That's how an education system is supposed to function - you meet the grade, you pass. You don't, you repeat (hey, at least there's even a repeat option!).

Companies used to be a little bit more departmentalized, in that each unit functions independently and a well-contributing unit will be rewarded, whereas a poorly contributing unit will start having layoffs given to its members. These days, under the guise of collective achievement, a poorly performing unit can and does have a directly adverse effect on other contributing units - the excuse here is, "well, we are part of the same company, so we take our lumps together and we win our races together". I don't subscribe to this socialistic mumble-jumble. If I was running a company, I'd axe all the poorly performing departments, rather than take away from the profitable departments in order to maintain some semblance of corporate balance.

I'm a strong believer in individual achievement. You essentially live or die based on your own actions, so you really can't blame anyone.

Overcoming Bullying...The Old Fashioned Way

Is it me, or has there seemed to be a general pre-occupation with bullying in schools, for the past number of years now? It is amazing how many ideas are generated by the leftist education system, to try to combat this supposed increasing problem. Bullying has always been there in schools, but I believe it is to where it is right now, because traditional effective solutions in handling bully are not being considered, since society as a whole seems far more preoccupied with talking about things rather than doing.

Let's face it, bullies exist because they need someone who is either weaker or more vulnerable to push around in order to vitalize their own need for domination and control. What educators seem to think is that bullies need to be reasoned with, since they are humans too, and as a result, let's all go into our idealistic focus group to formulate solutions that will not hurt anyone's self-esteem or view of self-worth. Now, I know what you will say - many schools have zero-tolerance policies towards bullying. That point I will concede; however, what I will object to is what constitutes as a consequence of violating the aforementioned school's zero-tolerance policy. At its extreme, it may result in expulsion, and if there were any criminality in the bully's actions, possibly the involvement of law enforcement. But this, in my view, is treating only the symptom, not the root cause. If you kick a bully out of your school, he/she will find another environment in which they will play their trade of intimidation and fear.

So what's my solution? Actually, I don't need to propose a solution per se, but instead, I will refer back to the way parents used to help their kids to deal with bullies - that is, teach them a good old fashioned dose of self-defence. Yeah, yeah, I know in this age of politically correct thinking, self-defence is viewed as a last resort rather than a first, since there seems to be some form of aggression associated with it. Just like anything else, that may happen, but if properly taught, self-defence not only will help end a situation in a very short time period, but it will teach the bully that they may not wish to trouble themselves in dealing with you. And this is not just for kids you know... I just finished a mandatory (meaning I had no choice) company required reading on harrassment in the workplace. Some of the principles I sort of agree with (and I emphasize "some" and "sort of"), but I left thinking it would be so much easier if people were taught to stand up for themselves rather than go to other people.

Yes, I know...it may be dangerous to confront people, just like confronting a schoolyard bully. Nonsense. By bringing other people in, you are essentially showing that you do not have the stones to stand up for yourself. The bully or harrasser gets a reprimand (which usually is constituted as a slap on the wrist-type of penalty) and they continue to operate, not really deterred, but are simply suppressed, until they find their next victim.

Imagine this scenario. Someone picks on my boy in school. Obviously, I teach him never to retaliate in anger, so I would expect him to provide his harrasser with a verbal warning. If it continues, and he is unable to walk away due to being cornered by the bully, I will give him full license to mete out self-defence by clocking the aforementioned bully right in the schnauz. That sends a far greater message to the bully to think twice before picking on my boy again. And for those psychologically touchy-touchy feely-feely types out there, let me allay your fears by suggesting that by proceeding with this course of action, they are empowering their child towards developing confidence, and yes, self-esteem. You are essentially teaching them that they have value as people and that value transcends to their right to exist in an environment that is devoid of fear. It teaches them to think fast on their feet, and to exercise independence, rather than rely on the help of others all the time (notice we have much more people on government assistance these days than we used to?)

Dads used to spend countless hours helping train their kids in the basement with a punching bag and weights. These dads did not train their kids to be bullies, or aggressive people, but they smartly recognized that they kids would inevitably be faced with people who will try to push them around, and if they were worth their salt as fathers, they would impart the need to defend oneself without hesitation, using their God-given skills and abilities. It is ironic that these days such training would be considered aggressive and even borderline vigilantism, since the overwhelming consensus in reasoning this out is that if you are only teaching them a violent solution to problem-solving. I don't believe that to be true at all, and in fact, by fathers not teaching their kids (boys in particular) these skills, they are essentially instructing their sons that every problem can be talked out. You can see this view prevalent in society, especially nowadays by the large amount of band-wagon jumpers that oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people simply oppose war, even though war is never the first solution for governments in today's age, but those smart enough to recognize that diplomacy is not the be all and end all to conflict resolution, will recognize the need to resort to violence as a justifiable means towards a noble end (of course, this is not always the case, but I believe that it can and should be an option, since wars are not really all that different, from a deep-rooted conflict perspective, than kids bullying one another or someone harrassing someone else. I don't think that there are that many people out there who will say that they enjoy being in a fight, but sometimes fighting is needed in order to
ensure that you don't get hurt, and even so you don't get killed.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not in favour, nor am I advocating initiating aggressive behaviour or spitful retaliation I believe that a warning should always be issued to an aggressor, and one has to carefully weigh whether their situation will be improved by bringing others in. Sometimes it won't and in those cases, you need to simply resort to defending yourself the old fashioned way, and showing that you won't substantiate the threats and intimidation.

Who Uses the Metric System? NOOOOOOOBODY.

Like most Canadian kids raised in the 70s/80s, we were one of the first generation to be introduced to the concept of the metric system for measurements/weights/temperatures, etc. To our teachers' credit, they did try real hard to stick to their forced curriculum and impart this relatively new system in Canada to their eager students.

Twenty to thirty years later, where are we with metric?

I tell you, in my whole adult life, and even in my late childhood, I have never heard of anyone measuring their height or weight in metric, unless it was in the Olympics or at a government office. In "real life", people are 5' 8", 6' 2", 150lbs., 95lbs., etc. Never have I heard someone say they are 189cm (not even sure if that is possible, since I don't know what that is in imperial, nor do I care), or they are 68KG (again, not sure what that is). The problem is that we just can't relate to that. I do, however, know what one meter is (due to being hit with a meter stick enough times). I know that 30cm is the size of a standard school ruler. But extrapolating that into a larger unit, I am unable to do, nor would I want to (since I have no pressing reason to do so, since I already know how much one foot is, one yard is, one pound is). It seems fairly tangible.

The problem that they never taught us in school is that when we get older and get jobs and what not, inevitably we will be dealing with people in the U.S., by far our biggest trading partner, and they, of course still use imperial, and I doubt they will change anytime soon, since they have no reason to change, despite the large chunk of the globe going metric. So even if we are the most brainwashed Canadian public school student in the history of the education system in Canada, inevitably we will be forced to yield to our southern neighbour's way of measuring and weighing, unless we don't wish to do any business with them, which of course is not even remotely possible (if you want your business to thrive).

I do find it funny, though, that most Canadians are like me, in that they will use a hybrid system; that is, they will fill up gas by the liter and know what that is, they will measure short distances by imperial (foot, inches, yard), yet our highway signs and our long distance travel equations seem to be in metric (kilometers). How about the weather and temperature? I haven't met too many Canadians, if any, who use farenheit when talking about perfect golfing temperatures or how cold it is outside in the winter. We all know the temperature in celsius, the wind chill and humidex in celsius, though when we barbecue, cook chickens in the oven or reheat food in portable ovens, it is a toss up between farenheit and celsius, though I believe that more people use imperial than metric. Same goes for taking your temperature with a thermometer. I've met an equal amount of people who use imperial and metric. For me, it's even more weird, since I refer to all outside temperatures by celsius, yet I cook using farenheit and I take my own temperature (ie. body thermometer) using farenheit.

I agree that the metric system is easier when it comes to cleaner conversions between units (ie. in tens, one hundreds (ie. centi), one thousands (ie. kilo), etc. However, the assumption there is that you are using metric units to begin with, and most of us are not, so ease of conversion is a non-factor. I would say, however, that that if I had the choice, assuming that my daily work and personal business makes provision for its use, I'd definitely use metric - for instance, converting quarts, gallons, ounces - all of those I can't tangibly quantify, though I'm sure many can. I have been schooled in using metric and probably can pick it up again, but I'd be having a one-way conversation with myself, since no one around me would have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

Realistically speaking, I think most of our schools should probably teach a hybrid system, since that is what seems to be in common use in society. It is impractical to teach people to weigh humans and measure human height by metric, since no one in the real world does. On the other hand, since metric seems to be Canada's official standard, a good way to ease into metric use is to teach smaller measurements and temperatures by metric. However, that is probably as far as it will go, but that seems to be the real world's acceptance of the metric system anyway.

Benny Hinn is a Scam Artist

Last week, to my horror, I found out that Benny Hinn had a weekend event at one of the downtown Toronto stadiums/arenas a couple of days ago. To my shock, I found out that these events were considered "sold out" (even though admission was free). If you don't know who Benny Hinn is, he is one of those guys who gives mainstream Christians a bad name. He's the dude you see on television in the Glad garbage man white suit, with the badly combed matching white hair, shouting like a constipated fool on TV, claiming that he is a vehicle for God to heal people, and you see all manner of humanity crouched at his stage, claiming to be healed by this guy.

The problem I have with him is not that I don't believe in healing. It's not that I don't think miracles can happen. My issue with him is his thinking that somehow he is God's gift to healing. The guy has no humility, even though he claims that he's not the one doing the healing. Yet, he charges people to autograph their Bibles (what is wrong with this picture when a mere mortal feels that they have the right to place their John Hancock on God's inspired Word. What a freaking pompous ass Benny Hinn is.

Now, you look at the ultimate Healer in the Bible, in the person of Jesus Christ. Yes, he went town-to-town. Sure, he met with people who were sick, ill, people who were considered the physical outcasts of society. But look at Christ's life - full of humility. Do you ever think you'll see Benny Hinn wash anyone's feet? Nope, he's too busy living in his 7500 square feet mansion, driving his expensive cars, flying his private jet, staying in expensive hotels, wearing expensive clothes (as cheesy as they are). I guess he can afford this, with him pulling in $250,000,000 (that's two hundred and fifty million) in donations per year. That is, like the GDP of some small countries, sheeesh...

Now, as a staunch capitalist, I have no problems with anyone, including Christians, having wealth. The Bible is not anti-wealth - it does, however, scrutinize and deal with how wealth is treated. I don't have to tell you the fact that others have cited that there is more in the Bible about dealing with money, money management, and stewardship, than about heaven and hell combined. Money is not the problem, and despite common misunderstanding, the Bible does not say that money is the root of all evil, but the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Based on Hinn's lifestyle, I can't tell you that he doesn't love his money. There are very wealthy Christians out there who don't live even a fraction of the lavish lifestyle that Hinn lives.

Again, I don't really care whether people have money or not. If they do, it's not up to me to decide how they spend it. However, what I do have a problem with is what the Bible has a problem with, and that is "dishonest gain". I'm sure you can all figure out what this one means, so I won't bother patronizing you by defining it. Anyhow, it has always bee my belief that many of these sweating buckets, slickster televangelists are scams. Hinn is no different. I just have that feeling about people - and when I see Hinn pushing over a crowd of people in the audience and they all just fall over, I sit up and think, "whatever!" It's so scripted, so structured that every single one of his appearances utilized this common theme. Some poor saps get on stage and they are miraculously healed. How do we know that this is even legitimate? That's the question I first asked when I saw this guy on TV.

As much as I dislike the media, I do find their propensity to expose hypocrites and fakes, to be quite refreshing. In the last few days, I have found several programs and articles investigating Hinn, and the overwhelming consensus is that his productions are all scripted. Unlike what you see on TV, these "sick" people are all pre-screened, so it's not like these are random folks coming out of the audience. They have also discovered that Hinn's handlers will refuse to allow people in wheelchairs to come on stage (gee, I wonder why - maybe because buddy can't really heal them after all!). But add to that his stage act of his gutteral, sweat-filled diatribes as he claims to heal, and anyone with half a brain will know that this is pure silliness at its finest.

Again, I believe healing does take place, but I don't believe that God need flashy, ego-driven guys like these to be the vehicles. This is no different than my opinion of the ultra-pentacostal airport vineyard/blessing churches, which features people growling like animals, holy laughter, holy barfing, etc. I do believe in the Spirit working in people and manifesting, but last I checked, the Holy Spirit wasn't a raving lunatic. Besides, how does all this physical manifestation stuff bring glory to God? In my opinion, it does not, and if it does not, you have to question the source of this zanyness, as well as the motivation behind it.

Sure, Hinn claims that he is not actually doing the healing, but it has taken place in the audience already. This is his legal out to ensure that he never gets sued (hey, it wasn't me, it was God). But if that was the case, why is Hinn even needed? And why does he look like he is working so hard? I'm sorry, but again, it strongly appears as if he is usurping the glory for himself and not where it rightfully belongs - to God. But then again, I doubt that God wants his name associated with things that are not from Him anyway...

God Works In Interesting Ways

It's funny, because lately, I have joined an online discussion forum in which anything goes, topics wise. Several parts of the forum recently had threads along the lines of "Why I am No Longer a Christian". Little did I know that there were so many people who had an opinion of Christianity, and not a positive one. The fact that this site had predominantly Canadians and Americans of Asian descent as their user base, added extra complexity to how I was going to frame my contributions to the discussion, as the audience was going to be mostly buddhist or atheist. I wanted to read a lot of the postings and get a flavour of people's personalities and temperments before I start to delve into their points and open it to a back and forth discussion. My interest is in Biblical apologetics anyway, so I would humbly say that I am more comfortable debating the Bible and theology with non-Christians than the average church-going North American born-again believer. Still, because of the hostile tone of the posts and some of the absolutely denigrating comments made about Christianity (interestingly enough, much of this was directed at what most people think constitutes Christianity - the Roman Catholic church - from what they see in the media and movies. I had no desire, nor interest in defending Roman Catholicism, so someone else would have to do that job), I wanted to make sure that I approach my response in a constructive, logical and empathetic way (since I'm prone to do quite the opposite).

My interest was in some of the comments about the Bible and how science and theology cannot co-exist, and how the Bible is false, Christians are all hypocrites, and so forth. I have been thinking of how I would engage the discussion and I started recently by empathizing with the writers, in that I totally agree with the fact that many Christians are so awkward at arguing in these types of debates, because most of them are not familiar with what the Bible says. I will go to my grave arguing this point, and my experience has shown me that I am not wrong here. North American Christians (and I say that specifically because I know that Christians in emerging countries in Asia and South America and Africa have a deep hunger for Biblical knowledge) are generally not heavy studiers of the Bible - I can't say why, but I suspect it's probably because of too many distractions. On the flip side, every single African born-again brother or sister that I have met knows their Bible far better than most Canadian or American believers, and that is considering the fact that we in North America have abundant Bible study and resource materials. So born again believers in the Western world have some work to do. Don't argue with me on this point - I know this is true.

Anyway, I conceded that point to the posters there. I also conceded the point that they argued, which was a common one - that there is much hypocrisy in the church and amongst Christians. I couldn't argue there, but I added that the Bible, in its wisdom, already indicated that we are all sinful and there is more than enough evidence to show that followers of Christ are fall from perfect. I then challenged these posters to actually take their own advice and research the Bible for themselves rather than listening to hearsay and what not. I also agreed with their assertion that the Roman Catholic church has some absolutely ridiculous rules that were never in Scripture. Several of these posters are quite intelligent, so I was fully anticipating that the conversation would turn towards the scientific realm (let's face it, stereotype or not, many Asians have strengths and math and science). So in the last couple of days, I was meditating on this on the way home and wondering how I should respond, and asking God for direction.

Well, how's this for interesting...this morning (Wednesday, August 15), I was listening to the radio on the way to work. Now, I normally listen to CFRB (news talk radio) or The Fan 590 (sports talk radio). For whatever reason today, I decided to put the dial on AM 640 Talk Radio (which I do not listen to that often). The John Oakley show was on, and since I used to listen to John Oakley 15 years or so ago when he was on CFRB, I kept the station on, while I turned onto the highway. To my utter surprise, his special guest was non other than the head of the global human genome DNA project, the very distinguished Dr. Francis Collins. This guy has been featured in Time magazine, etc. I didn't really know much about him, but I thought, uh-oh, here's a guy who will start talking science and slam Christianity. To my utter shock, he got on the airwaves and started talking about how he once was an atheist, but when he was 20-years-of-age or so, he realized that atheism required more faith than he had, and he could not believe that the world just happened without a Creator. And on Toronto airwaves (very liberal Toronto airwaves), he came on saying, that's when he realized His need for a Saviour and gave his life over to Jesus Christ!

Holy crap! I almost swerved the car into another car as I heard this. He then went on to detail why he believes in creation and that God exists, and he even acknowledged that he had an opportunity to publicly debate (for Time magazine) the well known atheist Richard Dawkins. He only had about 20 minutes as a guest, but in those 20 minutes, he made the most of his time, arguing for Christianity, without being interrupted. I cannot tell you how blessed I was to hear this, especially given the fact that I'm going through an exchange on a forum with not only a group of non-Christians, but seemingly a group of anti-Christians. This was well timed nourishment, and it comes to show you, God knows exactly when to time this stuff to show you, there's no way this is coincidence. It also goes to show that God is with His people in their daily lives. I definitely felt a renewal of faith this morning, and to hear a top scientist, well regarded in his field, stating publicly that he is a follower of Christ, and then giving solid, logical reasons why science and faith can coexist, in an intelligent thoughtful manner, I just had to stop and thank God for these types of situations.

Princess Diana Died 10 Years Ago This Year. Who Cares?

I remember being woken up by a phone call in the middle of the night, 10 years ago. It was my girlfriend at the time (who eventually became my wife). "Hey, turn on your TV. There's some news happening. Looks like Princess Diana got into a car crash and she may have died. It was not because I was groggy that I was awakened by the high-pitched ring of my el-cheapo Zellers phone that I said, "Huh..." It was because to me, this was not a big deal. I've never been a fan of the royal family, and while I am a supporter of having Canada remain a monarchist country, I could care less about what happens to the members of that family. To me, this is no different than celebrity watching or watching that wretched TV show, Entertainment Tonight, or buying US Weekly, or other waste-of-money publications like that.

I was sort of between jobs at the time, so I had a lot of time to do...well, practically nothing. I did manage to chat with my landlord at the time about it, and he said, isn't it sad that Princess Di died, and I said, "No, I Don't Really Give a &#@, actually", to which he replied, after being taken aback by my strong language (for which I will not apologize in this case), "but wasn't she the people's princess?" For the love of freaking Mary Magdelaine, I could not understand his interest in this. Did he know Diana personally? No. Did he have any relationship with her? No. Why the hell was he sitting on his couch, shedding tears, aside from the fact that he was retired and did nothing other than watching TV. I was flabbergasted.

You know, I never understood why it seemed like such a big deal that Princess Diana died. Honestly, I don't. I certainly don't mean to trivialize death, since people die every day. However, I don't believe that we should mourn "any more" for Princess Diana due to the fact that she was part of the royal family or that she had this "fairytale" wedding (which was a total joke, since it shows that you can put all the money and pomp and ceremony into a wedding, but a good marriage that certainly does not make). Yes, mourn for Princess Diana because she lost her life in a tragic accident, but my goodness, this happens every single frigging day, yet we hear about people dying in car accidents and what not and don't even shed a tear. How they dedicated so much TV and print hours to covering the funeral and producing countless commemorative items in the weeks and months ahead, is nauseating to me. Do you know why?

Less than a week after Diana died, someone else died, yet she was not given not even a fraction of the absolutely insane news coverage on her life. I will argue to my deathbed that the death of Mother Teresa was exponentially much more of a tragedy than Princess Diana's was. But unfortunately, Mother Teresa was not young and blonde and graced the covers of magazines. Yet she has done more to help people and serve humanity in her years on this earth than Diana every will in 100 lifetimes. And while I have a number of hangups with the Roman Catholic church theological system, I will concede that they did something right in producing a woman of such fine character and sacrificial love like Mother Teresa. Yet ironically, despite all of her qualities that the world generally will give an approving nod, her death was not much more than second page news compared to the life of Diana, which was full of misery, infidelity and nothing more than vignettes in the life of someone who happened to marry rich. OK, granted, she did some charity work, but billions of people in this world do charity work. People with whom I've discussed with topic have indicated that she did have a brilliant smile, good fashion sense, and was intelligent...you've got to be crapping me - as if those three qualities are good reasons to admire someone? Only in today's celebrity-obsessed culture would that even closely resemble a selling point for a person, who obviously gave up on her marriage by dating others while she remained married to Prince Charles (who is also an asshole of royal proportions for cheating on his wife as well as just being a general dumbass). Sheesh... Besides, she couldn't have been that intelligent if she didn't bother to wear her seatbelt during the fatal car ride.

So, if someone asks me my opinion on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death...well, what else can I say? I won't observe it in the least, but in my opinion, the far greater tragedy ten years ago was the loss of a true humanitarian, who touched many lives with her service to God in such a tangible manner. You know, so few of us can go into the local slums of our local city and work for an hour with all sorts of people with physical and mental problems (trust me, I've done it - it's not easy). Multiply that probably by one-hundred fold and you'll get an idea of what kind of environment Mother Teresa worked in on a daily basis. Years after her death, I read a few books on her life and work, and it just is amazing the kind of conditions she had to work in - it would scare off most of us. Yet, she really exemplified Jesus' command to feed and clothe the needy, the sick, the rejected ones of society - she took care of dying/diseased/mentally deficient people for something like 40 years or so. Yes, this included lepers (like lepers in the Bible). That is something to behold for someone who is willing to put their own comfort levels aside to serve others. I was pleased to hear that the Indian government gave Mother Teresa a state funeral, something that is unheard of for that government to do for a non-Indian. So I'd encourage you, that if you want to remember a death of a person this year, focus on someone like Mother Teresa, who is worthy of your memorials and commemorations.

Chivalry - Passe in 2007?

I wrote and posted this in an online discussion group that I frequent. Since I was involved in a discussion, I have summarized the contents for easier reading in this blog as follows. This happened to me yesterday (August 7, 2007):

****************************

Well, I wasn't expecting this on my way out of the office yesterday.

Our office has, what many corporate towers have, those revolving type doors. On my way out, I noticed this woman who was heading to the door the same time as me, so I, figuring it's polite to let the other person go first, stuck out my hand to indicate, "you first". She snapped at me and replied, "Don't treat me like a **#$%% girl!" and then proceeded to go through the doors and stomped off. I was shocked. I had no idea what she meant as I walked to my car and I could only conclude that she didn't appreciate me letting her go first as a lady (which, by the way, I am reassessing). I found this so strange, since if it was a guy and we both were there at the same time, I would have let him through first as well. All that being said though - I generally try to exercise more manners around ladies (ie. never burp or pass gas, etc. in the presence of a lady - that is, not audibly). I then go thinking on the way home - I don't know ANYONE who would have acted like that - most people are glad that you let them go first. I can only conclude that she had a bad day.

I am not sure if chivalry is dead or even appreciated these days - this is the first time that I wondered whether times have changed in this department as well. I know my wife likes it when I hold the door open for her, push in her chair, etc., but not sure if this type of behaviour is considered more "old fashioned" now.

Given the fact that I still think that it is proper to afford simple courtesies to others, even if it inconveniences me, I will of course put on the fun devil's advocate cap and consider the situation from a different angle...

I would never do this, but I wondered what would happen if I were to have no gestured for her to go ahead, but instead, walk faster to beat her into the revolving door, almost nudging her aside in the process. While I am not a betting man, I would have bet that her reaction would have not been a good one, since I would have been considered rude for barging ahead of her.

All that being said, if I were to do it over again, I wouldn't have changed a thing (yes, I would even do the hand gesture, as that is just natural for me to do - I let people in elevators this way all the time). I have no problems with allowing others to go ahead of me in doorways, etc., and if someone allows me to go first, I ALWAYS say thank you to them, whether they are male or female (since I genuinely appreciate the gesture). Maybe it's not a male/female thing, but based on what she said and how she said it, I would have had to conclude that she thought it was a gender slap, which was unfortunate, since that was far from the intention.

U.S. Election 2008 - Part III

I think this is probably the third blog entry focussed on next year's U.S. elections - you may wonder why I'm not talking about the any Canadian elections - for one, there won't be a federal election for a couple of years at least (in my view), and even though there will be a Ontario provincial election, it's not terribly exciting (the Liberal guy in power is barely hanging on right now, but my gut tells me that the electorate don't really want to see a Conservative in power, so they will continue to vote in the indecisive, break-yer promises, "I want to be on camera" Dalton McGuinty. Truth be told, even though I'm a die-hard card carrying Conservative, I have some mixed issues with John Tory - he may be a nice enough guy, but I don't think he's socially as Conservative as I would like (I would still vote for him, but I'd prefer to see someone else). I'm sure I'll be writing a few more things about the Ontario elections over the next few months.

OK, where was I? Oh yes, the U.S. Presidential elections next year. Well, it would look as if McCain is not a factor anymore (was he ever?) - he's still in the top 3, but he's dropping positions fast. So I think it will really be between Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It seems like former actor and senator Fred Thompson will be on the ticket, though he has unannounced, but I don't think enough people see him as a viable force, based on his lack of experience (though I'm sure his trophy wife will garner a few donations). But I think it will be down to Romney and Giuliani. With both as potential likely candidates to be on the ticket, I'm lukewarm on both - yes, I think either would be better than any of the Democrats, but Giuliani especially is a very liberal conservative, if there was such a thing. But there have been a recent development that has been a bit of a blow to Giuliani. His own daughter has thrown her support behind Barack Obama. Doh! Mitt Romney has also been picking up a lot of momentum on Giuliani, questioning whether he, as New York mayor, made the city a hotspot for illegal immigration. Giuliani is definitely on the defensive on that one. But I look at the U.S. and think, would they really vote in Romney, a mormon?

Ah, I really wish that Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Bill Frist would put their name in the ring (I know Dick Cheney will not be doing so and has indicated numerous times). Or Sam Brownback would mysteriously start getting voter support. At this point, it seems as if the Democrats are picking up steam and the floating question seems to be - who will be the President - Obama or Clinton. I'm really hoping it won't come down to this.

Are Romney and Giuliani the best that the Republicans can offer in this election? My gut tells me that neither will stand much of a chance here against Hillary or Barack.

eBay Sucks AND PayPal Sucks

Not in a million years could I have imagined that I would be typing the following words in my blog. But as the book of Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for anything, and a couple of days ago, I took the step of removing every single auction, fixed price, and store item from my four eBay accounts. Of course, I am not hasty enough to go and close all my accounts. At this point in time, I have simply had enough.

I can't believe that I actually entertained the idea of selling on eBay full-time. Well, after many years of successful selling, I would naturally juggle that idea; but several things have happened lately that has absolutely soured my opinion on eBay, and particularly, their heavily preferred payment system, Paypal.

If you search my blog here, you would have read a previous entry where I expressed concern about how eBay is going downhill, in terms of ensuring that their bread and butter (sellers) have a reasonably affordable, safe, and reasonably controlled way of selling stuff. I don't mind controls on what sells on eBay and what doesn't; it is only when it becomes close to a communist state that I no longer will participate. But I'm not here to rehash the previous post, so here is the latest.

A couple of months back, I sold a laptop. I was paid by paypal, and the following day, shipped the laptop to the buyer, who signed for it, confirmed receipt by email, and left positive feedback for me as a result, indicating how he liked the laptop. Just last week, two months after, I get a notice from Paypal saying that the buyer has issued a chargeback on his credit card, which funded his paypal payment, indicating that his card was used fraudulently. Of course, without hearing my side of the story, Paypal decided to freeze my account and withdraw the funds out, without even asking my permission. This would never happen at a bank, but Paypal is not a bank. I opened a case with them, submitting all my "evidence" - the emails from the buyer, the tracking number of the packaged, the signed signature as viewable on the Canada Post website, the fact that he confirmed receipt and even left me positive feedback. If his card was used fraudulently, what was he doing accepting a laptop that he supposedly had no idea he bought. And why would he leave me positive feedback on the same? Fishy? Yes. However, my account is still frozen (I have done literally thousands of transactions without problems). I have sold a number of laptops without issue. If this was an isolated case, I would feel better, but guess what? I checked on the internet and many people have had this happen to them - and you know what? In a number of cases, even in the face of clear evidence, Paypal simply sided with the buyer's credit card company. I am still waiting to hear back, so we'll see how it goes. But PayPal is owned by eBay, and so this obviously reflects on eBay.

eBay has increasingly been putting restrictions on their sellers, yet increasing fees year-over-year. It is no longer a fun place to sell stuff. Sellers of brand name electronics and clothing get bombarded with spam in the eBay messaging system, which just slows down transactions since you need to weed through it all to get to the legitimate questions. eBay is not doing a damn thing about this, but of course, why would they - they send their own spam through the messaging system.

eBay's help and support system is probably worse than any that I've seen. Ask them a really specific question about something and they will send you a canned answer that has nothing remotely related to the question you were asking. After a while, you simply say, "to hell with this" and give up. That's what they want.

The straw that broke the monkey's back was a recent change that they are implementing this month - they are no longer allowing the sale of gun parts and accessories, and that includes air gun parts and accessories. They admit that the federal U.S. and Canadian laws do not have restrictions on these parts, and in fact, you can buy many of them (slides/grips/tips/casings) at your local sporting goods store or elsewhere online. It is legal to sell them. Yet eBay claims that because they believe that the Virginia Tech shooter may have bought some parts on eBay, they must somehow now mass-ban the sale of these, thinking that this would be their good deed and the world would be a better place. I hate this freaking draconian way of thinking where big brother eBay thinks it knows what is socially acceptable, even though they are going against federal laws which allow these sales. Somehow, they think that they are doing their civic duty in helping stamp out violence. Truth be told, I could buy a bat off eBay or a golf club and use that to pummel someone to death.

I do agree with eBay in that they should not be allowing the sale of guns through its site, for obvious reasons. But now banning accessories and parts? Give me a freaking break. Obviously, they have been receiving (and have succumbed to) pressure from left-wing anti-guy lobbyists.

I'd be OK with eBay doing this kind of crap, if they were somewhat consistent
in how they enforce it. If you do a check of eBay, there are things which you can tell are pulled auctions due to what they feel are infriging their policies. Yet, you look some more and there are other people selling the same thing, whose auctions are allowed to proceed. Even if you report it, they won't pull the auction. That's a double standard if there ever was one.

Thank goodness for Craigslist. You can pretty much buy anything on there (except for pornography and hate speech stuff, both of which I fully understand). I sold my Airsoft M3000 shotgun on there, something I was not allowed to do on eBay, even though there was no Canadian law restrictions for me to do so (though there were some in the U.S.). That's OK - eBay lost out on listing and end of auction fees. It's just as well, since I love the quick turnaround on craigslist - local pickup (no shipping), cash payment on pickup, nice and easy - no silly feedback system, no undue restrictions, NO BULL. Someone told me that well, you don't have the audience on craigslist that eBay allows. That is true, but I'll take that over big brother controlling what I can and cannot sell and forcing me to use their flawed PayPal system (eBay does not allow you to use Western Union, claiming it's unsafe, though stating cash on pickup or cash through the mail is fine - what a bunch of hypocrites!) I doubt that I will ever use PayPal again, regardless of how this current case turns out.

Gamo Recon Combo Scoped Rifle - A Great Value

I had the opportunity recently to test out a few air rifles that have been available for some time. Without having a PAL, I was legally limited to the under 495FPS set, which is really all I need, since I don't hunt and as a result, I don't need the additional firepower. Both rifles that I tried use standard .177 calibre lead pellets. Both are fairly entry level rifles.

I tried the Crosman Quest first (500 model). Not bad, but a bit too much of a heavy trigger. Seemed kind of heavy as well. Plus, I did not really like the wood stock. Cocking effort is not bad (most air rifles are break-barrel, which means that you literally pull the front of the barrel downward in order to build the air pressure in the rifle), and accuracy is OK. Sometimes, the pellets jammed in the Quest, so it wasn't a 100% good experience.

What I really liked was the Gamo Recon Combo. It's called a combo because it comes with a mountable scope (don't have the specs with me, but I believe it was an entry level 4 x 20). Now, Gamo is a Spanish company, and for whatever reason, people either like their guns or hate their guns. I think it's more the pistols that are on the crappier side, but I was impressed with the Recon Combo. I found it to be a slightly lighter rifle (around 4.5 pounds, compared to the Quest at between 5.5 - 6 pounds - and then there was the Hammerli 490C which was a whopping 8lbs.), and a a result, a shorter rifle, so it feels good in the hands of someone who is not that tall, and is asthetically pleasing to the eye as well (especially with the thumb holes in the stock). The trigger pull is of reasonable weight, and accuracy is really good, given the price of the unit - you do need to adjust your windage and elevation to get the rifle to shoot decently - once you set it, though, you can be assured of decent shots. The only downside is that the scope is pretty cheap and not that great quality (can't expect much else for the price), but at least it's included. The only other problem is that it appears to be pretty picky with the pellets. While it's true that most guns have their own preference (based on manufacturing, etc.) on what pellets it likes, this rifle seems to be extremely picky and that a change of pellet brand may cause some major differences in where the groups land, not to mention, causing constant adjustments to the scope. Of course, that is fixed by just using the same kind of pellets (find what you want that works) and getting a totally different scope (RWS, Bushnell).

The rifle does have several safety features including anti-bear trap locking mechanisms - it's not a big deal anyway, since the cocking effort you can do pretty easily. It has a manual safety as well as a trigger safety. It has a tactical look with a thumbhole in the stock for comfort and ease. It has a rifled bull barrel, and has an all-weather synthetic finish. Yes, there are some plastic parts, but that's OK. I haven't had a chance to chrony this thing yet, but since the box has 525FPS and the PAL limit is under 500, I'll assume it's 495FPS or thereabouts.