So I pick up my son from school yesterday afternoon and on the way home, drop by the local Tim Horton's (it's like the Dunkin' Donuts in the U.S.). I didn't really feel like buying anything for me, and didn't want to stuff him with greasy donuts and such, so I decided to get him a TimBit, which is essentially made of the same stuff as donuts, but it is round, the size, shape, and look of a ping pong ball. The beginnings of this, from what I recall reading about it, is that these Timbits represented the stuff that was supposed to be in the center of the donut (hence, the hole).
Anyhow, Timbits are 10 cents each. I felt like an idiot going through the drive-thru to buy one single Timbit, but at least it's a little less embarrassing since you can at least use your car's sun visor to shield your face, as the employees wonder about how cheap you are. Anyway, I pull up, order a Timbit as I shout into the microphone box (I always do this since I wonder if they hear me at all), and they say "is that all, sir?" and I reluctantly said, "yep". I pull up and see that they packed the one Timbit in a little bag as the lady looks at me with a "thanks for wasting my time" look. I fish into my pockets to dig up the 10 cents+tax (think it was 11 cents or something), but as I took out the coins, I found a nickel and three pennies in my pocket. I continue to fish in my jacket and slide my hand under the driver's seat to fish for coins and check the coin box and door handle jamb thing, check my seat to make sure I wasn't sitting on anything (though I suppose to a casual observer I probably look like I was wiping my bum). When I realized I did not have the required change, I shrug my shoulders at the lady, say "really sorry about this" as I look in my rearview mirror and see about six cars lined up behind me, and floor the gas, not looking back at what must be the look of bewilderment on the lady's face. I didn't even have enough to pay for a Timbit. How embarrassing. Thankfully my son was looking out the other window at something in the trees and missed the lowlight of my Tim Horton's experience.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Missing Persons - Racial Bias?
Years ago, I worked with a guy in my office, who seemed to be immersed in news and media. Which I suppose in and of itself constituted neither harm nor foul, except for the fact that sometimes his interest spilled over into his work time, about which I had to speak to him a few times. But anyway, he was an interesting character, and one who seemed to be quite prone to question the news reports (which is good, in my view) but at the same time, was one of those types who seemed to think government conspiracies were around each door. He also, while not very openly vocal about racial bias views, quite often expressed that there was still an overwhelming discriminatory feeling in the mass media towards black people. He himself was black, so I simply chalked it up to racial sensitivity, and since I am generally of the opposite opinion, it made for some very interesting discussions.
One day, while we were eating lunch or I was accompanying him on one of his smoke breaks (I hope for my health's sake that it was the former), he suggested to me that the media has a tremendous bias towards not only reporting missing persons who are white much more than missing persons who are black, but moreover, the missing persons that they reported tended to be fairly "attractive" people (from the shallow Hollywood westernized view). In other words, not only does the media give undue spotlight on white missing persons, but almost often are not overweight, wear glasses, or look like a participant from a GWAR concert. While I never thought about my friend's view on things in great depth, I was skeptical that there would be such blatant bias in the media. I was rather dismissive of his contention, and considered it once again his oversensitivity to all things racial.
It is not until the past year or so that I have continued to ponder whether my friend was actually right. I mean, for the life of me, I cannot remember any high or mid-profile missing persons case reported in the media that involved a black person. At first, I thought that perhaps this may have a more natural explanation - that white people tend to go missing more than black people. But a local visit to my local Walmart or anywhere else that posts photos and info on missing persons seems to lead me to believe that people who go missing know no racial boundaries - that is, black people go missing as well, and to a lesser degree, Asians as well. Now, that being said, a few years back in Toronto, there was an extremely high profile case of Cecilia Zhang, a young Asian girl, who was abducted right out of her home, and sadly, murdered by some mofo who I hope gets severely sodomized in prison. For those detractors who would argue that this was a glaring exception to my friend's theory, I would tend to counter-argue the fact that this got such high exposure because of the fact that Toronto has a large Asian population. Yes, there was an amber alert issued Canada wide, but I talked with a buddy in New Brunswick on the east coast of Canada, and he said that while initially the news outlets there carried the story, after a week or so, the story died down. It, however, continued to be big news here in the Toronto area.
Over the years, I have grown both wary and increasingly disgusted with the coverage that CNN.com provides. Yes, it is unobjectively pro-American, but it also espouses extremely liberal views as a rule. Moreover, its coverage of the world of entertainment (read: those damn celebrities) is nauseating. At the very least, if you look at another large media outlet like the BBC, it tends to be a little more objective in its news reporting and doesn't continue to churn out really dumb-ass stories that no one cares about, like CNN.com does. But while these things tend to churn at the developing fecal matter in my bowels, I have been absolutely disgusted at the level of focus they provide on missing persons cases. Take, for example, that Alabama teen, Natalee Holloway, who disappeared in Aruba two years ago. They continue to flash the photos of this blonde, blue-eyed, seemingly "attractive" (by shallow media standards) teen/woman. They are not sure what happened to her, but it is a safe bet to presume she is likely dead, since no one has heard from her since. Now, I am saddened to hear that someone who went on vacation went missing, but a year ago I took the liberty of looking up some missing persons stats in the U.S. and Canada, and there are more than a few missing persons who went somewhere and disappeared. Now, in looking at these other photos, some people were men, others were elderly, some were young but were overweight, there were a few minorities, etc. But what makes the Holloway case so special? If she was black, would she even get the time of day from CNN? How about if she was 300lbs.? Would they even care?
Next one - the infamous Madelaine McCann case. You'll recall that she was the 4-year-old girl who went missing from her hotel room in Portugal. They broadcast this big-eyed little girl with dirty blonde hair, who looks like someone from that "Precious Moments" series of books and such. Kids get abducted all the time - even in the Toronto area, there are many kids who are missing. I see their names and faces at the local grocery store, library, etc., all the time. I believe these kids have value as well as human beings, and they should be afforded the same courtesy as those who have higher profiles. Yet my friend would suggest they are "not photogenic" from media standards and do not qualify as someone white citizens would rally around. I am finding that I am having some increasing affinity with my friend's sentiments.
Now, going back several years, you may recall another case of that intern, Chandra Levy, who went missing. Some may argue that the fact that she had such mass media exposure, and she wasn't blonde-haired/blue-eyed would indicate that there is in fact, no media bias. However, I would go out on a limb and posit that her coverage was akin to the Ceclia Zhang coverage. Levy was Jewish, and it is no secret that there is a large contingent of Jews in the media and news industry. True, she was in a sex scandal that involved a congressman, but that is no so unusual in the U.S., is it? Had she been an Arab or something, I'm not so sure whether she would have been given the time of day. Once again, think long and hard about the last time you heard of a missing persons case that was featured prominently in the news that involved a black person, an, Asian person, a Native Indian, an overweight white person, or an elderly person. It's not just about race. It's about the media not affording the time and fair treatment to people they don't deem attractive. Remember, we're not talking about the porn industry's criteria for selecting "actresses" in their movies or photos shoots here. Obviously in that case, they are catering to men's fantasies (which, interestingly enough, are likely influenced by the mass media anyway), but we're talking about affording the same equitable opportunity for a missing person who may not be photogenic or may not fit the mold of "Hollywood attractiveness" but are just as entitled to have their pictures shown in order to increase the likelihood of them being found.
One day, while we were eating lunch or I was accompanying him on one of his smoke breaks (I hope for my health's sake that it was the former), he suggested to me that the media has a tremendous bias towards not only reporting missing persons who are white much more than missing persons who are black, but moreover, the missing persons that they reported tended to be fairly "attractive" people (from the shallow Hollywood westernized view). In other words, not only does the media give undue spotlight on white missing persons, but almost often are not overweight, wear glasses, or look like a participant from a GWAR concert. While I never thought about my friend's view on things in great depth, I was skeptical that there would be such blatant bias in the media. I was rather dismissive of his contention, and considered it once again his oversensitivity to all things racial.
It is not until the past year or so that I have continued to ponder whether my friend was actually right. I mean, for the life of me, I cannot remember any high or mid-profile missing persons case reported in the media that involved a black person. At first, I thought that perhaps this may have a more natural explanation - that white people tend to go missing more than black people. But a local visit to my local Walmart or anywhere else that posts photos and info on missing persons seems to lead me to believe that people who go missing know no racial boundaries - that is, black people go missing as well, and to a lesser degree, Asians as well. Now, that being said, a few years back in Toronto, there was an extremely high profile case of Cecilia Zhang, a young Asian girl, who was abducted right out of her home, and sadly, murdered by some mofo who I hope gets severely sodomized in prison. For those detractors who would argue that this was a glaring exception to my friend's theory, I would tend to counter-argue the fact that this got such high exposure because of the fact that Toronto has a large Asian population. Yes, there was an amber alert issued Canada wide, but I talked with a buddy in New Brunswick on the east coast of Canada, and he said that while initially the news outlets there carried the story, after a week or so, the story died down. It, however, continued to be big news here in the Toronto area.
Over the years, I have grown both wary and increasingly disgusted with the coverage that CNN.com provides. Yes, it is unobjectively pro-American, but it also espouses extremely liberal views as a rule. Moreover, its coverage of the world of entertainment (read: those damn celebrities) is nauseating. At the very least, if you look at another large media outlet like the BBC, it tends to be a little more objective in its news reporting and doesn't continue to churn out really dumb-ass stories that no one cares about, like CNN.com does. But while these things tend to churn at the developing fecal matter in my bowels, I have been absolutely disgusted at the level of focus they provide on missing persons cases. Take, for example, that Alabama teen, Natalee Holloway, who disappeared in Aruba two years ago. They continue to flash the photos of this blonde, blue-eyed, seemingly "attractive" (by shallow media standards) teen/woman. They are not sure what happened to her, but it is a safe bet to presume she is likely dead, since no one has heard from her since. Now, I am saddened to hear that someone who went on vacation went missing, but a year ago I took the liberty of looking up some missing persons stats in the U.S. and Canada, and there are more than a few missing persons who went somewhere and disappeared. Now, in looking at these other photos, some people were men, others were elderly, some were young but were overweight, there were a few minorities, etc. But what makes the Holloway case so special? If she was black, would she even get the time of day from CNN? How about if she was 300lbs.? Would they even care?
Next one - the infamous Madelaine McCann case. You'll recall that she was the 4-year-old girl who went missing from her hotel room in Portugal. They broadcast this big-eyed little girl with dirty blonde hair, who looks like someone from that "Precious Moments" series of books and such. Kids get abducted all the time - even in the Toronto area, there are many kids who are missing. I see their names and faces at the local grocery store, library, etc., all the time. I believe these kids have value as well as human beings, and they should be afforded the same courtesy as those who have higher profiles. Yet my friend would suggest they are "not photogenic" from media standards and do not qualify as someone white citizens would rally around. I am finding that I am having some increasing affinity with my friend's sentiments.
Now, going back several years, you may recall another case of that intern, Chandra Levy, who went missing. Some may argue that the fact that she had such mass media exposure, and she wasn't blonde-haired/blue-eyed would indicate that there is in fact, no media bias. However, I would go out on a limb and posit that her coverage was akin to the Ceclia Zhang coverage. Levy was Jewish, and it is no secret that there is a large contingent of Jews in the media and news industry. True, she was in a sex scandal that involved a congressman, but that is no so unusual in the U.S., is it? Had she been an Arab or something, I'm not so sure whether she would have been given the time of day. Once again, think long and hard about the last time you heard of a missing persons case that was featured prominently in the news that involved a black person, an, Asian person, a Native Indian, an overweight white person, or an elderly person. It's not just about race. It's about the media not affording the time and fair treatment to people they don't deem attractive. Remember, we're not talking about the porn industry's criteria for selecting "actresses" in their movies or photos shoots here. Obviously in that case, they are catering to men's fantasies (which, interestingly enough, are likely influenced by the mass media anyway), but we're talking about affording the same equitable opportunity for a missing person who may not be photogenic or may not fit the mold of "Hollywood attractiveness" but are just as entitled to have their pictures shown in order to increase the likelihood of them being found.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Toronto Argonauts Vs. Winnipeg Bluebombers - November 18, 2007
Despite the rabid fanaticism behind Toronto sports fans trying to bring an NFL franchise to Toronto, I don't think it will ever happen. And that's a good thing, since we have an exciting game in our own Canadian Football League (CFL). For those detractors who say that they think the NFL is better, I am willing to bet that they have never seen an entire CFL season in its entirety, including the playoffs. Rather, they are stupidly following the American sports marketing machine, which preaches that sports quality is synonymous with the stars and stripes.
Oh, how far is it from the truth.
I've been following the CFL for years, and I believe in the last few years, they have been able to step up the games several notches - no, not make it look more American, but following storylines in and outside the game - it gives the teams a much more holistic perspective. Trades are followed with greater fervor in the media, and the fan base is up. Even on the sports radio shows like the one I heard on the way to work this moring, the focus was all CFL and the lines were flooded with calls about the semi-final games yesterday. Unfortunately, due to some prior commitments in the evening last night, I wasn't able to catch the Saskachewan / B.C. game in its entirety, but was able to watch more than half of it, before I had to attending an evening meeting at our church. What I saw was B.C. place packed with 55,000 screaming fans that, unfortunately for them, saw their team lose to a resurgent Saskatchewan Roughriders team, under the coaching of their former QB Kent Austin (whom many, including myself questioned his being selected as head coach, with so little coaching experience under his belt - boy, have we been proven wrong).
I don't want to really discuss the Grey Cup or the B.C./Saskatchewan game, as fun as it would be to dissect it. I want to give some thoughts on the Toronto Argonauts/Winnipeg Bluebombers game yesterday, which I did manage to catch in its entirety (all week, I was looking for tickets to the game for my son and I, though they were ridiculously expensive (and in retrospect, I suspect my son would have gotten ansy after about 20 minutes). The final score was 19-9 for the Bluebombers, but that didn't tell the whole story. The Argos, only a couple of months ago, were heading towards an abysmal season record, and were plagued on and off the field with quarterbacking controversies (see my other article on this). In the end, they rightfully decided to use Michael Bishop. But during their point in the season when they were in a valley, there were calls for long-time Argo, turned executive, now head coach Michael "Pinball" Clemons to resign or be fired. Of course, being such a good guy and an all career Argo, they would never fire him. But Pinball wasn't the problem this year and he wasn't the problem yesterday. Anyhow, the Argos managed to string together an extremely good record to end the season and win their division, ensuring a bye through the first round of the playoffs.
The Bluebombers, on the other hand, enjoyed a stellar season behind the arm and field-smarts of QB Kevin Glenn and the rushing of Charles Roberts. This guy passed his way to a number of records and personal bests. However, they barely got past the Montreal Alouettes (who had a losing record this season) in the East semi-final game. And based on the momentum for the Argos, coupled with the fact that the Argos did better than the Bluebombers this season (albeit by only a mere one win, though that didn't quite tell the story since the Bluebombers actually had a tie as part of their record of 10-7-1). So this all led to yesterday's game.
To be frank, I was expecting the Bombers to win, even though I was an Argos fan. The season record was not reflective of how well the Bombers did, and the Argos won some pretty close games. Plus, between Glenn and Bishop, I'd take Glenn any day of the week. He is simply a far better QB than Bishop - even look at their Collegiate records - Glenn at Illionis State set numerous records. Bishop did well, but was not a long-range prospect. Anyhow, I don't want to make it all about the quarterbacks, but in a sense, it is, since they are instrumental in calling the plays, etc., and are the first point of communication with the players.
Overall, it was a pretty good game, but there were several things which I think were key differences. One, was the fact that despite the fact that Bishop had a plethora of good receivers to throw to, he just did not get the job done. If I remember the score properly, I believe it was something like 12-1 for Winnipeg at halftime. That was pretty pathetic. In fact, I don't believe the Argos got their one and only touchdown until the fourth quarter. The Toronto defence did its job - they certainly forced Winnipeg to use the services of long-time kicker (and now braided long-hair fan) Troy Westwood. Unfortunately, they underestimated Westwood (which I suppose was understandable since he stunk all season) on several occasions and that burned their kick returners who had to double back several times. However, when the Argos did have the ball, they couldn't do anything with it. Which, from my vantage point, meant that Bishop, for whatever reason, chose to long bomb the ball at almost every opportunity. Throwing is fine, but at the very least, try a higher percentage pass! I think as a result of this, the Argos o-line became a bit flustered. This may have not been all bishop, since there are several instances where the Argos pass receivers were all clumped together - that to me seems to be a bad play call by the offensive co-ordinator on the sidelines. But in a sense, I would put it on Bishop, since he has a talented group of receivers that he could have utilized better. And of course, it didn't help that the Argos had one field goal by kicker Noel Prefontaine blocked, while another he simply missed.
The crowd at one point later in the game (I don't remember when exactly) started to boo Bishop, which I thought was pretty bad, considering it was a playoff game, and worse, started chanting the name of 44-year-old CFL Hall of Famer and backup Argos QB Damon Allen. Personally, if I was Pinball, I would have yanked Bishop at the half, and I remember telling my son that, before I sent him off to take a nap. Sure, Damon has not seen any play since the beginning of the season, but Damon is a proven playoff QB, and for a guy who has as long of a resume as him, I was shocked that they didn't insert him in there (I wouldn't have used backup QB Rocky Butler at all in such a pivotal game). At the very least, if Allen stunk, it was worth a try, since Bishop wasn't going anywhere. But I think if there could have been a knock against Pinball yesterday, it was that he didn't replace Bishop after three scoreless quarters, much less two scoreless quarters (and the touchback single point I don't consider an Argos score). I suspected that Damon would have done things differently, since he has the experience to see what was happening. I hope I see Damon playing at least one more year - hopefully for the Argos.
Now, contrast that with Kevin Glenn. The league's passing leader this year did a mixture of throw/pass and used his running backs very well. He played a smart game and knowing how tough the Argos defensive line would be, he simply ate at them slowly. Unfortunately for him (and his team), he broke his arm later in the game on a botched handoff, and no one would expect that he would have a season ending injury in this pivotal game. Obviously he won't be around for next week's Grey Cup, but instead, we will be seeing Ryan Dinwiddie, who has next to zero playing experience as a backup, though he did OK yesterday in the short time he filled in for Glenn (with the exception of that really bad handoff that led to a late turnover in the Argos red zone, though as usual, the Argos weren't able to do anything with it). I personally don't like the prospects of the Bluebombers next week playing the most pivotal game of the season with an unproven backup QB - especially going up against West Division MVP QB Kerry Joseph. I predict that the Roughriders will manhandle the Bluebombers and predict a score of 34-10 for Saskatchewan next week in the Grey Cup final.
Oh, how far is it from the truth.
I've been following the CFL for years, and I believe in the last few years, they have been able to step up the games several notches - no, not make it look more American, but following storylines in and outside the game - it gives the teams a much more holistic perspective. Trades are followed with greater fervor in the media, and the fan base is up. Even on the sports radio shows like the one I heard on the way to work this moring, the focus was all CFL and the lines were flooded with calls about the semi-final games yesterday. Unfortunately, due to some prior commitments in the evening last night, I wasn't able to catch the Saskachewan / B.C. game in its entirety, but was able to watch more than half of it, before I had to attending an evening meeting at our church. What I saw was B.C. place packed with 55,000 screaming fans that, unfortunately for them, saw their team lose to a resurgent Saskatchewan Roughriders team, under the coaching of their former QB Kent Austin (whom many, including myself questioned his being selected as head coach, with so little coaching experience under his belt - boy, have we been proven wrong).
I don't want to really discuss the Grey Cup or the B.C./Saskatchewan game, as fun as it would be to dissect it. I want to give some thoughts on the Toronto Argonauts/Winnipeg Bluebombers game yesterday, which I did manage to catch in its entirety (all week, I was looking for tickets to the game for my son and I, though they were ridiculously expensive (and in retrospect, I suspect my son would have gotten ansy after about 20 minutes). The final score was 19-9 for the Bluebombers, but that didn't tell the whole story. The Argos, only a couple of months ago, were heading towards an abysmal season record, and were plagued on and off the field with quarterbacking controversies (see my other article on this). In the end, they rightfully decided to use Michael Bishop. But during their point in the season when they were in a valley, there were calls for long-time Argo, turned executive, now head coach Michael "Pinball" Clemons to resign or be fired. Of course, being such a good guy and an all career Argo, they would never fire him. But Pinball wasn't the problem this year and he wasn't the problem yesterday. Anyhow, the Argos managed to string together an extremely good record to end the season and win their division, ensuring a bye through the first round of the playoffs.
The Bluebombers, on the other hand, enjoyed a stellar season behind the arm and field-smarts of QB Kevin Glenn and the rushing of Charles Roberts. This guy passed his way to a number of records and personal bests. However, they barely got past the Montreal Alouettes (who had a losing record this season) in the East semi-final game. And based on the momentum for the Argos, coupled with the fact that the Argos did better than the Bluebombers this season (albeit by only a mere one win, though that didn't quite tell the story since the Bluebombers actually had a tie as part of their record of 10-7-1). So this all led to yesterday's game.
To be frank, I was expecting the Bombers to win, even though I was an Argos fan. The season record was not reflective of how well the Bombers did, and the Argos won some pretty close games. Plus, between Glenn and Bishop, I'd take Glenn any day of the week. He is simply a far better QB than Bishop - even look at their Collegiate records - Glenn at Illionis State set numerous records. Bishop did well, but was not a long-range prospect. Anyhow, I don't want to make it all about the quarterbacks, but in a sense, it is, since they are instrumental in calling the plays, etc., and are the first point of communication with the players.
Overall, it was a pretty good game, but there were several things which I think were key differences. One, was the fact that despite the fact that Bishop had a plethora of good receivers to throw to, he just did not get the job done. If I remember the score properly, I believe it was something like 12-1 for Winnipeg at halftime. That was pretty pathetic. In fact, I don't believe the Argos got their one and only touchdown until the fourth quarter. The Toronto defence did its job - they certainly forced Winnipeg to use the services of long-time kicker (and now braided long-hair fan) Troy Westwood. Unfortunately, they underestimated Westwood (which I suppose was understandable since he stunk all season) on several occasions and that burned their kick returners who had to double back several times. However, when the Argos did have the ball, they couldn't do anything with it. Which, from my vantage point, meant that Bishop, for whatever reason, chose to long bomb the ball at almost every opportunity. Throwing is fine, but at the very least, try a higher percentage pass! I think as a result of this, the Argos o-line became a bit flustered. This may have not been all bishop, since there are several instances where the Argos pass receivers were all clumped together - that to me seems to be a bad play call by the offensive co-ordinator on the sidelines. But in a sense, I would put it on Bishop, since he has a talented group of receivers that he could have utilized better. And of course, it didn't help that the Argos had one field goal by kicker Noel Prefontaine blocked, while another he simply missed.
The crowd at one point later in the game (I don't remember when exactly) started to boo Bishop, which I thought was pretty bad, considering it was a playoff game, and worse, started chanting the name of 44-year-old CFL Hall of Famer and backup Argos QB Damon Allen. Personally, if I was Pinball, I would have yanked Bishop at the half, and I remember telling my son that, before I sent him off to take a nap. Sure, Damon has not seen any play since the beginning of the season, but Damon is a proven playoff QB, and for a guy who has as long of a resume as him, I was shocked that they didn't insert him in there (I wouldn't have used backup QB Rocky Butler at all in such a pivotal game). At the very least, if Allen stunk, it was worth a try, since Bishop wasn't going anywhere. But I think if there could have been a knock against Pinball yesterday, it was that he didn't replace Bishop after three scoreless quarters, much less two scoreless quarters (and the touchback single point I don't consider an Argos score). I suspected that Damon would have done things differently, since he has the experience to see what was happening. I hope I see Damon playing at least one more year - hopefully for the Argos.
Now, contrast that with Kevin Glenn. The league's passing leader this year did a mixture of throw/pass and used his running backs very well. He played a smart game and knowing how tough the Argos defensive line would be, he simply ate at them slowly. Unfortunately for him (and his team), he broke his arm later in the game on a botched handoff, and no one would expect that he would have a season ending injury in this pivotal game. Obviously he won't be around for next week's Grey Cup, but instead, we will be seeing Ryan Dinwiddie, who has next to zero playing experience as a backup, though he did OK yesterday in the short time he filled in for Glenn (with the exception of that really bad handoff that led to a late turnover in the Argos red zone, though as usual, the Argos weren't able to do anything with it). I personally don't like the prospects of the Bluebombers next week playing the most pivotal game of the season with an unproven backup QB - especially going up against West Division MVP QB Kerry Joseph. I predict that the Roughriders will manhandle the Bluebombers and predict a score of 34-10 for Saskatchewan next week in the Grey Cup final.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Good and Not So Good Bible Devotionals
For many years, I have been looking for a good Bible devotional for daily reading. Aside from the fact that my own lack of discipline and my absolutely atrocious time management techniques has led to my not really having a consistent devotional life for a year or two now, my other problem is in the fact that I have not found a truly useful daily devotional tool. Now, if you're a regular Bible reader, I know what you're thinking - just read the Scriptures from start to finish, or for those who are really sponteneous, just flip the Bible to a different page per day and read from it. Or read a bit from beginning to end. The problem with this approach, for me anyway, is the fact that I just can't do readings of any sort without some structure or parameters. It would be nice to know when to quit, so that way you are not stopping in the middle of a passage and are left scratching your head. Or you read too much and your mind wanders. Or you read too little and do not feel engaged with the text. Besides, there are some books of the Bible that, although I acknowledge to be part of the Word of God, it is not on the top of my to-do reading list. The book of Psalms is one, and the book of Job is another. But more on those another time.
A couple of years ago, my wife and I tried (and I said tried, because we were not sucessful at completing the task) to use John MacArthur's study Bible (I am a reasonably keen fan of Pastor MacArthur's preaching and teaching, though I don't agree with some of his positions on certain issues). It was an aggressive endeavour, as we had planned to read the entire Bible from start to finish in one calendar year. This was also very ambitious of us, seeing as we had a relative newborn baby at the time who usurped much of our daily attention So in January of that year, we started our nightly Bible study time by reading a bit of Genesis, a bit of Matthew, and a bit of the Psalms/Proverbs, as the suggested study timeline indicated. Not only that, but we ended up reading MacArthur's notes and such. If you've ever tried to do one of these "read the Bible in a year" things, you'll know that you need to read a LOT per day in order to achieve this. The problem was, we ended up going through some pretty confusing passages in the enormous chunk we read every night, and the Psalms parts were difficult to digest, as they always are for me.
For me, a devotional guide not only provides a logical structure of what to read when, but it also follows a theme that provides you an overall picture of the Scriptures. A tremendous asset or selling point would be if the devotional included aspects of a commentary, providing important contextual, historic and language/culture input that people otherwise may not know. Let's face it - few few Bible readers are theologians, so any help is much appreciated. Besides, having commentary value enhances the passage in question, making it more alive and providing a thorough contexual examination of the passage's location in the book as well as in Scripture itself. Think about it: if I were just to look at a simple passage through the lens of normal reading, I would obviously (and perhaps unconsciously) read the passage through the filters of 2oth or 21st century images and word definitions. A commentary would help to unravel some of this and provide some linguistic help.
My point in writing this post is not to necessarily review a bunch of common devotional guides and critique them; rather, I'd like to share the fact that I have been looking for a good Bible devotional and it just so happened that a good friend of mine recently suggested that I consider the Tom Wright "Everyone" series. The "Everyone" series seems to be, at first glance, a Bible commentary. Each book more or less corresponds in a one-to-one fashion with the associated Scripture book. Thus "Matthew For Everyone" would be dedicated just to the book of Matthew (though in the "Everyone" series, Matthew is split up into two guides). The book of Luke is covered in "Luke For Everyone" and so forth. Anyhow, I managed to read through a good chunk of the book that my friend lent me to consider, and I think I will be buying the rest of the set. This is exactly what I'm looking for.
Tom Wright, if you don't know, is N.T. Wright, an Anglican dude from the U.K., and a theologian which the Christianity Today publication (on which my feelings are lukewarm) considers one of the top five contemporary Biblical theologians in the world today. Now, I've read a couple of Wright's books, including "Who Was Jesus?", in which I had some serious reservations, but when my friend, for whom I have a deep level of respect, encouraged me to consider perhaps using Wright's Bible study set as a daily devotional, I put my personal bias aside and decide to check it out.
Well, I am impressed. I can see how these books can be used as devotionals. For one, it has everything that I expected of a good devotional, and more. The entire book is broken down into much smaller sections, the text of which are included in the book (so you don't need to car a Bible and a devotional around - it's great for the traveller or the person who has limited desk space). In between each section of quoted text are the commentary sections - it discusses historical context, word meanings, and then proposes some application. This is very much like the Life Application Bible (which I really like) style of Bible reading, but instead of constantly flipping back and forth between the text and the small footnotes, the commentary part follows each text section. This way, after you read the passage section all the way through, it is fresh in your mind when it comes to dissecting it. And each reading is maybe 10-15 minutes or so, if not less, so there is no chance your attention span will wane.
The "Everyone" series is meant for exactly that: everyone. It is written from a non-academic, non-technical perspective - much of the theological nomenclature can be found in a supplemental glossary, so as a result, a well versed theological person does not have to wade through elementary definitions in order to continue reading, but the new Bible reader will similarly not have to worry about deciphering endless amounts of technical academic theological language. This makes the book more engaging, and your get right into the Biblical text. If it is for these reasons that I'd recommend that you consider this series if you are looking for a well-rounded Bible daily devotional tool. I don't think it's meant as a daily devotion per se, since it's not split up by days, but I think it's better this way since you aren't focusing so much tracking days rather than immersing yourself into the Word.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Cheating and Testing
I work in the IT (information technology) industry and one of the unfortunate byproducts of that is a fairly regular rigorous technical certification attainment that is not really as much for continued skill development, as it is is for retaining one's employment. Unfortunately, unlike other disciplines like law and medicine, the need to constantly (and I mean constantly) keep up with the latest technological trends and products by becoming a subject matter expert on the same, has led many a systems or network administrator to purchase overpriced study books, software and purchase systems for lab use (since it's unlikely that you'll be given any time to play with hardware on the job, given today's climate of slash and cut of positions, offshoring the same, and consolidating existing jobs, thereby increasing everyone's workload.
This is one of many reasons why I am looking to eventually get out of the industry all together. It is just not a viable long-term industry, with technology changing rapidly, accelerating the redundancy of IT support staff, since new technology is supposed to make end-users more self-sufficient or self-reliant, yet by virtue of this reducing the need for technical people.
I've written about the problems with the IT industry before, but what I want to concentrate on today is one aspect in particular, which I feel has been grating at my nerves for years, and it was essentially the straw that broke the camel's back, in convincing me that I will be leaving this industry sooner rather than later. I've already lightly alluded to it above, and that is the whole issue of certification and the testing that goes with it.
Now, I have some inherent problems with the nature of IT certification as it stands. Again, unlike doctors, engineers, lawyers, electricians, teachers, and such who have to take some sort of testing or licensing process, their certification is never really in jeopardy after they achieve it. Sure, you may need to do some courses or attend workshops, seminars and conferences to stay current, but a doctor never really is at risk to lose his/her MD as a result of the lapse of time, and similarly the electrician or plumber will never really lose their certificate over the years. With IT certifications, the lifespan of the certification is very short (a few years). That is due to the technology changing, obviously, but what that means is that every few years, you will need to go through testing from scratch. Moreover, what you were previous certified in becomes obsolete quickly, so essentially, the time and money your poured into your books and software and studying does not really have a lot of long-term dividends. Even on a resume or a CV, you will eventually need to drop some of the older certifications (ie. no one puts down that they were certified in Windows NT 3.51 anymore, or even 4.0 for that matter). The very expensive books for those operating systems have similarly become extinct - you wouldn't be able to give away Windows NT certification books if you tried - trust me, I have tried!
But my biggest beef with IT certification became evident to me around 2003, when I earned my Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) designation in Windows 2000, after a couple of years of hard study and sacrificing my time and energy outside of the office to do it. I remember that shortly after my son was born in 2003, I was hitting the books once again, working in the home lab on exercises in a 1,000 page book, while my poor wife had a screaming baby in the other room and was also doing the bulk of the housechores as well.
Before I continue, I'd like to provide some context on the declining value of certifications over the years. In 1999, when I achieved my Windows NT MSCE, my company awarded me $15,000 Cdn. as a reward. MCSEs were valued then as experts in their field, and companies like mine recognized that. When I got my Windows 2000 MCSE in 2003, I didn't even get a handshake from management. The only thing I got was an email that said "good job". Should I have expected something? Damn right I should have. No one should be taking their personal time to study for 2 years, for the company's benefit, and not be compensated for it. Do you know why I wasn't?
Because by then the MCSE certification have become entirely worthless industry-wide, no matter what the Microsoft global marketing team will say otherwise. The reason why the MCSE has been devalued is because testing schools were churning out MCSEs by the refugee boatload. There were 13-year-olds who were reported to have obtained MCSE certification. And the reason why these MCSEs were being spit out like nasty tasting black licorice is because people accepted the wide use of cheating on their certification tests.
Now, people who engage in this practice will vehemently deny that they are cheating. Yet, let's look at the facts. People were using software (which I won't name here) which had the exact test questions. These unscrupulous software companies would send people (anonymous agents, paid by cash) to write these certification tests (and pay the standard $150 - $250 fee per test), and in doing so they wore cameras that captured the questions word for word. Because the overall random selection of questions can number in the 1,000 range (typically, there are around 50-100 questions on each exam), multiple agents were sent. Once these companies had the pool of questions more or less covered, they then did their research and found out the correct answers (these exams are all multiple choice by the way - answers-wise, even for the questions that are scenario-based). After confirming the answers, they then would sell the entire package of 500 or so questions and answers to whoever wants to buy it. All you need is some cash, and a very good memory in order to memorize the entire pool of questions and answers. Now, people were arguing vehemently that it was cheating because they considered it a study tool since these "guides" gave reasons why certain answers were right and certain answers were wrong. It was a pretty sad argument people made, since I asked them why they didn't use other products in retail stores which did the same thing but guaranteed wasn't comprised of the EXACT test questions. I never once got a satisfactory answer for that. They simply continued using these products to cheat, and of course, they produced nearly perfect scores for their exams. Of course, this caught on industry-wide, with IT professionals who didn't want to spend money on books and materials and more importantly, didn't want to spend the time to actually learn something. More than likely, their companies were pressuring them to obtain certification, so they took the easy way out.
I'm not making any of this up. I saw this on my own team that I managed. Our company lay down a mandatory certification goal for all technical people - of course, it was expected that people use their personal time to achieve this work goal, which irritated the hell out of a lot of the team members. I started hearing rumblings of a few of them who were exchanging the software program and since I am neither a dictator nor a micromanager, I encouraged them to do it the honest way and even offered to hold seminars at work where I'd actually work with them on the material, but they simply decided to use these dubious materials to obtain the actual pool of test questions and answers and to no one's surprise, almost all of them came out with 100% on the exams. As they were congratulating each other in 2002-2003, they all knew that I was pissed, considering the fact that I did it the honest way and I barely passed a couple of the exams (and took 2 1/2 years to go through all the exams while they took a mere 2-3 months). A few of them approached me and said that they knew that it wasn't right, but they just don't have the time - and besides, when they were going to college or university, cheating was widespread there, so if everyone else is trying to get an edge, why shouldn't they?
I'm not sure of what to say to this - I just shook my head and I was very disappointed at how things turned out. Of course, this being an industry wide practice, it immediately devalued technical certifications in general. I spoke with my manager about this practice and he said that while he didn't condone cheating, he recognizes that people in the industry are being overworked and don't have time to use their own precious time in order to achieve some silly company goal. So it was obvious that he wasn't about to do anything (and it would have been hard to enforce an order anyway, since people can just deny that they're using the materials).
It has always been my belief that if you do things in a half-assed way or take unscrupulous shortcuts, things will eventually come back to bite you in the ass. And sure enough, for these people it did. Some of these folks, due to what their management and peers viewed was a correlation between their extremely high scores on the exams and an assumed heightened technical skillset were placed on projects or were considered subject matter experts on certain technical topics. Well, I can tell you that one of the very few times I tore multiple strips off someone was when they were working with a customer on an Active Directory permissions inheritance issue and were stumped. They then made the unwise decision to come by my desk and ask me for assistance. I probably should have restrained myself, but I was well beyond restraint. Anyway, what I told them in pretty curt language was that, "You took three exams on this topic and scored 99-100% on each exam - why are you asking ME for help????" (after all, I only got 79% or so on the exam). Of course, after seeing their face turned flushed red due to embarrassment, I then proceeded to explain a pretty simple concept that, had they actually taken the time to study, they would have grasped pretty easily. Anyhow, it's a bit ironic that most of those people have since been released from the company or moved to other accounts. I am the only one still there from the original team, and my management tell me that one reason I continue to survive all the downsizing is because I have a diverse and solid technical skillset. That didn't come overnight. There are no shortcuts to real learning and real knowledge. You have to put the time in.
Nowadays, companies are starting to realize that many certified people out there have "paper" certifications, which indicates that they don't have real life knowledge or experience, and companies are no longer desiring (at least en masse) their interview candidates to have any technical certifications. I've been on interviews where the prospective employer indicates that they'd prefer that people don't have certifications since at least they know that they aren't cheating. At the very least, some employers recognize that cheating is not a desireable trait.
This is one of many reasons why I am looking to eventually get out of the industry all together. It is just not a viable long-term industry, with technology changing rapidly, accelerating the redundancy of IT support staff, since new technology is supposed to make end-users more self-sufficient or self-reliant, yet by virtue of this reducing the need for technical people.
I've written about the problems with the IT industry before, but what I want to concentrate on today is one aspect in particular, which I feel has been grating at my nerves for years, and it was essentially the straw that broke the camel's back, in convincing me that I will be leaving this industry sooner rather than later. I've already lightly alluded to it above, and that is the whole issue of certification and the testing that goes with it.
Now, I have some inherent problems with the nature of IT certification as it stands. Again, unlike doctors, engineers, lawyers, electricians, teachers, and such who have to take some sort of testing or licensing process, their certification is never really in jeopardy after they achieve it. Sure, you may need to do some courses or attend workshops, seminars and conferences to stay current, but a doctor never really is at risk to lose his/her MD as a result of the lapse of time, and similarly the electrician or plumber will never really lose their certificate over the years. With IT certifications, the lifespan of the certification is very short (a few years). That is due to the technology changing, obviously, but what that means is that every few years, you will need to go through testing from scratch. Moreover, what you were previous certified in becomes obsolete quickly, so essentially, the time and money your poured into your books and software and studying does not really have a lot of long-term dividends. Even on a resume or a CV, you will eventually need to drop some of the older certifications (ie. no one puts down that they were certified in Windows NT 3.51 anymore, or even 4.0 for that matter). The very expensive books for those operating systems have similarly become extinct - you wouldn't be able to give away Windows NT certification books if you tried - trust me, I have tried!
But my biggest beef with IT certification became evident to me around 2003, when I earned my Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) designation in Windows 2000, after a couple of years of hard study and sacrificing my time and energy outside of the office to do it. I remember that shortly after my son was born in 2003, I was hitting the books once again, working in the home lab on exercises in a 1,000 page book, while my poor wife had a screaming baby in the other room and was also doing the bulk of the housechores as well.
Before I continue, I'd like to provide some context on the declining value of certifications over the years. In 1999, when I achieved my Windows NT MSCE, my company awarded me $15,000 Cdn. as a reward. MCSEs were valued then as experts in their field, and companies like mine recognized that. When I got my Windows 2000 MCSE in 2003, I didn't even get a handshake from management. The only thing I got was an email that said "good job". Should I have expected something? Damn right I should have. No one should be taking their personal time to study for 2 years, for the company's benefit, and not be compensated for it. Do you know why I wasn't?
Because by then the MCSE certification have become entirely worthless industry-wide, no matter what the Microsoft global marketing team will say otherwise. The reason why the MCSE has been devalued is because testing schools were churning out MCSEs by the refugee boatload. There were 13-year-olds who were reported to have obtained MCSE certification. And the reason why these MCSEs were being spit out like nasty tasting black licorice is because people accepted the wide use of cheating on their certification tests.
Now, people who engage in this practice will vehemently deny that they are cheating. Yet, let's look at the facts. People were using software (which I won't name here) which had the exact test questions. These unscrupulous software companies would send people (anonymous agents, paid by cash) to write these certification tests (and pay the standard $150 - $250 fee per test), and in doing so they wore cameras that captured the questions word for word. Because the overall random selection of questions can number in the 1,000 range (typically, there are around 50-100 questions on each exam), multiple agents were sent. Once these companies had the pool of questions more or less covered, they then did their research and found out the correct answers (these exams are all multiple choice by the way - answers-wise, even for the questions that are scenario-based). After confirming the answers, they then would sell the entire package of 500 or so questions and answers to whoever wants to buy it. All you need is some cash, and a very good memory in order to memorize the entire pool of questions and answers. Now, people were arguing vehemently that it was cheating because they considered it a study tool since these "guides" gave reasons why certain answers were right and certain answers were wrong. It was a pretty sad argument people made, since I asked them why they didn't use other products in retail stores which did the same thing but guaranteed wasn't comprised of the EXACT test questions. I never once got a satisfactory answer for that. They simply continued using these products to cheat, and of course, they produced nearly perfect scores for their exams. Of course, this caught on industry-wide, with IT professionals who didn't want to spend money on books and materials and more importantly, didn't want to spend the time to actually learn something. More than likely, their companies were pressuring them to obtain certification, so they took the easy way out.
I'm not making any of this up. I saw this on my own team that I managed. Our company lay down a mandatory certification goal for all technical people - of course, it was expected that people use their personal time to achieve this work goal, which irritated the hell out of a lot of the team members. I started hearing rumblings of a few of them who were exchanging the software program and since I am neither a dictator nor a micromanager, I encouraged them to do it the honest way and even offered to hold seminars at work where I'd actually work with them on the material, but they simply decided to use these dubious materials to obtain the actual pool of test questions and answers and to no one's surprise, almost all of them came out with 100% on the exams. As they were congratulating each other in 2002-2003, they all knew that I was pissed, considering the fact that I did it the honest way and I barely passed a couple of the exams (and took 2 1/2 years to go through all the exams while they took a mere 2-3 months). A few of them approached me and said that they knew that it wasn't right, but they just don't have the time - and besides, when they were going to college or university, cheating was widespread there, so if everyone else is trying to get an edge, why shouldn't they?
I'm not sure of what to say to this - I just shook my head and I was very disappointed at how things turned out. Of course, this being an industry wide practice, it immediately devalued technical certifications in general. I spoke with my manager about this practice and he said that while he didn't condone cheating, he recognizes that people in the industry are being overworked and don't have time to use their own precious time in order to achieve some silly company goal. So it was obvious that he wasn't about to do anything (and it would have been hard to enforce an order anyway, since people can just deny that they're using the materials).
It has always been my belief that if you do things in a half-assed way or take unscrupulous shortcuts, things will eventually come back to bite you in the ass. And sure enough, for these people it did. Some of these folks, due to what their management and peers viewed was a correlation between their extremely high scores on the exams and an assumed heightened technical skillset were placed on projects or were considered subject matter experts on certain technical topics. Well, I can tell you that one of the very few times I tore multiple strips off someone was when they were working with a customer on an Active Directory permissions inheritance issue and were stumped. They then made the unwise decision to come by my desk and ask me for assistance. I probably should have restrained myself, but I was well beyond restraint. Anyway, what I told them in pretty curt language was that, "You took three exams on this topic and scored 99-100% on each exam - why are you asking ME for help????" (after all, I only got 79% or so on the exam). Of course, after seeing their face turned flushed red due to embarrassment, I then proceeded to explain a pretty simple concept that, had they actually taken the time to study, they would have grasped pretty easily. Anyhow, it's a bit ironic that most of those people have since been released from the company or moved to other accounts. I am the only one still there from the original team, and my management tell me that one reason I continue to survive all the downsizing is because I have a diverse and solid technical skillset. That didn't come overnight. There are no shortcuts to real learning and real knowledge. You have to put the time in.
Nowadays, companies are starting to realize that many certified people out there have "paper" certifications, which indicates that they don't have real life knowledge or experience, and companies are no longer desiring (at least en masse) their interview candidates to have any technical certifications. I've been on interviews where the prospective employer indicates that they'd prefer that people don't have certifications since at least they know that they aren't cheating. At the very least, some employers recognize that cheating is not a desireable trait.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Being Alone Vs. Being Lonely
Earlier this year, on one of the online forums that I frequent, I posted the following. I received some favourable personal feedback on what I wrote. I was thinking about this topic today and so I thought I'd share with you what I posted that day, with a few minor revisions for clarity.
I will contend that being alone and being lonely are not necessarily bad things, despite what society tends to push as the worldview here.
Years ago, pretty much against my will, I was forced to take that Meirs-Brigg personality test. I didn't want to take it, but had to, due to something else that was part of my education process that required it. Anyhow, I didn't give any credence to the result, and the reason was is that I do not believe human beings, in all their complexity, can be so easily categorized in 16 different categories, or whatever the number was. Anyhow, despite the fact that the facilitator was emphasizing, to the point of nausea, that the results are not to be taken as positive/negative, what invariably happens is that some results will be generally considered as "good" while others are considered as "not so good". Case in point - those who ended up in the categories which had a higher concentration of extrovertism, tended to pat themselves or others on the back. Those who ended up having more of an introverted focus tended to get strange looks or pats of consolation. Despite what these silly tests try to produce, people will still have the perception that being with lots of people and being a social butterfly = good, whereas being alone or in solitude or a person who is more contemplative and not always schoozing with people at parties (or going to parties for that matter) = bad. I rejected those labels back then, and I certainly reject them now.
Not everyone thinks a good time is going to a wild party, getting drunk, and having sex with as many people as humanly possible, and in the process, handing out their business cards. While I ended up on that Meirs-Brigg test somewhere in the middle, with a leaning towards introvertism, I didn't need to take a test to tell me this. I have always been more of a contemplative person, an analytical person, a person who assesses people and situations with far greater scrutiny than the average person. If you have read my posts from the beginning, you'll know that some of this can be attributed to environmental factors, but as a person, I generally tend to not be the guy who crashes the door at a party and say "Don't worry, people, I'm here to inject life into this party!" That being said, I am not anti-social either, since I embrace opportunities to meet people for the sake of meeting them, not because I am looking to name drop or want anything in return, but I enjoy the comaraderie of relationships and value people's opinions (well, most people's). All that being said, I want to focus on the "lonely" and "alone" labels. The anti-social label is pretty self-explanatory and I think that most people here see that as the opposite extreme and can conclude that it is more or less not a healthy outlook on life and relationships. There is a huge difference between anti-social and lonely/alone.
Being alone, in my view, simply means that you do not get your shorts in a knot when you have time to yourself, to either spend by yourself or if it is in the presence of others, having "personal solitude" time. I think this is good for people to take time to reflect on their own aspirations, their own character development, their own vision and goals for one's life, as well as recharge their batteries. Let's face it, everyone likes the down time, when they can just sit back and relax, staying home on the weekend in a pair of pajamas, watching old movies or sports or playing video games or playing musical instruments. Some like the time alone in physical training, such as exercise, biking, camping, etc. Some like driving the car around on day trips.
Unfortunately, much of society has concluded that it is not a good thing if you have personal time, or are the type of person who does not always want to be in a group environment. We are innundated with commercials and movies and TV which seem to suggest that the best time is had with a group of scantily clad people, drinking beer in a cabin somewhere. Perhaps for some, that is how they exercise their social skills, but I don't believe that everyone finds that to be their ideal way of socializing. Even at work, I have talked to a lot of salespeople who hate their jobs, because they feel that they are really just being fake by putting a smile on their face and projecting what is perceived as a "assertive and confident outgoing manner", when all they want to do is just meet with their client one-on-one over coffee and discuss life. A number of them retreat to weekend cottages and retreat centres when 5PM on a Friday afternoon hits, so they can just spend time to think and mentally recharge.
Anyhow, society (through the media, in my view) has seemed to shape that: people who spend time alone = loners = angry at the world = school shooter or mass murderer. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that being alone does not have its downsides; but I believe that there are few who can be around people and distractions that come with being around people 24 hours X 7 days a week X 365 days a year. Again, with everything else, balance and moderation is a good practice here.
I also feel (and all this is just my opinion) that being lonely should not have such a negative connotation put on it. Society will tend to conclude that being lonely = no social skills = can't talk to people = no friends = antisocial = desperate or suicidal person. I guess, since I don't really accept much of societal labelling, I've never drawn this conclusion to people who are "lonely". In fact, I would dare say that being lonely is a positive thing, because it means that we are expressing our natural God-given desire for relationship with others (friendship or romantic). Now, you may think that I'm contradicting myself in the above paragraphs where I talk about the need to be alone sometimes, but again, a balance needs to be set. I see extreme extroversion just as much of a problem as extreme introversion. Anyhow, I would say that people who are lonely are really communicating a human need - a need to relate, a need to communicate, etc. I think everyone needs friends and people surrounding them to encourage and empathize with them, no matter what their lot in life.
A couple of other things I want to mention - as people have experienced at some point in your life, you may not always be able to rely on others, and sometimes others let you down, and even worse, cause you pain. I have experienced this and sometimes I would rather spend time by myself than to spend time with someone who is not kind, gossips behind people's backs, and backstabs people, even if it means that I am not being "sociable". I think it is important to keep in mind that some people may choose to be alone because they have been in hurtful relationships. Some people have experienced teasing or bullying or confrontational meeting with others, so they tend to be on the shy side (I know I am). I don't think there's anything wrong with being shy. Again, society looks down on shyness, but keep in mind, this is the same society that gives endless press to stupid, idiotic celebrities and seems to put stock in "beauty pageants".
I think the world would be a much better place if people were simply allowed to be themselves without labels put on them. Then there would be no need to put on a fake smile, no facade to perpetuate, no unrealistic expectation to conform to others' (wrong) stereotyping of personality traits, no need to hide hurts, and no need to discuss whether it's OK to have time alone.
I will contend that being alone and being lonely are not necessarily bad things, despite what society tends to push as the worldview here.
Years ago, pretty much against my will, I was forced to take that Meirs-Brigg personality test. I didn't want to take it, but had to, due to something else that was part of my education process that required it. Anyhow, I didn't give any credence to the result, and the reason was is that I do not believe human beings, in all their complexity, can be so easily categorized in 16 different categories, or whatever the number was. Anyhow, despite the fact that the facilitator was emphasizing, to the point of nausea, that the results are not to be taken as positive/negative, what invariably happens is that some results will be generally considered as "good" while others are considered as "not so good". Case in point - those who ended up in the categories which had a higher concentration of extrovertism, tended to pat themselves or others on the back. Those who ended up having more of an introverted focus tended to get strange looks or pats of consolation. Despite what these silly tests try to produce, people will still have the perception that being with lots of people and being a social butterfly = good, whereas being alone or in solitude or a person who is more contemplative and not always schoozing with people at parties (or going to parties for that matter) = bad. I rejected those labels back then, and I certainly reject them now.
Not everyone thinks a good time is going to a wild party, getting drunk, and having sex with as many people as humanly possible, and in the process, handing out their business cards. While I ended up on that Meirs-Brigg test somewhere in the middle, with a leaning towards introvertism, I didn't need to take a test to tell me this. I have always been more of a contemplative person, an analytical person, a person who assesses people and situations with far greater scrutiny than the average person. If you have read my posts from the beginning, you'll know that some of this can be attributed to environmental factors, but as a person, I generally tend to not be the guy who crashes the door at a party and say "Don't worry, people, I'm here to inject life into this party!" That being said, I am not anti-social either, since I embrace opportunities to meet people for the sake of meeting them, not because I am looking to name drop or want anything in return, but I enjoy the comaraderie of relationships and value people's opinions (well, most people's). All that being said, I want to focus on the "lonely" and "alone" labels. The anti-social label is pretty self-explanatory and I think that most people here see that as the opposite extreme and can conclude that it is more or less not a healthy outlook on life and relationships. There is a huge difference between anti-social and lonely/alone.
Being alone, in my view, simply means that you do not get your shorts in a knot when you have time to yourself, to either spend by yourself or if it is in the presence of others, having "personal solitude" time. I think this is good for people to take time to reflect on their own aspirations, their own character development, their own vision and goals for one's life, as well as recharge their batteries. Let's face it, everyone likes the down time, when they can just sit back and relax, staying home on the weekend in a pair of pajamas, watching old movies or sports or playing video games or playing musical instruments. Some like the time alone in physical training, such as exercise, biking, camping, etc. Some like driving the car around on day trips.
Unfortunately, much of society has concluded that it is not a good thing if you have personal time, or are the type of person who does not always want to be in a group environment. We are innundated with commercials and movies and TV which seem to suggest that the best time is had with a group of scantily clad people, drinking beer in a cabin somewhere. Perhaps for some, that is how they exercise their social skills, but I don't believe that everyone finds that to be their ideal way of socializing. Even at work, I have talked to a lot of salespeople who hate their jobs, because they feel that they are really just being fake by putting a smile on their face and projecting what is perceived as a "assertive and confident outgoing manner", when all they want to do is just meet with their client one-on-one over coffee and discuss life. A number of them retreat to weekend cottages and retreat centres when 5PM on a Friday afternoon hits, so they can just spend time to think and mentally recharge.
Anyhow, society (through the media, in my view) has seemed to shape that: people who spend time alone = loners = angry at the world = school shooter or mass murderer. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that being alone does not have its downsides; but I believe that there are few who can be around people and distractions that come with being around people 24 hours X 7 days a week X 365 days a year. Again, with everything else, balance and moderation is a good practice here.
I also feel (and all this is just my opinion) that being lonely should not have such a negative connotation put on it. Society will tend to conclude that being lonely = no social skills = can't talk to people = no friends = antisocial = desperate or suicidal person. I guess, since I don't really accept much of societal labelling, I've never drawn this conclusion to people who are "lonely". In fact, I would dare say that being lonely is a positive thing, because it means that we are expressing our natural God-given desire for relationship with others (friendship or romantic). Now, you may think that I'm contradicting myself in the above paragraphs where I talk about the need to be alone sometimes, but again, a balance needs to be set. I see extreme extroversion just as much of a problem as extreme introversion. Anyhow, I would say that people who are lonely are really communicating a human need - a need to relate, a need to communicate, etc. I think everyone needs friends and people surrounding them to encourage and empathize with them, no matter what their lot in life.
A couple of other things I want to mention - as people have experienced at some point in your life, you may not always be able to rely on others, and sometimes others let you down, and even worse, cause you pain. I have experienced this and sometimes I would rather spend time by myself than to spend time with someone who is not kind, gossips behind people's backs, and backstabs people, even if it means that I am not being "sociable". I think it is important to keep in mind that some people may choose to be alone because they have been in hurtful relationships. Some people have experienced teasing or bullying or confrontational meeting with others, so they tend to be on the shy side (I know I am). I don't think there's anything wrong with being shy. Again, society looks down on shyness, but keep in mind, this is the same society that gives endless press to stupid, idiotic celebrities and seems to put stock in "beauty pageants".
I think the world would be a much better place if people were simply allowed to be themselves without labels put on them. Then there would be no need to put on a fake smile, no facade to perpetuate, no unrealistic expectation to conform to others' (wrong) stereotyping of personality traits, no need to hide hurts, and no need to discuss whether it's OK to have time alone.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Do Asians Care About Remembrance Day?
Since Remembrance Day (or Veteran's Day in the U.S.) fell on a weekend for a change, my wife, son and I were able to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies in our town since we don't have to work, as what has been the usual case. I typically try my best to observe Remembrance Day every year since I was a kid, and our workplace observes moments of silence followed by the playing of The Final Post as well as a reading of Flander's Fields.
We ended up attending an outdoor Remembrance Day memorial in our town, in a historic part of town that already had a veteran's memorial set up. Now, a little about our town. The official population of our town proper as well as the surrounding areas that are considered part of our town is around 810,000. Around 50-60% of our town is comprised of visible minorities, the bulk of that being Asians (Chinese in this case) and South Asians (Indian/Sri Lankan). This is reflected in my son's school class which has something like 75% Asian/South Asian student composition. Our town's member of Parliament (MP) in the Canadian House of Commons has an Asian wife, and our member of Provincial parliament (MPP) at Queen's Park is an Asian guy.
Yet at the outdoor Remembrance Day ceremony today to honour our country's veterans, both past and present, I was pretty shocked and terribly disappointed to see that 99% (if not more) of the about 1100 people or so who showed up were Caucasian. Where were all the Asians? As I scanned the crowd, I saw only a few (literally) Asian faces. One was the wife of the MP and the other was the wife of the MPP. I literally only saw two other Asians besides them in the crowd.
I am having a hard time reconciling what I saw today. I don't understand - our schools more than teach the importance and observance of Remembrance Day, and I was glad to see a number of kids there, but virtually no Asian kids. It is on the weekend, so I don't think there's any excuse for people to not make it out to a Remembrance Day ceremony. If anything, I would think that minorities should be even more grateful the for sacrifices men and women have made over the years in order to protect not only our basic freedoms, but also uphold a culture which allows multiculturalism and the opportunity for different cultures to coexist. I was thoroughly disappointed to see so few minority group representation at the memorial service, especially considering our town's ethnic makeup. On the way back home, we passed by an Asian mall, and it was, of course, packed to the brim. *sigh*
I wondered whether I was being a tad oversensitive here, but my impression today (and this may be a bit harsh) was that Asians in my town appear to not care too much about honouring veterans, if the lack of their presence at the ceremony was any indication. In watching some TV coverage of Remembrance Day ceremonies this evening, it showed other towns nearby which had similar ceremonies and as the camera panned the crowed, it seemed like an identical shot of the ceremony that I attended.
I guess I'm a bit saddened by this.
We ended up attending an outdoor Remembrance Day memorial in our town, in a historic part of town that already had a veteran's memorial set up. Now, a little about our town. The official population of our town proper as well as the surrounding areas that are considered part of our town is around 810,000. Around 50-60% of our town is comprised of visible minorities, the bulk of that being Asians (Chinese in this case) and South Asians (Indian/Sri Lankan). This is reflected in my son's school class which has something like 75% Asian/South Asian student composition. Our town's member of Parliament (MP) in the Canadian House of Commons has an Asian wife, and our member of Provincial parliament (MPP) at Queen's Park is an Asian guy.
Yet at the outdoor Remembrance Day ceremony today to honour our country's veterans, both past and present, I was pretty shocked and terribly disappointed to see that 99% (if not more) of the about 1100 people or so who showed up were Caucasian. Where were all the Asians? As I scanned the crowd, I saw only a few (literally) Asian faces. One was the wife of the MP and the other was the wife of the MPP. I literally only saw two other Asians besides them in the crowd.
I am having a hard time reconciling what I saw today. I don't understand - our schools more than teach the importance and observance of Remembrance Day, and I was glad to see a number of kids there, but virtually no Asian kids. It is on the weekend, so I don't think there's any excuse for people to not make it out to a Remembrance Day ceremony. If anything, I would think that minorities should be even more grateful the for sacrifices men and women have made over the years in order to protect not only our basic freedoms, but also uphold a culture which allows multiculturalism and the opportunity for different cultures to coexist. I was thoroughly disappointed to see so few minority group representation at the memorial service, especially considering our town's ethnic makeup. On the way back home, we passed by an Asian mall, and it was, of course, packed to the brim. *sigh*
I wondered whether I was being a tad oversensitive here, but my impression today (and this may be a bit harsh) was that Asians in my town appear to not care too much about honouring veterans, if the lack of their presence at the ceremony was any indication. In watching some TV coverage of Remembrance Day ceremonies this evening, it showed other towns nearby which had similar ceremonies and as the camera panned the crowed, it seemed like an identical shot of the ceremony that I attended.
I guess I'm a bit saddened by this.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Barriers to Effective Evangelism of the Gospel Message: Language
You know, it's easy to go to evangelism conferences and hear about effective ways to evangelize. Our church, as well as many other churches around the world, have participated in the successful Alpha program/course, which has inevitably helped lead many people to the saving power of Christ's death and resurrection over the years. I have read many books on evangelism and preaching and witnessing, and if you have read this blog long enough, you'll know one of my personal interests is in the whole area of Biblical apologetics; that is, Gospel defence. Now, I will re-iterate that I acknowledge that I shouldn't get my shorts too much in a knot over what happens after the Gospel is presented. After all, at that point, it's up to the Spirit to take over, and our job is more or less done.
You would think that with all the tools available to us, through books, courses, internet tools, etc., that evangelism may be a little too over-analyzed. Perhaps that is true, since if you look at the Billy Graham association (one of the few Christian ministries that I have wholeheartedly supported in my 16 years of being a believer), they really don't use marketing gimmicks or tricks or flashy techniques in order to reach people with the gospel. I really admire that. It's simply taking Jesus' plain words in Matthew 28 to heart, to go into the world and preach the Gospel to all nations. Now, it is easier when you have a massive evangelistic organization with thousands (if not, tens or even hundreds of thousands) of workers in many countries across the world, doing the work of the church. However, what I'd like to talk about today is something that has been on my heart for years; it is much more personal, and it really brings out the fact that my notions and ideas of witnessing may have been over-simplified throughout the the years. Witnessing may not be much of a challenge if you have the natural spiritual giftings to preach or teach. But the Bible teaches in the epistles that everyone has different gifts (I believe 1 Cor. 12 is a good starting point to look at this, though you can find references to spiritual gifts elsewhere).
So here's where my mind is at these days, and I'll give you some context to help frame the discussion. My Great-Grandfather (my Mom's Mom's Dad) lived a very full life and passed away in 1991 at the ripe old age of 102. That is an incredible life lived, especially given today's lifespan where people are fortunate if they get to 70 or so. Seems to me that things like cancer or freak accidents or other illnesses creep up unexpectedly, prematurely cutting short lives. Anyway, it was through a series of events in 1990 that I deem much more than just coincidences (I'll tell my spiritual testimonial later on another posting) that led to my Great-Grandfather accepting Christ as his Saviour, and shortly after that, his health took a turn for the worse, and he died a few months later. That whole process of how my Great-Grandfather became saved, I believe became a catalyst (among other events in my life at that time which were more than coincidental) for the process in my own path to salvation. I really miss my Great Grandfather - he was really a true gentleman - and reminded me so much of the old world mannerisms and way of living - he was from the U.K., always dressed in a top hat, wore suspenders, walked gracefully with a cane (he was fairly tall too) and was always gentle and content, keeping himself in shape in his mid 90s by walking everyday). I am glad that he became saved and I will see him again one day.
Fast forward to 2007 and I've been thinking for many months about my paternal Grandma, who is one of the two Grandmas left in our immediate family (my maternal Grandma is in her late 80s as well and lives in Western Canada). Unlike my maternal Grandma, who has made the decision ot accept Christ as her Saviour years ago, my paternal Grandma, who is 89 or so now, has not make a decision. My wife and I try to meet up her on a regular basis for lunch and visiting to see how she is, something she has told us that she appreciates since she said that not many of my relatives visit her too often. During these visits, aside from sincerely being glad to see her and having see her face glow at seeing our little boy, one of her Great-Grandsons, it has been constantly on my mind how I can possibly witness to her. I believe my role is to share the Gospel message to her and it's up to her to make a decision and for the Spirit to assisting in softening her heart. However, there is one problem.
She does not speak any English. And my Cantonese, while passable in typical basic conversation, absolutely sucks when it comes to talking about anything abstract or theoretical or philosophical or spiritual. Just like any other discipline of knowledge, there is, unfortunately, a set vocabulary or industry nomenclature that goes with the area of knowledge.
There are other problems. My Dad is not crazy about me preaching the Gospel to her. He says that she may want to hear it before she passes, but I also know that not too many people will know when it will be their time. I am not sure if my Dad is saved (I'm pretty sure my Mom is, and neither my brother or sister are), but there is not going to be a huge amount of spiritual support for me to witness to my Grandma. My cousins in Western Canada are all saved as are my maternal Aunt and Uncle, but geographically it is obviously going to be tough to find a way to get my Aunt (whom I would consider a very spiritually wise and mature believer) to come to Toronto. I remember spending about 1.5 hours in a conversation in the basement of my Aunt's house last year, when we went to visit my relatives, where her and I prayed over the situation and she suggested to me that I should just explain the message with the words that I have to use, even if my vocabulary is limited. I think that I am close to doing this and was about to start the process this morning as I called my Grandma to invite her out to lunch today, but she has a friend's birthday party she is attending today, so I made plans to meet up with her next Saturday.
In the meantime, I've thought about a couple of things that may be helpful. My Mom and Dad's long-time pastor (a Chinese dude) suddenly resigned quietly this past year, and as a result, he's not available as a resource. I actually just thought this morning about this and realized that our church's (a multi-ethnic and multicultural church) building is physically connected to a Chinese community church - we share the same building though we have different sanctuaries). They have a fairly young senior pastor there, but I am thinking that I'll make some time to meet up with him to discuss this. I could really use the wisdom of a pastor who has been in both the Chinese and Westernized cultures, who can give me some advice on this.
I could sure use prayer as I go through this process of preparing myself to witness to my Grandma. I would hate for my limited Cantonese to cause problems, but remember that Moses was worried about whether he was properly equipped speech-wise to talk with Pharoh, and God told him to simply follow His lead and He will provide the words for Moses to speak. If God can help Moses overcome his anxiety in speaking boldly, and if God can help give confidence and boldness to timid guys like Peter in the New Testament, surely He can provide the strength and wisdom that is needed to present the Gospel to my Grandma. I'd appreciate your prayers as I ponder and consider this process.
You would think that with all the tools available to us, through books, courses, internet tools, etc., that evangelism may be a little too over-analyzed. Perhaps that is true, since if you look at the Billy Graham association (one of the few Christian ministries that I have wholeheartedly supported in my 16 years of being a believer), they really don't use marketing gimmicks or tricks or flashy techniques in order to reach people with the gospel. I really admire that. It's simply taking Jesus' plain words in Matthew 28 to heart, to go into the world and preach the Gospel to all nations. Now, it is easier when you have a massive evangelistic organization with thousands (if not, tens or even hundreds of thousands) of workers in many countries across the world, doing the work of the church. However, what I'd like to talk about today is something that has been on my heart for years; it is much more personal, and it really brings out the fact that my notions and ideas of witnessing may have been over-simplified throughout the the years. Witnessing may not be much of a challenge if you have the natural spiritual giftings to preach or teach. But the Bible teaches in the epistles that everyone has different gifts (I believe 1 Cor. 12 is a good starting point to look at this, though you can find references to spiritual gifts elsewhere).
So here's where my mind is at these days, and I'll give you some context to help frame the discussion. My Great-Grandfather (my Mom's Mom's Dad) lived a very full life and passed away in 1991 at the ripe old age of 102. That is an incredible life lived, especially given today's lifespan where people are fortunate if they get to 70 or so. Seems to me that things like cancer or freak accidents or other illnesses creep up unexpectedly, prematurely cutting short lives. Anyway, it was through a series of events in 1990 that I deem much more than just coincidences (I'll tell my spiritual testimonial later on another posting) that led to my Great-Grandfather accepting Christ as his Saviour, and shortly after that, his health took a turn for the worse, and he died a few months later. That whole process of how my Great-Grandfather became saved, I believe became a catalyst (among other events in my life at that time which were more than coincidental) for the process in my own path to salvation. I really miss my Great Grandfather - he was really a true gentleman - and reminded me so much of the old world mannerisms and way of living - he was from the U.K., always dressed in a top hat, wore suspenders, walked gracefully with a cane (he was fairly tall too) and was always gentle and content, keeping himself in shape in his mid 90s by walking everyday). I am glad that he became saved and I will see him again one day.
Fast forward to 2007 and I've been thinking for many months about my paternal Grandma, who is one of the two Grandmas left in our immediate family (my maternal Grandma is in her late 80s as well and lives in Western Canada). Unlike my maternal Grandma, who has made the decision ot accept Christ as her Saviour years ago, my paternal Grandma, who is 89 or so now, has not make a decision. My wife and I try to meet up her on a regular basis for lunch and visiting to see how she is, something she has told us that she appreciates since she said that not many of my relatives visit her too often. During these visits, aside from sincerely being glad to see her and having see her face glow at seeing our little boy, one of her Great-Grandsons, it has been constantly on my mind how I can possibly witness to her. I believe my role is to share the Gospel message to her and it's up to her to make a decision and for the Spirit to assisting in softening her heart. However, there is one problem.
She does not speak any English. And my Cantonese, while passable in typical basic conversation, absolutely sucks when it comes to talking about anything abstract or theoretical or philosophical or spiritual. Just like any other discipline of knowledge, there is, unfortunately, a set vocabulary or industry nomenclature that goes with the area of knowledge.
There are other problems. My Dad is not crazy about me preaching the Gospel to her. He says that she may want to hear it before she passes, but I also know that not too many people will know when it will be their time. I am not sure if my Dad is saved (I'm pretty sure my Mom is, and neither my brother or sister are), but there is not going to be a huge amount of spiritual support for me to witness to my Grandma. My cousins in Western Canada are all saved as are my maternal Aunt and Uncle, but geographically it is obviously going to be tough to find a way to get my Aunt (whom I would consider a very spiritually wise and mature believer) to come to Toronto. I remember spending about 1.5 hours in a conversation in the basement of my Aunt's house last year, when we went to visit my relatives, where her and I prayed over the situation and she suggested to me that I should just explain the message with the words that I have to use, even if my vocabulary is limited. I think that I am close to doing this and was about to start the process this morning as I called my Grandma to invite her out to lunch today, but she has a friend's birthday party she is attending today, so I made plans to meet up with her next Saturday.
In the meantime, I've thought about a couple of things that may be helpful. My Mom and Dad's long-time pastor (a Chinese dude) suddenly resigned quietly this past year, and as a result, he's not available as a resource. I actually just thought this morning about this and realized that our church's (a multi-ethnic and multicultural church) building is physically connected to a Chinese community church - we share the same building though we have different sanctuaries). They have a fairly young senior pastor there, but I am thinking that I'll make some time to meet up with him to discuss this. I could really use the wisdom of a pastor who has been in both the Chinese and Westernized cultures, who can give me some advice on this.
I could sure use prayer as I go through this process of preparing myself to witness to my Grandma. I would hate for my limited Cantonese to cause problems, but remember that Moses was worried about whether he was properly equipped speech-wise to talk with Pharoh, and God told him to simply follow His lead and He will provide the words for Moses to speak. If God can help Moses overcome his anxiety in speaking boldly, and if God can help give confidence and boldness to timid guys like Peter in the New Testament, surely He can provide the strength and wisdom that is needed to present the Gospel to my Grandma. I'd appreciate your prayers as I ponder and consider this process.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Manners and Etiquette - Gone the Way of the Do-Do?
I've been out of commission with a bad back for the past few days, due to an incredibly stupid decision I made to go golfing with my brother on Tuesday in -2 degrees (Celsius) weather (including the wind chill) coupled with a constant downpour of frozen rain. My brother was dressed for the occasion, looking like a SWAT team member in his weatherproof and waterproof jacket and pants and shoes, whereas I had on a pullover and also a plasticky garbage bag-like Ku Klux Klan style poncho that I purchased from the Marineland aquatic amusement park last year when our family went and it was raining cats and dogs the whole day. I was soaked all over and my golf glove (the one that I had) was neither cold nor water resistant, so I only managed to play 9 holes in those conditions before I decided that was enough. When you can't feel your hands anymore, it's time to go home.
As I was lying down in a pretty prone horizontal position the past couple of days, I had opportunities to think about future post topics. One that I've always wanted to write about, but have never really had the time nor the inclination to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) in order to start the conversation, was the topic of manners and etiquette in this day and age. It should not surprise you that my conclusion is that we, as a society, are completely bereft of any type of common courtesies anymore, but that should not be news to anyone, I suppose, due to the fact that we all live in such a self-centered, attention-span-deficient world.
I recently had an opportunity to visit my child's school, which is not uncommon since I drop him off and pick him up there several times a week. Generally, I don't stay once everything is settled, but that one day, I on vacation, so I was in no rush to get to the office, nor was I in any rush to get home (hyper kindergaten kids in an open space or whiny infants and toddlers in a confined space - I think I'll take the former). I joined the kids for their opening ceremonies, which (thank goodness) still involves the national anthem - the singing of Oh Canada. Now, my son, in watching some hockey games with me, knows that when Oh Canada is played, you stand at attention, shut your trap and try to sing along. Whether you choose to place your hand to your chest is up to you. But the hat goes off, there is no eating, there is no playing around with toys or yourself, etc. I was pleased to see that my son remembered these lessons as he was able to do what was expected of him. Some of the kids weren't able to focus or pay attention and while I suppose you can make numerous excuses from their "age-developmental" skills not being what they should be, the fact that other kids were able to follow instructions would indicate that these kids either did not care, did not listen very well, or more than likely were a product of less-than-satisfactory parenting. But what struck me more was watching 80% of the parents engaged in conversation, some checking their cell phones - others were playing with the pockets of their jackets...during our national anthem (hmmm, now I think I now know which kids belong to which parents). But it's not just at school that you see this. You watch things like hockey and basketball games and you'll see the announcer having to remind people to take off their hats and stand. I'm not sure why people need to be reminded of this, but anyway...
My wife and I don't go to the movie theatre that often. Not only is it because of the ridiculous prices that these establishments charge for the tickets, but also as many people have commented over the years, the price of the well-overpriced popcorn and drinks and such add up, and it is not uncommon for a family of three like ours to go to the movies and then have to drop close to sixty bucks (that's $60.00) for the evening. And for what? To sit in a theatre full of people who increasingly don't have common courtesies, incessantly chatting throughout the morally bankrupt film. Yes, there are ads on the screen during the plethora of commercials and trailers (another reason I don't like going) reminding you to turn off your cell phone, but it so happens that the last few movies I have gone to see (with the exception of Curious George, which had no one there since we went during an freezing hailstorm), there is always a person talking on their cell phone or text messaging with their blackberry with the freaking volume on. Sure, I can turn around and politely (or in some cases, not so politely ask them to turn off their electronic device, and they will usually do so once they see me foaming at the mouth and the "I will break your nose if you don't" aura that I seem to project in those situations, but why should I have to do this?
We have a house on a corner lot. It's great for the extra backyard property that I have, and our house is very visible to our neighbours, so I would imagine that statistically, it is less likely that our house will the subject of a home invasion or robbery (we have nothing that anyone would want, anyway). But being on a corner lot has its disadvantages and I'm not talking about the extra grass that I need to mow in the summertime. There is a sidewalk on the side of our house and people walking past it litter there periodically, throwing it into the grassy part, which is not technically my property, but I need to mow it nonetheless. I take some pride in home ownership and don't want to see litter making my property look like a dumpster, so I clean it up. I have not ever caught anyone littering on my property, but I'm pretty sure it's not senior citizens doing it. Based on what the litter is, I can probably project the offender demographics being 12-25 year old males. In that case, it's just bad parenting since I'm not sure who else's responsibility it is to teach their kids not to litter. Unfortunately, pop bottles and McDonald's crap is not the only thing that I find on my property that is tossed by passersby. I have occasionally (maybe five times in the seven years that I've lived here) have seen bags of dog crap on my lawn. Obviously the owner had enough sense to bag the crap, but was too lazy to discard it at home. One of the other people who have a corner lot 2-3 streets away have obviously experienced this a lot more than we have, and they eventually erected a hastily written, asthetically poor-looking sign on rotting wood, which stated very bluntly to the neighbourhood, "DOGS, DO NOT SHIT HERE!" I found it a tad amusing, despite the blunt language used, that that home owner chose to do it that way. My wife walked over there and asked them to please remove the sign, since we run a daycare at home and we don't want kids reading it. Besides, this is a family neighbourhood and that just looks like nasty inner city graffiti. There are likely more constructive ways to indicate one's disgust with people who have no etiquette (and are breaking the law by leaving their dog crap on their property). I mentioned to them that we have had people dump all sorts of crap on our property including hamster shavings (which I wrote the town about, as well as the local newspaper), a propane tank, and tree trunks. I am saddened, by moreso irritated at the fact that people do not exercise any courtesy or manners and feel they can just drop stuff off wherever they like). I'd love to catch them in the act one of these days (what I would do at that point, I won't describe here).
The Chicago BlackHawks hockey club recently (in the past month or two) had their owner, Bill Wirtz pass away. Wirtz was their owner for something like 40 years, but throughout his reign, he was very unpopular with fans. Some fans directly attribute his "financial bottom line" philosophy of running a business to the club's declining fanbase and weak performance on the ice (the BlackHawks have not been in contender mode for more than a decade, if not more). Anyhow, shortly after he died, the BlackHawks brass, during the opening ceremonies of one of the hockey games, asking the crowd to stand for a moment of silence to honour their long-time owner. I remember watching this on the sports highlight reel one evening and I was shocked by what I saw. Instead of putting away their personal feelings for all of two minutes to show the deceased some semblance of courtesy, the crowed, boisterously booed throughout the two minutes, fluttering the management obviously. Ok, so the guy was a cheapskate, but for Pete's sake, it's not as if he was Adolf Hitler or something. I think this said a lot about the lack of class of the Chicago fans, but I think it is indeed a sad reflection on people simply not being able to conduct themselves in an orderly, respectful way in public.
We've also all seen the nimcompoops (sp.) who don't pull over to let ambulances, police cars, or fire trucks pass, as well as the dummies who don't at least stop to let a funeral procession pass. Are these all antiquated notions of how to conduct oneself? I'm not so sure people can make excuses for not exhibiting these common social courtesies by saying that they were never taught it or that they didn't know, or that it's an old-world thing. I'm only 34, and I've known these things for years - probably because I had a good set of parents who taught me these things (and rebuked me and disciplined me when I didn't) and teachers who actually gave a damn to teach conduct and develop character rather than teachers nowadays who are afraid of being sued by parents and will simply teach curriculum but no life skills.
This past May I interviewed for a job opening on my team here. I had several characters show up, and many of them did not bother to dress up (suit and tie) to the interview. I am finding more of that these days, and these staffing companies seem to indicate that it's OK for people not to dress up since they wouldn't be expected to wear a suit for their job anyway, and not to mention, suits make people nervous and uncomfortable (again, catering to the endless fricking self-esteem shit that we seem to be hearing all the time). Well, since I was the one doing the hiring and the interviewing, I made my selections pretty easily based on a set criteria. You don't wear a suit and tie, you don't get the job. It may be harsh. To me, a suit and tie would indicate a seriousness about their applying for the job. Yeah, I know what you'll say - not everyone knows to wear a suit and tie. Too bad. I cry no tears. If they weren't taught that, that's not my problem. Interestingly enough, I did find a direct correlation to how people dressed, and how they viewed the position for which they were applying. Those who came in wearing a sweater and such generally had no clue what the position was. Their body language also told me that they did not care either, which was fine with me, since I didn't have to waste any time with them. I had one guy whose cell phone rang in the middle of the interview, and he put up a finger to me (index finger) and said, "I'm really sorry, but I'm expecting this" - it was a text message, and he fiddled with his phone and I see he was texting back the person, which irritated the hell out of me since he was in the middle of a job interview!). Needless to say, once he flipped the phone shut, and looked at me with a puppy dog look, and said, "really sorry about that", I promptly turned to him and said, "thanks for coming - I appreciate your time" and ended the interview. Just like that. I'm sure that he left thinking I was a real prick, but that's the way it is. I'm sure he knew why I ended the interview so suddenly.
Hitting more close to home, our church(and others, based on discussions I've had with other folks) has had some discussions about people who bring coffee into the sanctuary during worship services. It seems like the prevailing opinion is that it should not be that big of a deal since at least people are coming. I can't say that I agree with that and I've always spoken my mind when asked my thoughts on this. If people can't leave their freaking coffees at home during a one-and-a-half hour service...sheesh. It's a worship service, not the Molson Ampitheatre. I have some friends who have told me that at some of their churches have funeral services, where you can see people sipping coffees. Sad, really.
Now, onto something a bit on the controversial side that relates to all this. It is the opinion of some that I have talked to that the root problem with people lacking manners/courtesies/etiquette these days is two-fold. One of which, I have already discussed and that is that the younger generation are not being taught these important aspects of social interaction and citizenry. But it's not just young people who are doing this - it's middle-aged people as well. You see this on the roads of Toronto or anywhere else. People not observing road rules, not following any order, not afforded others the courtesy in yielding to them or giving them the right-of-way. I think that this mentality of "me first" has always been a poison of Westernized society and it is the one thing that I detest more than anything else about living in a Westernized country, as much as I enjoy living here and being a citizen. I've already written about people not taking responsibility seriously, by putting their kids in daycare and their parents in seniors homes. I won't rehash that one, but I think this type of mentality seeps into everything else that a person does in their life.
The second point that has been brought up more often than not is that people believe that the increased amount of rudeness has to do with the immigrant population and the lack of cultural understanding for the customs and practices that we already have in this country - and the subsequent supplanting of their culture onto ours. I won't counter-argue too much here - I can see some valid points. Some have pointed out to me that when it comes to things like Canada Day, you don't see as many visible minority Canadians flying their flags (well, I do, but I suppose I'm an anomaly). Similarly, for Remembrance Day services, you don't see too many visible minority members paying their respects by attending the services. Asian malls are open 365 days a year, even on days where it's illegal to do so. That is generally true. I won't make excuses why more minorities do or don't do certain things, but I can content that to say it is totally a minority issue is not exactly accurate. Interestingly enough, based on my experience, children of many minority groups (certain ones excluded that just don't have a strong family-unit type of mentality) are far better behaved than their Caucasian counterparts. It's the parents of these kids who seem to have more issues with social graces, than the kids themselves (yes, this seems to counter the argument that it's all bad parenting). You may disagree, but that's been my experience. I can only speak from my own cultural experience, but I see lots of Chinese kids enrolling in high discipline type of activities like being involved with classical music (which in and of itself has a world of social graces attached to it).
I don't think that minorities or immigrants are the issue. I think that there is not strong enough social pressure to set expectations in the first place. Very few people will correct one another when it comes to conduct (whether it is parent/child, friend/friend, authority/subordinate, etc.), and that I believe is the root cause of all this. I see this all the time when I am constantly correcting my son to say "please" and "thank you" when others nudge me and say, "that's ok, he doesn't need to say it". Yes he does, if I don't want him to end up become a self-absorbed zombie. I also make it a point to address my son's teachers, principal/vice-principal by their formal names. I believe there is not only some decorum that goes with this, but it also establishes, if not re-enforces the fact that different situations call for different social etiquette. Not just in front of my son, but when I meet face to face with my son's teacher or principal, I address them as Ms. (last name of teacher) or Mr. (last name principal). I think this affords them the courtesy they deserve. I may be anal for enforcing these social graces over and over and over again, but I honestly believe it will pay dividends in the long run when he gets older and knows that there are times where you show respect. I have never understood this whole having toddlers call adults by their first name. At least, in Chinese culture, my first name is always prefaced by Uncle, for any child addressing me. When kids I don't know call me by my first name only, I correct them and add "Mr." in front of my name, sometimes to the chagrin of the parents who are trying to teach them otherwise.
Remembrance Day is this Sunday. I hope to be able to attend some services with the family. I think too many people in this country take for granted the sacrifices men and women made for us, serving in previous wars and theatres of conflict. The fact that I can sit here and write these words, spouting my opinions, is a testament to the fact that their sacrifice of their time and in many cases, their lives, helped make it possible for us to live in such a free and open society where we can exchange ideas, and even debate divergent viewpoints, without having to fear being tortured, or killed. On Sunday, I am hoping that you, whoever you are, will take a two minutes at 11AM to observe a moment of silence to honour those who served to protect our freedom. And for Pete's sake, leave your fricking Blackberry or coffee at home when you going to the memorial ceremony!
As I was lying down in a pretty prone horizontal position the past couple of days, I had opportunities to think about future post topics. One that I've always wanted to write about, but have never really had the time nor the inclination to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) in order to start the conversation, was the topic of manners and etiquette in this day and age. It should not surprise you that my conclusion is that we, as a society, are completely bereft of any type of common courtesies anymore, but that should not be news to anyone, I suppose, due to the fact that we all live in such a self-centered, attention-span-deficient world.
I recently had an opportunity to visit my child's school, which is not uncommon since I drop him off and pick him up there several times a week. Generally, I don't stay once everything is settled, but that one day, I on vacation, so I was in no rush to get to the office, nor was I in any rush to get home (hyper kindergaten kids in an open space or whiny infants and toddlers in a confined space - I think I'll take the former). I joined the kids for their opening ceremonies, which (thank goodness) still involves the national anthem - the singing of Oh Canada. Now, my son, in watching some hockey games with me, knows that when Oh Canada is played, you stand at attention, shut your trap and try to sing along. Whether you choose to place your hand to your chest is up to you. But the hat goes off, there is no eating, there is no playing around with toys or yourself, etc. I was pleased to see that my son remembered these lessons as he was able to do what was expected of him. Some of the kids weren't able to focus or pay attention and while I suppose you can make numerous excuses from their "age-developmental" skills not being what they should be, the fact that other kids were able to follow instructions would indicate that these kids either did not care, did not listen very well, or more than likely were a product of less-than-satisfactory parenting. But what struck me more was watching 80% of the parents engaged in conversation, some checking their cell phones - others were playing with the pockets of their jackets...during our national anthem (hmmm, now I think I now know which kids belong to which parents). But it's not just at school that you see this. You watch things like hockey and basketball games and you'll see the announcer having to remind people to take off their hats and stand. I'm not sure why people need to be reminded of this, but anyway...
My wife and I don't go to the movie theatre that often. Not only is it because of the ridiculous prices that these establishments charge for the tickets, but also as many people have commented over the years, the price of the well-overpriced popcorn and drinks and such add up, and it is not uncommon for a family of three like ours to go to the movies and then have to drop close to sixty bucks (that's $60.00) for the evening. And for what? To sit in a theatre full of people who increasingly don't have common courtesies, incessantly chatting throughout the morally bankrupt film. Yes, there are ads on the screen during the plethora of commercials and trailers (another reason I don't like going) reminding you to turn off your cell phone, but it so happens that the last few movies I have gone to see (with the exception of Curious George, which had no one there since we went during an freezing hailstorm), there is always a person talking on their cell phone or text messaging with their blackberry with the freaking volume on. Sure, I can turn around and politely (or in some cases, not so politely ask them to turn off their electronic device, and they will usually do so once they see me foaming at the mouth and the "I will break your nose if you don't" aura that I seem to project in those situations, but why should I have to do this?
We have a house on a corner lot. It's great for the extra backyard property that I have, and our house is very visible to our neighbours, so I would imagine that statistically, it is less likely that our house will the subject of a home invasion or robbery (we have nothing that anyone would want, anyway). But being on a corner lot has its disadvantages and I'm not talking about the extra grass that I need to mow in the summertime. There is a sidewalk on the side of our house and people walking past it litter there periodically, throwing it into the grassy part, which is not technically my property, but I need to mow it nonetheless. I take some pride in home ownership and don't want to see litter making my property look like a dumpster, so I clean it up. I have not ever caught anyone littering on my property, but I'm pretty sure it's not senior citizens doing it. Based on what the litter is, I can probably project the offender demographics being 12-25 year old males. In that case, it's just bad parenting since I'm not sure who else's responsibility it is to teach their kids not to litter. Unfortunately, pop bottles and McDonald's crap is not the only thing that I find on my property that is tossed by passersby. I have occasionally (maybe five times in the seven years that I've lived here) have seen bags of dog crap on my lawn. Obviously the owner had enough sense to bag the crap, but was too lazy to discard it at home. One of the other people who have a corner lot 2-3 streets away have obviously experienced this a lot more than we have, and they eventually erected a hastily written, asthetically poor-looking sign on rotting wood, which stated very bluntly to the neighbourhood, "DOGS, DO NOT SHIT HERE!" I found it a tad amusing, despite the blunt language used, that that home owner chose to do it that way. My wife walked over there and asked them to please remove the sign, since we run a daycare at home and we don't want kids reading it. Besides, this is a family neighbourhood and that just looks like nasty inner city graffiti. There are likely more constructive ways to indicate one's disgust with people who have no etiquette (and are breaking the law by leaving their dog crap on their property). I mentioned to them that we have had people dump all sorts of crap on our property including hamster shavings (which I wrote the town about, as well as the local newspaper), a propane tank, and tree trunks. I am saddened, by moreso irritated at the fact that people do not exercise any courtesy or manners and feel they can just drop stuff off wherever they like). I'd love to catch them in the act one of these days (what I would do at that point, I won't describe here).
The Chicago BlackHawks hockey club recently (in the past month or two) had their owner, Bill Wirtz pass away. Wirtz was their owner for something like 40 years, but throughout his reign, he was very unpopular with fans. Some fans directly attribute his "financial bottom line" philosophy of running a business to the club's declining fanbase and weak performance on the ice (the BlackHawks have not been in contender mode for more than a decade, if not more). Anyhow, shortly after he died, the BlackHawks brass, during the opening ceremonies of one of the hockey games, asking the crowd to stand for a moment of silence to honour their long-time owner. I remember watching this on the sports highlight reel one evening and I was shocked by what I saw. Instead of putting away their personal feelings for all of two minutes to show the deceased some semblance of courtesy, the crowed, boisterously booed throughout the two minutes, fluttering the management obviously. Ok, so the guy was a cheapskate, but for Pete's sake, it's not as if he was Adolf Hitler or something. I think this said a lot about the lack of class of the Chicago fans, but I think it is indeed a sad reflection on people simply not being able to conduct themselves in an orderly, respectful way in public.
We've also all seen the nimcompoops (sp.) who don't pull over to let ambulances, police cars, or fire trucks pass, as well as the dummies who don't at least stop to let a funeral procession pass. Are these all antiquated notions of how to conduct oneself? I'm not so sure people can make excuses for not exhibiting these common social courtesies by saying that they were never taught it or that they didn't know, or that it's an old-world thing. I'm only 34, and I've known these things for years - probably because I had a good set of parents who taught me these things (and rebuked me and disciplined me when I didn't) and teachers who actually gave a damn to teach conduct and develop character rather than teachers nowadays who are afraid of being sued by parents and will simply teach curriculum but no life skills.
This past May I interviewed for a job opening on my team here. I had several characters show up, and many of them did not bother to dress up (suit and tie) to the interview. I am finding more of that these days, and these staffing companies seem to indicate that it's OK for people not to dress up since they wouldn't be expected to wear a suit for their job anyway, and not to mention, suits make people nervous and uncomfortable (again, catering to the endless fricking self-esteem shit that we seem to be hearing all the time). Well, since I was the one doing the hiring and the interviewing, I made my selections pretty easily based on a set criteria. You don't wear a suit and tie, you don't get the job. It may be harsh. To me, a suit and tie would indicate a seriousness about their applying for the job. Yeah, I know what you'll say - not everyone knows to wear a suit and tie. Too bad. I cry no tears. If they weren't taught that, that's not my problem. Interestingly enough, I did find a direct correlation to how people dressed, and how they viewed the position for which they were applying. Those who came in wearing a sweater and such generally had no clue what the position was. Their body language also told me that they did not care either, which was fine with me, since I didn't have to waste any time with them. I had one guy whose cell phone rang in the middle of the interview, and he put up a finger to me (index finger) and said, "I'm really sorry, but I'm expecting this" - it was a text message, and he fiddled with his phone and I see he was texting back the person, which irritated the hell out of me since he was in the middle of a job interview!). Needless to say, once he flipped the phone shut, and looked at me with a puppy dog look, and said, "really sorry about that", I promptly turned to him and said, "thanks for coming - I appreciate your time" and ended the interview. Just like that. I'm sure that he left thinking I was a real prick, but that's the way it is. I'm sure he knew why I ended the interview so suddenly.
Hitting more close to home, our church(and others, based on discussions I've had with other folks) has had some discussions about people who bring coffee into the sanctuary during worship services. It seems like the prevailing opinion is that it should not be that big of a deal since at least people are coming. I can't say that I agree with that and I've always spoken my mind when asked my thoughts on this. If people can't leave their freaking coffees at home during a one-and-a-half hour service...sheesh. It's a worship service, not the Molson Ampitheatre. I have some friends who have told me that at some of their churches have funeral services, where you can see people sipping coffees. Sad, really.
Now, onto something a bit on the controversial side that relates to all this. It is the opinion of some that I have talked to that the root problem with people lacking manners/courtesies/etiquette these days is two-fold. One of which, I have already discussed and that is that the younger generation are not being taught these important aspects of social interaction and citizenry. But it's not just young people who are doing this - it's middle-aged people as well. You see this on the roads of Toronto or anywhere else. People not observing road rules, not following any order, not afforded others the courtesy in yielding to them or giving them the right-of-way. I think that this mentality of "me first" has always been a poison of Westernized society and it is the one thing that I detest more than anything else about living in a Westernized country, as much as I enjoy living here and being a citizen. I've already written about people not taking responsibility seriously, by putting their kids in daycare and their parents in seniors homes. I won't rehash that one, but I think this type of mentality seeps into everything else that a person does in their life.
The second point that has been brought up more often than not is that people believe that the increased amount of rudeness has to do with the immigrant population and the lack of cultural understanding for the customs and practices that we already have in this country - and the subsequent supplanting of their culture onto ours. I won't counter-argue too much here - I can see some valid points. Some have pointed out to me that when it comes to things like Canada Day, you don't see as many visible minority Canadians flying their flags (well, I do, but I suppose I'm an anomaly). Similarly, for Remembrance Day services, you don't see too many visible minority members paying their respects by attending the services. Asian malls are open 365 days a year, even on days where it's illegal to do so. That is generally true. I won't make excuses why more minorities do or don't do certain things, but I can content that to say it is totally a minority issue is not exactly accurate. Interestingly enough, based on my experience, children of many minority groups (certain ones excluded that just don't have a strong family-unit type of mentality) are far better behaved than their Caucasian counterparts. It's the parents of these kids who seem to have more issues with social graces, than the kids themselves (yes, this seems to counter the argument that it's all bad parenting). You may disagree, but that's been my experience. I can only speak from my own cultural experience, but I see lots of Chinese kids enrolling in high discipline type of activities like being involved with classical music (which in and of itself has a world of social graces attached to it).
I don't think that minorities or immigrants are the issue. I think that there is not strong enough social pressure to set expectations in the first place. Very few people will correct one another when it comes to conduct (whether it is parent/child, friend/friend, authority/subordinate, etc.), and that I believe is the root cause of all this. I see this all the time when I am constantly correcting my son to say "please" and "thank you" when others nudge me and say, "that's ok, he doesn't need to say it". Yes he does, if I don't want him to end up become a self-absorbed zombie. I also make it a point to address my son's teachers, principal/vice-principal by their formal names. I believe there is not only some decorum that goes with this, but it also establishes, if not re-enforces the fact that different situations call for different social etiquette. Not just in front of my son, but when I meet face to face with my son's teacher or principal, I address them as Ms. (last name of teacher) or Mr. (last name principal). I think this affords them the courtesy they deserve. I may be anal for enforcing these social graces over and over and over again, but I honestly believe it will pay dividends in the long run when he gets older and knows that there are times where you show respect. I have never understood this whole having toddlers call adults by their first name. At least, in Chinese culture, my first name is always prefaced by Uncle, for any child addressing me. When kids I don't know call me by my first name only, I correct them and add "Mr." in front of my name, sometimes to the chagrin of the parents who are trying to teach them otherwise.
Remembrance Day is this Sunday. I hope to be able to attend some services with the family. I think too many people in this country take for granted the sacrifices men and women made for us, serving in previous wars and theatres of conflict. The fact that I can sit here and write these words, spouting my opinions, is a testament to the fact that their sacrifice of their time and in many cases, their lives, helped make it possible for us to live in such a free and open society where we can exchange ideas, and even debate divergent viewpoints, without having to fear being tortured, or killed. On Sunday, I am hoping that you, whoever you are, will take a two minutes at 11AM to observe a moment of silence to honour those who served to protect our freedom. And for Pete's sake, leave your fricking Blackberry or coffee at home when you going to the memorial ceremony!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
New England Patriots Vs. Indianapolis Colts - November 4, 2007
I'm generally not a big NFL fan (prefer the CFL), but I've been a fan of Tom Brady since the Patriots drafted him from Michigan many years ago. I have several of Brady's rookie cards and am pleased to see that they have escalated in value with his three Super Bowl rings, MVP awards, etc. I've also enjoyed watching the Patriots play - just an all around good team that is coached well. I try to catch Patriots games whenever they are on the tube, even though I don't have cable. Worse case, I follow the live play action on the internet.
Earlier today, the high-scoring, offensive powerhouse Patriots, which went into today's game 8-0 for the reason, played the defending SuperBowl champion Indianapolis Colts, 7-0, in a game that many touted as the game of the century. I thought that was a bit much, but it was a highly anticipated game nonetheless. The Patriots have steamrolled over their opponents this year thus far, scoring at least 34 or so in each of the eight games they have played. They have scored on every single initial drive and Brady, going into today's game, has 30 touchdown passes already in less than half the season. The Colts' Peyton Manning currently holds the single-season record of most TD passes in one year with something like 49 (which was only set a couple of years ago when he broke Dan Marino's record).
I tried to buy a live NFL feed for the game, but I couldn't get it working due to technical problems, so I had already made arrangements to go to my Dad's place to watch the game. My wife and son wanted to come too, and so after I donned my official Tom Brady home jersey, we jumped into the car and headed over to my Dad and Mom's place, about 45 minutes away.
After watching the remnants of the Buffalo/Cincinati game, we settled into my Dad's very short couch and watched the commencement of the "game of the century". While I do not wish for this entry to be a play-by-play analysis of the game, I'd like to offer a few generalized thoughts on the matchup.
The Colts fans were already making excuses before the game started, saying that if they lost, it was because Marvin Harrison wasn't dressed and his replacement Anthony Gonzales got injured early. I'm sure it may have been a slight factor, but I doubt that there would have been much of a different outcome had they played, and here's why. By the way, the Patriots won 24-20, coming from behind, in a nailbiting finish.
First, I have to say that the officiating was TERRIBLE, even though the Patriots won. The first thing I said to my wife was "that head referee is really young". I believe it was his first game as a game referee (I believe he was a linesman before). The Patriots were penalized for 150+ yards in penalties. If you watch their games you will see that this is very abnormal. But let's look at a few of these calls.
First, the Pats' coach Bill Bilicheck correctly challenged one of the early plays in which the refs called a Colts player as in bounds, when one of his feet was clearly out of bounds. Video replays showed otherwise.
Also, the Colts were charged with pass interference twice early on. Both cost them significant yardage with the Colts gaining something like 35 to 50 yards per penalty, each putting them under the 10 yard line of the Patriots. Even the commentators on the game cannot figure out how the second one of those was pass interference - in fact, on replay, the Colts defender was clearly the one doing the interfering, wrapping his arms around Randy Moss the whole time. There was another pass interference against Moss later. I remember after a few calls, I said to my wife, "every single freaking call is going against the Patriots!" And it continued. It was laughable.
There were a number of calls where the Patriots were interfered with, but nothing was called.
Imagine, getting this many penalties, and the Patriots still won! And given the fact that the refs were obviously on the take from the Colts, as well as the fact that the Patriots were playing in absolutely hostile conditions at the RCA Dome in Indianapolis, that makes the victory even more impressive.
Tom Brady was a bit shaky at first, being sacked on his first possession. He also threw two interceptions this game (all season, he has only thrown one). He relied on the running game heavily which, I remarked to my wife, puzzled me greatly, since Brady's been on fire with the passing game (they scored 52 on the Redskins last week). Now, I agree that Brady can't just long-bomb everything since the Colts defence is very good. But for three quarters plus, the only Patriots touchdown came in the first quarter. But by the fourth quarter, Brady picked it up and made some pivotal passes (to Randy Moss and Wes Welker) to get critical yardage in order to set up two touchdown scores within four minutes in the fourth quarter. Moss was awesome in the game, with the pinnacle of that being that absolutely stunning one-handed catch he made (look for it on youtube or something - it was an insane catch in the midst of defenders - he caught the ball on the end with his full arm extended in midair and somehow managed to corral it into his body before he got hit. Absolutely stunning catch that was again a critical one).
The Patriots defence were able to put immense pressure on Manning in the fourth, getting a pick and forcing a critical fumble.
24-20 did reflect how close the game was, but boy, they should put in officials that don't have such a clear bias towards the Colts. As it stands right now, the Colts and Pats will more than likely meet in the AFC Conference Championship game in January, and it's a good bet that the Patriots will be holding a perfect 16-0 season record (based on what I see as their upcoming opponents for the last seven remaining games). I'm pretty sure this time, the Pats aren't going to be charged with 10 penalties/almost 150 yards (unless the same refs are used). I can't wait!
Earlier today, the high-scoring, offensive powerhouse Patriots, which went into today's game 8-0 for the reason, played the defending SuperBowl champion Indianapolis Colts, 7-0, in a game that many touted as the game of the century. I thought that was a bit much, but it was a highly anticipated game nonetheless. The Patriots have steamrolled over their opponents this year thus far, scoring at least 34 or so in each of the eight games they have played. They have scored on every single initial drive and Brady, going into today's game, has 30 touchdown passes already in less than half the season. The Colts' Peyton Manning currently holds the single-season record of most TD passes in one year with something like 49 (which was only set a couple of years ago when he broke Dan Marino's record).
I tried to buy a live NFL feed for the game, but I couldn't get it working due to technical problems, so I had already made arrangements to go to my Dad's place to watch the game. My wife and son wanted to come too, and so after I donned my official Tom Brady home jersey, we jumped into the car and headed over to my Dad and Mom's place, about 45 minutes away.
After watching the remnants of the Buffalo/Cincinati game, we settled into my Dad's very short couch and watched the commencement of the "game of the century". While I do not wish for this entry to be a play-by-play analysis of the game, I'd like to offer a few generalized thoughts on the matchup.
The Colts fans were already making excuses before the game started, saying that if they lost, it was because Marvin Harrison wasn't dressed and his replacement Anthony Gonzales got injured early. I'm sure it may have been a slight factor, but I doubt that there would have been much of a different outcome had they played, and here's why. By the way, the Patriots won 24-20, coming from behind, in a nailbiting finish.
First, I have to say that the officiating was TERRIBLE, even though the Patriots won. The first thing I said to my wife was "that head referee is really young". I believe it was his first game as a game referee (I believe he was a linesman before). The Patriots were penalized for 150+ yards in penalties. If you watch their games you will see that this is very abnormal. But let's look at a few of these calls.
First, the Pats' coach Bill Bilicheck correctly challenged one of the early plays in which the refs called a Colts player as in bounds, when one of his feet was clearly out of bounds. Video replays showed otherwise.
Also, the Colts were charged with pass interference twice early on. Both cost them significant yardage with the Colts gaining something like 35 to 50 yards per penalty, each putting them under the 10 yard line of the Patriots. Even the commentators on the game cannot figure out how the second one of those was pass interference - in fact, on replay, the Colts defender was clearly the one doing the interfering, wrapping his arms around Randy Moss the whole time. There was another pass interference against Moss later. I remember after a few calls, I said to my wife, "every single freaking call is going against the Patriots!" And it continued. It was laughable.
There were a number of calls where the Patriots were interfered with, but nothing was called.
Imagine, getting this many penalties, and the Patriots still won! And given the fact that the refs were obviously on the take from the Colts, as well as the fact that the Patriots were playing in absolutely hostile conditions at the RCA Dome in Indianapolis, that makes the victory even more impressive.
Tom Brady was a bit shaky at first, being sacked on his first possession. He also threw two interceptions this game (all season, he has only thrown one). He relied on the running game heavily which, I remarked to my wife, puzzled me greatly, since Brady's been on fire with the passing game (they scored 52 on the Redskins last week). Now, I agree that Brady can't just long-bomb everything since the Colts defence is very good. But for three quarters plus, the only Patriots touchdown came in the first quarter. But by the fourth quarter, Brady picked it up and made some pivotal passes (to Randy Moss and Wes Welker) to get critical yardage in order to set up two touchdown scores within four minutes in the fourth quarter. Moss was awesome in the game, with the pinnacle of that being that absolutely stunning one-handed catch he made (look for it on youtube or something - it was an insane catch in the midst of defenders - he caught the ball on the end with his full arm extended in midair and somehow managed to corral it into his body before he got hit. Absolutely stunning catch that was again a critical one).
The Patriots defence were able to put immense pressure on Manning in the fourth, getting a pick and forcing a critical fumble.
24-20 did reflect how close the game was, but boy, they should put in officials that don't have such a clear bias towards the Colts. As it stands right now, the Colts and Pats will more than likely meet in the AFC Conference Championship game in January, and it's a good bet that the Patriots will be holding a perfect 16-0 season record (based on what I see as their upcoming opponents for the last seven remaining games). I'm pretty sure this time, the Pats aren't going to be charged with 10 penalties/almost 150 yards (unless the same refs are used). I can't wait!
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Huggies, Pampers, Pull-Ups and Bedwetting
For the past week or two (or three), I have been up several times at night to take my boy to the washroom. My sleep patterns have been severely impacted as a result, and I've been getting sick off and on, since I'm sure my immune system is shot. My wife, being around 5 months pregnant, probably needs the rest more than I do, so I don't mind doing the night chores. Besides, in a few months time, I'll be getting up all night again, so it's just as well, I suppose. I figure I may as well use the awake time to write blog entries, answer emails and play a round of golf on the PSP.
My boy is 4 1/2 years old, and we have him in pull-ups. During the day, he does not need pull-ups or diapers, as he knows when to use the washroom. It is at night, however, that he seems to completely soak his pull-up occasionally, and when this happens - very often, it leaks out and gets all over his bed, waking him up, and as a result, waking me up to wipe him down, change his clothes, and oftentimes, change his sheets. Not terribly fun in a cold house in the middle of the night when you are feeling very groggy from a perpetual lack of sleep.
We have tried to limit his liquid intake to dinnertime only. He goes to bed around 8PM, and at around 11PM, I always haul him out of bed half-asleep and take him to the washroom where he will empty out his bladder. Lately, on instinct, I've been waking up at 2-4AM to take him once more. On nights like tonight when I totally forget to do it (I actually was sleeping for a change), he will soak his pull-up and then call me and I'll wake up and do the change routine.
This evening, it made me think of whether the pull-up brand needs to be changed. I don't believe any one brand has a monopoly for effectiveness at all stages of a child's development. We started using Pampers when my kid was an infant and they leaked, so we switched to Huggies, which was excellent...until he turned around 1.5 or 2 years old, and they started leaking. We then switched to Pampers size 3 and it was awesome for the next year or so. We've since been using Kirkland brand (CostCo) diapers until earlier this year, when we decided to switch him to pull-ups. Now, perhaps I am doing something wrong here with using pull-ups rather than putting him in underwear and bearing with the soakage that will initially come with it. But based on how much urine he is producing, putting him in underwear is insomnia suicide for us. We can't NOT give him liquids at dinner, but I'm amazed by how long the human body retains these liquids. Even if I empty him out at 11PM and 1AM, he still can soak his pull-up by the magical hour of 4AM.
I'm open to any suggestions here. You can email me (see my profile and contact info) or post a comment here. I am a bit puzzled at this conundrum. Ironically, months ago, I used to give him a half-glass of water right before he went to bed every night, and he managed (about 40% of the time) to remain dry, and have a massive pee first thing in the morning. Not sure what happened with all-of-the-sudden soakage (I sincerely hope that he's not deliberately doing it to get us to come see him in the middle of the night) - I'm not sure if taking him for washroom relief a couple of times a night is helping any or making things worse.
My boy is 4 1/2 years old, and we have him in pull-ups. During the day, he does not need pull-ups or diapers, as he knows when to use the washroom. It is at night, however, that he seems to completely soak his pull-up occasionally, and when this happens - very often, it leaks out and gets all over his bed, waking him up, and as a result, waking me up to wipe him down, change his clothes, and oftentimes, change his sheets. Not terribly fun in a cold house in the middle of the night when you are feeling very groggy from a perpetual lack of sleep.
We have tried to limit his liquid intake to dinnertime only. He goes to bed around 8PM, and at around 11PM, I always haul him out of bed half-asleep and take him to the washroom where he will empty out his bladder. Lately, on instinct, I've been waking up at 2-4AM to take him once more. On nights like tonight when I totally forget to do it (I actually was sleeping for a change), he will soak his pull-up and then call me and I'll wake up and do the change routine.
This evening, it made me think of whether the pull-up brand needs to be changed. I don't believe any one brand has a monopoly for effectiveness at all stages of a child's development. We started using Pampers when my kid was an infant and they leaked, so we switched to Huggies, which was excellent...until he turned around 1.5 or 2 years old, and they started leaking. We then switched to Pampers size 3 and it was awesome for the next year or so. We've since been using Kirkland brand (CostCo) diapers until earlier this year, when we decided to switch him to pull-ups. Now, perhaps I am doing something wrong here with using pull-ups rather than putting him in underwear and bearing with the soakage that will initially come with it. But based on how much urine he is producing, putting him in underwear is insomnia suicide for us. We can't NOT give him liquids at dinner, but I'm amazed by how long the human body retains these liquids. Even if I empty him out at 11PM and 1AM, he still can soak his pull-up by the magical hour of 4AM.
I'm open to any suggestions here. You can email me (see my profile and contact info) or post a comment here. I am a bit puzzled at this conundrum. Ironically, months ago, I used to give him a half-glass of water right before he went to bed every night, and he managed (about 40% of the time) to remain dry, and have a massive pee first thing in the morning. Not sure what happened with all-of-the-sudden soakage (I sincerely hope that he's not deliberately doing it to get us to come see him in the middle of the night) - I'm not sure if taking him for washroom relief a couple of times a night is helping any or making things worse.
Friday, November 2, 2007
I Am Not A Christian
A couple of nights ago, on Halloween night, my wife, son and I, as has been our practice every Halloween night ever since we can remember, disconnected our doorbell, turned off the lights, locked all the doors, cleaned up our garage, and made our way to our dinner buffet location. While it is very uncommon these days for any family to refrain from having their kids participate in trick or treating, we decided that that this was something in which we did not wish to participate. That goes against the grain of what society would otherwise preach, and to an extent, even what many Christians may even think. For us, we feel that that night is not honouring to Christ, so for our family, we choose not to participate. I am on the fence about allowing my son to dress up for school, but this year, we decided that dressing up as a fireman, in and of itself was not a bad thing, so we allowed him to put on his fireman outfit. Since I am the one who drops him off and picks him up everyday, I get a chance to interact with several other parents, and a few thought it strange that we weren't allowing him to go out trick or treating. Without getting into a discussion about our spiritual beliefs and convictions, I simply told them that this was not our practice and our choice was go out to dinner as a family. A couple of them said that they respect the fact that we stand for our convictions. One, however, thought that we were depriving our child of something that all the other kids do. "He will feel left out", they said, since "everyone else is doing it." Man, if that didn't get my pulse racing, I don't know what will. I calmly and evenly said to her that "well, this is a great first lesson for him, then, to not simply go with the crowd in life." She nodded and went about her way.
We did explain to our son why we do not celebrate Halloween, and he accepts it and does not make a big deal of it. Honestly, sometimes I think it's the parents who are more of the sh*t disturbers than the kids are. I also wonder how these kids will turn out, having parents who consider societal pressure and expectation as the barometer for how they should raise their kids. *sigh*
On the way to dinner Wednesday night, my wife and I have a discussion in the car, much to the chagrin of our son, who wishes for us to turn up the Transformers 1986 soundtrack CD, with arena rock and all (another indication that left unbiased, children can choose to listen to cheesy 80s Stan Bush music without worry about the antiquated nature of such music). My wife was mentioning to me that she, as part of her daycare practice, brought the kids to an indoor playground a couple times a week, to let the kids let loose, expend energy, and indirectly, give her (and our house) a much needed break from wear and tear. I showed up one time at this indoor playground and notice that errie absence of any male in there. I felt like a sucker that day, surrounded by boundless maternal estrogen (which is clearly different than standard estrogen). It was as if I had just shown up at a lesbian convention. But that is neither here nor there. Anyway, she told me that naturally, the conversation with these other women drifted towards Halloween, and eventually it came out that she did not allow her son to participate, and when she was asked why, she said, "Well, I am a Christian, and I don't celebrate Halloween", and proceeded to outline the reasons. She told me in the car she got funny stares and snickering the rest of the day.
I mentioned to her, by way of some encouragement, that if she gets that kind of reaction, then she is doing her job in witnessing to others. The Bible teaches that followers of Christ will be ridiculed, and possibly even persecuted. That is par for the course, and over time, I have come to accept this as part of my life. That is not to say that we should deliberately go out looking for ways to piss off people; but if, in the course of interaction with non-Christians about our beliefs, we receive a hostile reaction - well, that is just to be expected. The Bible teaches that God's wisdom is considered foolishness to the world, so we shouldn't really be surprised. A few years ago, our home/car, were targeted for Halloween vandals who slashed our tires since it was clear we did not hand out candy on Halloween night. Judging by what I saw the next day, several other people in the community were driving their cars on rims, calling the cops and generally having a miserable November 1 day. I know several other Christian families who were targeted, who do not celebrate Halloween. The cops seemed to indicate afterwards that this happens occasionally where hooligans (usually teenagers or older) decide to mete out their justice for those who do not succumb to pressure to participate in trick or treating. Since then, we have parked our car in the garage every Halloween night, and I have now been regularly scouting our premises late at night, after my wife and son went to sleep. Sounds like an isolated incident that year, but it was sure annoying.
My wife brought up an exceptionally good point, and one that framed the conversation for the rest of the car ride, and has caused an expediting of a world view shift that I've been slowly developing in my own mind. And this may prove controversial, but I believe that there is much truth in the fact that anyone using the term "Christian" to describe themselves, will automatically be lumped into the same camp as televangelists, hypocritical child molesters in churches, closet homosexuals who rant against legalizing homosexuality, and two-faced individuals who lead an otherwise "holy lives" on Sunday mornings, but the other six days of the week are engaged in anything by Godly behaviour. You know who I am talking about - the couple or family who always smiles on in public, and you never see them make mistakes - generally, these folks have the most to hide. This is not an indictment on Christians at all, but simply acknowledging that there is a negative stigma attached to the word "Christian". Now, you may say that I am contradicting myself here, in that I am saying that we should expect persecution, yet we should not carry the label. Personally, I am starting to think calling oneself a Christian comes with some serious issues. For one, does one really need to say it? As my wife and I agreed, it is far better (and in my view, more in line with Scripture) to show that you are a Christian by the way you live. The Bible says "they will know that you are Christians by your love". In other words, your faith is demonstrable; it need not be accompanied by a self-declaration of a label. Augustine once remarked that the gospel should be preached at all times; use words only when necessary. I think there is much truth in all that. Notice that in Jesus' ministry, He referred to Himself in many ways, most of which were metaphorical. He never went around saying, "Look at me! I am God's Son! I am all powerful! I am sinless!" He didn't need to say much. His actions said it all, as did His consistent life practice.
As I delved into this further that evening as I was trying to sleep, I thought about several other reasons why having the label is not a good thing. For one, it creates unrealistic expectations. Like it or not, the overtly "Christiany" Flanders family on The Simpsons TV show accurately depicts, in my view, people's view of Christians. They expect Christians to have it all together, to not use foul language, get angry, make mistakes, etc. While these are in and of themselves good aspects of one's life to strive towards, in pursuit of holiness living, how far it is from the truth, for anyone who has lived the Christian life. The book of Romans talks about the Christian struggling with temptation, sinning when we don't want to sin. The followers of Christ, His original disciples had many personal and character issues. But thank goodness God still manages to find some way to use imperfect people for His purposes and for His glory.
The next thought that I may be a bit harsh, but I'll say it anyway. I personally would refrain from using the Christian name to describe myself, since it conjures up way too much denominational baggage. No one really views a Christian as a "follower of Christ", as it was originally intended. People view Christians as denominationally fundamentalist "shove my beliefs down your throat" types, Roman Catholic (with all the rote, robotic, and oftentimes unbiblical practices that go with following the pope), or unintellectual and unthinking spiritually emotional hippie types who refuse medical attention, exclusively homeschool their kids and avoid contact with the outside world, spending all their time putting their hope in rapture theology that is biblically unsound, at best.
All this equally applies to the ever-growing practice of putting Christian fish symbols, stickers, decals and such on one's car and belongings. I don't begrudge anyone doing so, but I personally won't wear "What Would Jesus Do" armbands, underwear or neckties, since I know that I fall short of what I should be doing many times, and I'd rather not drag the name of Christ into the mud with me.
Why does it matter what people think? It doesn't. But the problem is, you are trying to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ to someone, and by using the term Christian, you are already erecting a wall of unfounded (but sometimes founded) expectations which makes it harder to share the gospel with someone. Don't get me wrong - I am not against using the term Christian - but I don't think it is necessary. Practice what you preach, and show people that Christians can be real people with real feelings and you know what - we make mistakes too - I think this will go a long way in sharing Biblical truth with them rather than some presumed dogmatic theology that is devoid of any real joy and spiritual fervor. I think if people see how you act and behave, they will eventually draw conclusions about why you are different. They may even guess that you are a Christian when they see you are a real person who makes mistakes, who just happens to have joy and love in your heart, who practices kindness when you don't need to, who practices forgiveness when you don't feel like it, who turns the other cheek when wronged, and who will love others when they laugh at you for being a Christian.
We did explain to our son why we do not celebrate Halloween, and he accepts it and does not make a big deal of it. Honestly, sometimes I think it's the parents who are more of the sh*t disturbers than the kids are. I also wonder how these kids will turn out, having parents who consider societal pressure and expectation as the barometer for how they should raise their kids. *sigh*
On the way to dinner Wednesday night, my wife and I have a discussion in the car, much to the chagrin of our son, who wishes for us to turn up the Transformers 1986 soundtrack CD, with arena rock and all (another indication that left unbiased, children can choose to listen to cheesy 80s Stan Bush music without worry about the antiquated nature of such music). My wife was mentioning to me that she, as part of her daycare practice, brought the kids to an indoor playground a couple times a week, to let the kids let loose, expend energy, and indirectly, give her (and our house) a much needed break from wear and tear. I showed up one time at this indoor playground and notice that errie absence of any male in there. I felt like a sucker that day, surrounded by boundless maternal estrogen (which is clearly different than standard estrogen). It was as if I had just shown up at a lesbian convention. But that is neither here nor there. Anyway, she told me that naturally, the conversation with these other women drifted towards Halloween, and eventually it came out that she did not allow her son to participate, and when she was asked why, she said, "Well, I am a Christian, and I don't celebrate Halloween", and proceeded to outline the reasons. She told me in the car she got funny stares and snickering the rest of the day.
I mentioned to her, by way of some encouragement, that if she gets that kind of reaction, then she is doing her job in witnessing to others. The Bible teaches that followers of Christ will be ridiculed, and possibly even persecuted. That is par for the course, and over time, I have come to accept this as part of my life. That is not to say that we should deliberately go out looking for ways to piss off people; but if, in the course of interaction with non-Christians about our beliefs, we receive a hostile reaction - well, that is just to be expected. The Bible teaches that God's wisdom is considered foolishness to the world, so we shouldn't really be surprised. A few years ago, our home/car, were targeted for Halloween vandals who slashed our tires since it was clear we did not hand out candy on Halloween night. Judging by what I saw the next day, several other people in the community were driving their cars on rims, calling the cops and generally having a miserable November 1 day. I know several other Christian families who were targeted, who do not celebrate Halloween. The cops seemed to indicate afterwards that this happens occasionally where hooligans (usually teenagers or older) decide to mete out their justice for those who do not succumb to pressure to participate in trick or treating. Since then, we have parked our car in the garage every Halloween night, and I have now been regularly scouting our premises late at night, after my wife and son went to sleep. Sounds like an isolated incident that year, but it was sure annoying.
My wife brought up an exceptionally good point, and one that framed the conversation for the rest of the car ride, and has caused an expediting of a world view shift that I've been slowly developing in my own mind. And this may prove controversial, but I believe that there is much truth in the fact that anyone using the term "Christian" to describe themselves, will automatically be lumped into the same camp as televangelists, hypocritical child molesters in churches, closet homosexuals who rant against legalizing homosexuality, and two-faced individuals who lead an otherwise "holy lives" on Sunday mornings, but the other six days of the week are engaged in anything by Godly behaviour. You know who I am talking about - the couple or family who always smiles on in public, and you never see them make mistakes - generally, these folks have the most to hide. This is not an indictment on Christians at all, but simply acknowledging that there is a negative stigma attached to the word "Christian". Now, you may say that I am contradicting myself here, in that I am saying that we should expect persecution, yet we should not carry the label. Personally, I am starting to think calling oneself a Christian comes with some serious issues. For one, does one really need to say it? As my wife and I agreed, it is far better (and in my view, more in line with Scripture) to show that you are a Christian by the way you live. The Bible says "they will know that you are Christians by your love". In other words, your faith is demonstrable; it need not be accompanied by a self-declaration of a label. Augustine once remarked that the gospel should be preached at all times; use words only when necessary. I think there is much truth in all that. Notice that in Jesus' ministry, He referred to Himself in many ways, most of which were metaphorical. He never went around saying, "Look at me! I am God's Son! I am all powerful! I am sinless!" He didn't need to say much. His actions said it all, as did His consistent life practice.
As I delved into this further that evening as I was trying to sleep, I thought about several other reasons why having the label is not a good thing. For one, it creates unrealistic expectations. Like it or not, the overtly "Christiany" Flanders family on The Simpsons TV show accurately depicts, in my view, people's view of Christians. They expect Christians to have it all together, to not use foul language, get angry, make mistakes, etc. While these are in and of themselves good aspects of one's life to strive towards, in pursuit of holiness living, how far it is from the truth, for anyone who has lived the Christian life. The book of Romans talks about the Christian struggling with temptation, sinning when we don't want to sin. The followers of Christ, His original disciples had many personal and character issues. But thank goodness God still manages to find some way to use imperfect people for His purposes and for His glory.
The next thought that I may be a bit harsh, but I'll say it anyway. I personally would refrain from using the Christian name to describe myself, since it conjures up way too much denominational baggage. No one really views a Christian as a "follower of Christ", as it was originally intended. People view Christians as denominationally fundamentalist "shove my beliefs down your throat" types, Roman Catholic (with all the rote, robotic, and oftentimes unbiblical practices that go with following the pope), or unintellectual and unthinking spiritually emotional hippie types who refuse medical attention, exclusively homeschool their kids and avoid contact with the outside world, spending all their time putting their hope in rapture theology that is biblically unsound, at best.
All this equally applies to the ever-growing practice of putting Christian fish symbols, stickers, decals and such on one's car and belongings. I don't begrudge anyone doing so, but I personally won't wear "What Would Jesus Do" armbands, underwear or neckties, since I know that I fall short of what I should be doing many times, and I'd rather not drag the name of Christ into the mud with me.
Why does it matter what people think? It doesn't. But the problem is, you are trying to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ to someone, and by using the term Christian, you are already erecting a wall of unfounded (but sometimes founded) expectations which makes it harder to share the gospel with someone. Don't get me wrong - I am not against using the term Christian - but I don't think it is necessary. Practice what you preach, and show people that Christians can be real people with real feelings and you know what - we make mistakes too - I think this will go a long way in sharing Biblical truth with them rather than some presumed dogmatic theology that is devoid of any real joy and spiritual fervor. I think if people see how you act and behave, they will eventually draw conclusions about why you are different. They may even guess that you are a Christian when they see you are a real person who makes mistakes, who just happens to have joy and love in your heart, who practices kindness when you don't need to, who practices forgiveness when you don't feel like it, who turns the other cheek when wronged, and who will love others when they laugh at you for being a Christian.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime?
Call me a bit of a jackass, but I tend to err on the side of scrutiny when it comes to encountering people who ask me for money on the street. Perhaps I am simply distrustful, or question people's motives when I have smelled my fair share of scams coming my way. I am a lot more compassionate than I used to be, but I still analyze every situation as it comes, rather than having a blanket response to anyone who asks me for money (or anything else) on the street.
Let me be clear first. If someone asks me for food, I will almost always buy them a meal. I actually don't remember ever refusing anyone. I think that's the compassionate and humane thing to do.
Money, however, is different. I shifted my view on this years ago from maybe giving money, based on a sermon I heard from a well known U.S. preacher, picking apart the argument that I don't want to give money to someone since they may buy drugs or alcohol with it. His point was that God entrusts people with money and resources, and every one of us (myself included) has been known to fart away money on truly stupid things. So essentially the argument goes, who are we to judge what the street person will do with the money. While I agree with this in principle, and in some cases, in practice, I have since shifted back to my original position when it comes to giving out money.
Over the past year, I have run into more people than I can count who have approached me near my office tower asking for money. It would be very refreshing if people were simply honest with me in why they want to bum a few bucks off of me. I also ask at the outset if they are hungry, whether they want food. Inevitably, they tend to say no. Then they will tell me that they actually are in need of money to buy a bus or train ticket. I happen to have a ticket or token or two floating around in my work bag, so will offer it to them. At that point, they turn around and say they really need the cash for the bus but won't expound further.
I recently had someone who asked me on the street whether I can give them a few bucks, as they need to make a call to their sick mother. I offered to let them use my cell phone to make the call, at which point they tell me they don't have the number on them, and they reiterate that they'd really like the cash. I tell them sorry.
There's a dude who hangs around the mall parking lot near our church, as well as occasionally at our church parking lot. This guy has approached me about six times in the last four years, and it's always the same old schtick. His car broke down across the mall, and he needs either busfare to get to where he's going or money to call the tow truck to come get his car - the initial story is the same, the details get conveniently interchanged. I've offered to let me use his phone and he refuses. I never give him money since I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a broken down car. Besides, I've seen other people give him money, and he never goes anywhere - just walks 100 meters or so and does the whole song and dance for the next person who comes by.
The last (and only) time I fell for one of these is a guy downtown Toronto who was dressed in a sharp suit who said he needed two bucks to take the subway, as he misplaced his wallet. My wife was with me at the time, and judging from the expression on her face, she would have preferred if I didn't give this guy money. I did, and he slowly walked towards the stairs from street level that descended into the subway station. My wife and I kept walking to our dinner destination. Once we rounded a building, my curiosity was piqued and I thought I'd just peek around the corner to see whether he actually went into the subway tunnel (I imagine that subconsciously, I suspected something fishy). Sure enough, the guy came out of the subway stairs and was hitting for other people for money. I don't like to be had, but I was pretty pissed that I fell for this scam. Never again, though.
There was a famous case in Toronto of the "shaky lady" - basically a middle-aged lady who looks and acts like a panhandler, who has been seen at various points in the city, including across from the office tower where I work. She will sit there, cap in hand (don't remember if she has a sign or not), but she visibly rocks back and forth like someone with autism. Well, an investigative reporter / show looked into it and the whole thing's a scam. The lady is actually from the suberbs, and this is her side gig to earn extra money. Pretty sad. Since that report, she's conveniently disappeared from the corner.
Now that I've detailed a bit on why my mentality on this topic was shaped to how it is now, I thought I'd address why I shifted back to my original position of not giving out money unless it's for food (and I'm the one buying the food). I won't aruge the point that God entrusts people with money and it is up to them to decide whether to use it wisely or not. The Bible is packed with stories of unwise decisions being made with resources. But that is not my point here. My point is that if someone wants money, but they lie to you about why they want money, I'm almost certain the money will not be well spent. Remember, that this is money with which God entrusts us, and His expectation is that we would, just like any other resource, use it wisely and in ways that will glorify Him. Giving it to someone who obviously does not have a good use of it in mind (since why lie, if it's a legitimate need) is careless. As with anything else, discernment is the key here.
The other argument that could be made is who am I to judge what people consider worthwhile things on which to spend the money, and what is considered frivilous? No one goes around asking people why they choose to buy a BMW convertible rather than a Pontiac Sunfire (well, people do question it, but the BMW owners aren't really listening, nor do they care). That is a good point, but once again, if we have a feeling that it is not going to be used wisely, it is our duty to question it, if in fact we take our role of stewards seriously. I always view dishonesty as a first sign that there is something fishy afoot, and in those cases, I distance myself from the situation. It is a far different story if, as I previously mentioned, someone were to ask me for food or water. Or if I notice some dude freezing in the cold, I will buy them a blanket. I have done this before for people and I have no issue with doing this kind of stuff.
Going along with the discernment theme, you also have to look at the demographic of who you are dealing with here. Again, this may sound elitist, and even (*gasp*) judgemental, but if you look at any study of street people patterns and lifestyles, you will see that many of them are addicted to tobacco, alcohol or drugs. If they don't want me to buy them food or water or clothing, but just want the cash, it doesn't leave me with a good feeling that the money will be put to good use. I am not willing to finance someone's smoking, alcohol, or drug habit. I wouldn't do it for a friend or a family member, so I sure as hell am not going to do it for a stranger. If you do not feel that street people have issues with these substances, I would challenge you to provide contrary information.
Let me be clear first. If someone asks me for food, I will almost always buy them a meal. I actually don't remember ever refusing anyone. I think that's the compassionate and humane thing to do.
Money, however, is different. I shifted my view on this years ago from maybe giving money, based on a sermon I heard from a well known U.S. preacher, picking apart the argument that I don't want to give money to someone since they may buy drugs or alcohol with it. His point was that God entrusts people with money and resources, and every one of us (myself included) has been known to fart away money on truly stupid things. So essentially the argument goes, who are we to judge what the street person will do with the money. While I agree with this in principle, and in some cases, in practice, I have since shifted back to my original position when it comes to giving out money.
Over the past year, I have run into more people than I can count who have approached me near my office tower asking for money. It would be very refreshing if people were simply honest with me in why they want to bum a few bucks off of me. I also ask at the outset if they are hungry, whether they want food. Inevitably, they tend to say no. Then they will tell me that they actually are in need of money to buy a bus or train ticket. I happen to have a ticket or token or two floating around in my work bag, so will offer it to them. At that point, they turn around and say they really need the cash for the bus but won't expound further.
I recently had someone who asked me on the street whether I can give them a few bucks, as they need to make a call to their sick mother. I offered to let them use my cell phone to make the call, at which point they tell me they don't have the number on them, and they reiterate that they'd really like the cash. I tell them sorry.
There's a dude who hangs around the mall parking lot near our church, as well as occasionally at our church parking lot. This guy has approached me about six times in the last four years, and it's always the same old schtick. His car broke down across the mall, and he needs either busfare to get to where he's going or money to call the tow truck to come get his car - the initial story is the same, the details get conveniently interchanged. I've offered to let me use his phone and he refuses. I never give him money since I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a broken down car. Besides, I've seen other people give him money, and he never goes anywhere - just walks 100 meters or so and does the whole song and dance for the next person who comes by.
The last (and only) time I fell for one of these is a guy downtown Toronto who was dressed in a sharp suit who said he needed two bucks to take the subway, as he misplaced his wallet. My wife was with me at the time, and judging from the expression on her face, she would have preferred if I didn't give this guy money. I did, and he slowly walked towards the stairs from street level that descended into the subway station. My wife and I kept walking to our dinner destination. Once we rounded a building, my curiosity was piqued and I thought I'd just peek around the corner to see whether he actually went into the subway tunnel (I imagine that subconsciously, I suspected something fishy). Sure enough, the guy came out of the subway stairs and was hitting for other people for money. I don't like to be had, but I was pretty pissed that I fell for this scam. Never again, though.
There was a famous case in Toronto of the "shaky lady" - basically a middle-aged lady who looks and acts like a panhandler, who has been seen at various points in the city, including across from the office tower where I work. She will sit there, cap in hand (don't remember if she has a sign or not), but she visibly rocks back and forth like someone with autism. Well, an investigative reporter / show looked into it and the whole thing's a scam. The lady is actually from the suberbs, and this is her side gig to earn extra money. Pretty sad. Since that report, she's conveniently disappeared from the corner.
Now that I've detailed a bit on why my mentality on this topic was shaped to how it is now, I thought I'd address why I shifted back to my original position of not giving out money unless it's for food (and I'm the one buying the food). I won't aruge the point that God entrusts people with money and it is up to them to decide whether to use it wisely or not. The Bible is packed with stories of unwise decisions being made with resources. But that is not my point here. My point is that if someone wants money, but they lie to you about why they want money, I'm almost certain the money will not be well spent. Remember, that this is money with which God entrusts us, and His expectation is that we would, just like any other resource, use it wisely and in ways that will glorify Him. Giving it to someone who obviously does not have a good use of it in mind (since why lie, if it's a legitimate need) is careless. As with anything else, discernment is the key here.
The other argument that could be made is who am I to judge what people consider worthwhile things on which to spend the money, and what is considered frivilous? No one goes around asking people why they choose to buy a BMW convertible rather than a Pontiac Sunfire (well, people do question it, but the BMW owners aren't really listening, nor do they care). That is a good point, but once again, if we have a feeling that it is not going to be used wisely, it is our duty to question it, if in fact we take our role of stewards seriously. I always view dishonesty as a first sign that there is something fishy afoot, and in those cases, I distance myself from the situation. It is a far different story if, as I previously mentioned, someone were to ask me for food or water. Or if I notice some dude freezing in the cold, I will buy them a blanket. I have done this before for people and I have no issue with doing this kind of stuff.
Going along with the discernment theme, you also have to look at the demographic of who you are dealing with here. Again, this may sound elitist, and even (*gasp*) judgemental, but if you look at any study of street people patterns and lifestyles, you will see that many of them are addicted to tobacco, alcohol or drugs. If they don't want me to buy them food or water or clothing, but just want the cash, it doesn't leave me with a good feeling that the money will be put to good use. I am not willing to finance someone's smoking, alcohol, or drug habit. I wouldn't do it for a friend or a family member, so I sure as hell am not going to do it for a stranger. If you do not feel that street people have issues with these substances, I would challenge you to provide contrary information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)