Man, it is annoying to the nth degree, to see all the media coverage on the death of Tim Russert of "Meet the Press". Of course, no one is happy when someone dies, but people die everyday, people who are not in the media spotlight and people who have equally contributed to humanity during their time on earth. I once again will fervently rant about why celebrity deaths seem to be elevated above the average person's. Certainly they are no more special than anyone else. When Diana died, and I was asked what I thought, I responded. Good. Hopefully Charles is next - I can't stand that waste of skin.
Honestly now, you can drop by any average funeral and hear interesting eulogies about the deceased. Oftentimes it is revealed things that no one ever knew - sometimes it's pretty cool stuff. Yet it's not covered by the media. Great teachers and doctors and humanitarians die daily - yet they are not given their due and the exposure they so much deserve for their humble service to humanity. But you know, when it's a celebrity, the general masses seem to treat it as if some deity kicked the bucket. In Russert's case, the man interviewed politicians and put them on the spot with clever and brutally honest interiew questions. So what? Why is his death any different than anyone else's? Who gives a crap if he's in the media spotlight? I know there are plenty of people (mostly women) who snag the latest celebrity gossip magazines at the supermarket aisles and follow with interest the lives of those who they will never know, yet they are regarded as almost a part of their family. That's why I watch little TV, and read the newspaper, so I can choose to ignore all the celebrity stuff. Still, I cannot go on any political website without reading something about Russert's life. I mean, it's not like this guy was the President of the United States of America. He was a freaking political commentator and interviewer. I just don't get it.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Book Review: The Seven Myths of Gun Control, by Richard Poe
This is a very refreshing book that tackles a taboo issue in society nowadays, particularly given the fact that the culture has generally gravitated towards left-wing politics, and as such more or less embrace gun control. I found Poe's tackling of the issue to be refreshing and much of his supporting evidence to be compelling. The book is easy to read, and may make several people uncomfortable, by virtue of his candidness. This book is not for the politically correct. For pro-gun readers, it helps to buttress their already-held beliefs of responsible gun ownership as a right (well at least in the U.S., I'm in Canada). I really liked how he dissected the race issue - no one wants to discuss the race factor, but let's face it, we all know that some racial communities have more issues with gun crime than others (for what it's worth, this opinion is coming from a me as a minority - Asian).
All that being said, I found several weaknesses in Poe's book. One was his frequent citing of fictitious events and scenarios such as movies to try to buttress his point. Personally, I would have found his arguments even stronger had he injected more real life statistics, rather than cite something from the movies.
Structurally, he either spent way too much time on myth one (which was addressed very well), or not enough time on the others. He does recognize this, but even so, I found that the last two myths seemed to be given just a cursory glance without really delving much into debunking the myth - it was almost as if he had to get the completed book to the publishers by a certain time, and so he simply rushed the last two chapters.
Speaking of structural issues, what is with the countless paragraph headings within each chapter. I think the book would have flowed better had the paragraphs not been so explicitly separated like this. There was negligible effect, if any at all.
Further, I found that fairly frequently, Poe tended to start a discussion, and then move to a tangent and then proceed to spend the rest of the chapter dissecting the tangent (of which the connection to the chapter topic is a stretch at best). To this reader, I got lost trying to figure out whether he needed filler material to fatten up the pages, or whether he needed to get a better editor (or perhaps he simply needed to inject his own opinion and interpretation somewhere).
I found that his often citing websites as supporting documentation to stifle his credibility somewhat. Not sure how you would feel about it, but in my view, given the fact that the premise of the book is to dispel myths (and presumably use solid documented evidence in the process), citing actually published works would lend more of an academic seriousness to his writing, rather than citing websites that I have never heard of, and since anyone can put together a website with questionable data, I am not sure whether it was a wise decision for him to cite online sources by and large.
Finally, I found the epilogue completely unnecessary. Without giving away any of the material, even a casual reader can safely conclude that any questions about whether his biases are injected in the book are answered in the epilogue. While I agree in principle with what he is saying, the connection to gun control myths with the substance in the epilogue is sketchy at best.
However, I still am content to give this a solid four-out-of-five rating. It's just very refreshing to see this topic addressed, and not from a idealistic or psychological angle, but with practical examples and brutally honest arguments. The book is a very easy read, and I'd recommend it to both pro and anti-gun readers to digest. I certainly learned a number of new things from the book, and for me, it provoked much thought about this subject, even though I am on the pro-gun side of the fence.
All that being said, I found several weaknesses in Poe's book. One was his frequent citing of fictitious events and scenarios such as movies to try to buttress his point. Personally, I would have found his arguments even stronger had he injected more real life statistics, rather than cite something from the movies.
Structurally, he either spent way too much time on myth one (which was addressed very well), or not enough time on the others. He does recognize this, but even so, I found that the last two myths seemed to be given just a cursory glance without really delving much into debunking the myth - it was almost as if he had to get the completed book to the publishers by a certain time, and so he simply rushed the last two chapters.
Speaking of structural issues, what is with the countless paragraph headings within each chapter. I think the book would have flowed better had the paragraphs not been so explicitly separated like this. There was negligible effect, if any at all.
Further, I found that fairly frequently, Poe tended to start a discussion, and then move to a tangent and then proceed to spend the rest of the chapter dissecting the tangent (of which the connection to the chapter topic is a stretch at best). To this reader, I got lost trying to figure out whether he needed filler material to fatten up the pages, or whether he needed to get a better editor (or perhaps he simply needed to inject his own opinion and interpretation somewhere).
I found that his often citing websites as supporting documentation to stifle his credibility somewhat. Not sure how you would feel about it, but in my view, given the fact that the premise of the book is to dispel myths (and presumably use solid documented evidence in the process), citing actually published works would lend more of an academic seriousness to his writing, rather than citing websites that I have never heard of, and since anyone can put together a website with questionable data, I am not sure whether it was a wise decision for him to cite online sources by and large.
Finally, I found the epilogue completely unnecessary. Without giving away any of the material, even a casual reader can safely conclude that any questions about whether his biases are injected in the book are answered in the epilogue. While I agree in principle with what he is saying, the connection to gun control myths with the substance in the epilogue is sketchy at best.
However, I still am content to give this a solid four-out-of-five rating. It's just very refreshing to see this topic addressed, and not from a idealistic or psychological angle, but with practical examples and brutally honest arguments. The book is a very easy read, and I'd recommend it to both pro and anti-gun readers to digest. I certainly learned a number of new things from the book, and for me, it provoked much thought about this subject, even though I am on the pro-gun side of the fence.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Preach It, Barack Obama - There IS A Problem In the Black Community
This is, like, the only time EVER that I will heap anything close to praise for something Barack Obama said. Truth be told, while I've been following the U.S. presidential race and primaries since the whole thing began, with a new child in the family, I've not had as much interest in fervently commenting on the primary season, which of course, is now over and we will have Barack Obama and John McCain duking it out in November. Not the best candidates each party has to offer, but oh well...
But back to Obama - I cringe everytime I hear this guy talk - I swear, he sounds like an enthusiastic snake oil salesman. Speaks in platitudes and generalities, and why not? His experience is sorely lacking - he needs to make up for it in the only way a politician can - by generating revolutionary sound bytes and catch-phrases in order to ignite the imagination of a political audience who is cynical, despondent, and perhaps even ambivalent towards anything political.
But...his recent comments regarding problems in the black community, particularly in the area of absentee fathers and broken homes for black children was quite a welcome breath of fresh air (on Father's Day, no doubt). I mean, this is nothing new - Bill Cosby has been preaching this for years, yet for whatever reason, it seems as if when bright, highly educated Black folks like Cosby or Obama (well, not sure how bright he is, but anyhow) point a finger at the Black community and pours criticism on them for problems that are seriously over-represented in that community, they usually end up having charges of reverse discrimination, being an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor" and such thrown at them. Obama has been receiving some criticism for his words. But you know, I think this is symptomatic of what he is saying - not taking responsibility for one's actions.
You know, in my younger years when I was haplessly idealistic, naively egalitarian, and would rather turn a blind eye to a problem for fear of offending people, I would never have agreed to such a statement as what Obama and Cosby are saying. Hey, it's not just them - look at those loudmouths Louis Farrakkan (sp.) and Jesse Jackson - they all had that Million Man March back in 1995 - wasn't that sort of saying the same thing?
Now, I know what you are thinking - I certainly cannot be painting all Black people with the same brush. Of course I'm not - I do personally have several Black friends who are in strong, committed marriages, who discipline their kids and raise them right, who don't cry racism at the drop of a hat. I am smart enough to know that I cannot simply paint one broad brush on the "Black community" - which, incidentally is a bit of a peculiar term, since those Black folks I know do not associate with any "Black community" - I wonder whether this is more of a media construct than anything else.
But back to the point - Obama is touching primarily on the issues of Black men who disappear after porking their latest Black female, and producing a child. Who of course, ends up growing up without a father, and despite what the liberal media will tell you about the virtues of a strong single mother, let's all cut the bullshit here, shall we? It has been statistically proven over and over again (not to mention this is just basic common sense) that children from single-parent homes are many times more likely to join a gang, father a child at a very young age, or get pregnant at a very young age, get in trouble with the law, drop out of school, and so forth.
What gets me are these Black people who seem to have blinders on who say that single-parent families are not exclusive to the Black race. That is technically true, but my goodness, how can anyone deny the fact that over 50% of Black kids in the U.S. and Canada are not raised in a home where there is a father and mother present? I can you tell this - there is no better confirmation of something I hear than to see it myself. Several weeks ago, my wife (yes, the only one that I have), my kids (yes, I had them with my wife) and I went to a kids' party establishment. For whatever reason, at either of the locations of this establishment that we have frequented, there is a pronounced number of Black kids there (don't know why, can't be bothered to figure it out). Anyhow, it was of no surprise for me to see that only about 35% of these kids came with a mother and father (whether they were married, I wasn't sure). Yet, 90% of the White kids there, around 90% of the East Indian kids, and 95% of the Asian kids had both fathers and mothers present (and the ones that didn't, you could see that the mothers had wedding bands on - yes, I notice these types of things, and no, I wasn't looking for a date).
Now, I work at the corner of a major intersection in Toronto (and by major, I mean major - like, both of these intersecting streets encompass the length and width of the city, if not ore). On one of the streets, about a 10 minute drive Westbound, you will find perhaps the most notorious intersection in Toronto for crime and such. Again, when I was young and stupid, I used to think that that intersection's crime rate was a figment of the press' imagination. I've been there during the day (just driving through, though I've since learned to take severe detours around that intersection - even if it costs me an extra 15 minutes to do so). Let me tell you what I have seen and heard there. 1) I have seen several gangs openly doing drug deals (yes, I know what a gang looks like and what drugs look like). 2) I have heard gunshots during the freaking day - yes, I know what a gunshot sounds like. 3) I have seen all manner of complete lack of respect - ie. two young punks were trying to beat the light in crossing the street and plowed over an old man - which they didn't even bother checking to see if he was OK - he was. 4) it was a harem of single motherhood. Oh, did I mention that everyone in that neighbourhood was Black?
I am sorry, but whatever you may hear about Asians, I can confirm that the rate of children being raised in two-parent homes (and I mean a mother and father, not that gay/lesbian shit that has been all over the press lately) is significantly higher. In fact, in the whole time growing up, I think I only know or one or two Asian families whose mother and father figures divorced. I'm sure it's slightly higher now, based on the poisonous North America anti-marriage culture, but I can bet every dollar in my bank account that it is still nowhere near the epidemic proportions of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes that just permeate in the Black community. I'm pretty sure my fellow Asians aren't lining up the jails and penitentiaries. I'm almost certain that a high majority of gun crime in Toronto is not perpetrated by Asians. Heck, I think I'd be comfortable in saying that White folks, who have experienced a high incidence of divorce as this sad scenario continues to rise statistically, are still by and large more likely to be in two-parent homes, as compared to Black folks.
Now, onto a topic that is a favourite of mine: guns. Let's be honest here - who commits most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? Despite the fact that millions of Whites have guns, it's not the Whites perpetrating the crimes (sure, you'll see the Columbines and what not where White people are "featured", but for every reported White crime with a gun, I guarantee there are many more unreported Black crimes with guns. But of course, it is not fashionable to paint Blacks in a negative light nowadays, so the generally left-leaning press tends to ignore it. I find it funny that these "Black leaders" are calling for gun bans and extreme gun control measures, yet the eventual targets of these proposed bans would be mostly law abiding White folks. Consider this as well - you see guys like 50 Cent who, on both his "Get Rich or Die Trying" and "The Massacre" albums - by the way, both albums are pretty good from a music perspective even though the lyrics aren't exactly the more family-oriented - both of these albums feature 50 Cent and his posse holding Tec-9s, 9mm handguns, some assault rifles, and so all, while they are all dressed up in gang regalia. You ever see a White person dressed like this holding all these weapons? We'd probably all laugh at it. But for Black rappers for the most part, this is commonplace - and in a sense, it is almost portrayed as cool, and kids (and adults) buy into this. I remember when I was a teenager, the big controversy was Ice-T's track, "F*ck The Police", which at the time generated great concern among a number of folks. These days, no one would bat an eyelash, as Blacks seem to almost be synonymous with gangs and drive-by shootings, etc. I mean, looking like a pimp is not only in fashion in the Black community, but exudes an air of street credibility, and life experience (forget the fact that the practice is not exactly legal or moral).
I happened to turn to a radio call-in show on the car ride home from work today, and they interviewed a Black guy from Africa on this. He says that this problem with Blacks is U.S. issue - it's not like that in Africa at all. Is he kidding me? Africa - the place where the largest incidence of A.I.D.S. occurs. No, it's not because African males are bonking monkeys, as urban legend would have it (at least not anymore). Fact of the matter is, in Africa, Blacks encounter the same thing - lots of fatherless children, and the A.I.D.S. virus is passed by men having several women partners (whether by a polygamous "relationship" or wild, heathenistic living. Don't believe me? My wife and I sponsor an adorable little girl in Africa (Rwanda, to be exact). Her father and mother are not married. Where is the father? In jail. Sounds familiar?
Last year, I hired a guy at work from Africa. Aside from the fact that he really didn't do his job properly and we ended letting him go, I got to know him as a person through the number of months he was with us. I found out that he had two kids - ah, that's great, I said. I asked him why they didn't come to Canada with him. He said they are with their mother. I said, "oh, you mean your wife?" He said, "I'm not married". Sound familiar?
I keep in touch with this 46-year-old lady from Alabama, to whom I sold some Michael J. Fox collectibles. She has given me great insight on the American South, and have confirmed some of what I had always thought about the South. She did tell me, interestingly enough, that racism is alive and well there. However, it is her opinion (she she says is echoed by many) that she would never date a Black man. And I mean never. She said where she lives, the Asians there are "hard working and treated like Whites". The Blacks, however, no matter how hard working, are still not regarded well. And I think we're starting to see a subtle backlash now. Growing up, my parents were of the mindset that "you marry your own kind", though they added the caveat that "if you do decide to marry of a different race, please let it be anyone other than Black." Now, I will be the first to admit that Asian have their own hangups and can be one of the more racist groups out there (though as a general rule, Asians never have the balls to actually tell someone else how they feel about their race - ie. Asian parents are not likely to confront their daughter's Black boyfriend and tell him to get lost, at least not explicitly. Anyway, I am mentioning this because I am still seeing this nowadays talking with parents who have teenage kids - there's still an "anyone but Black" mentality out there. But whereas before I was disgusted at this sentiment, now that I look at it objectively, based on my observations, would I be happy with my daughter dating a Black guy, knowing what I know about the rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies among Black women (or White women who obviously try to be Black)? Probably not. If you are shocked by this, think about what you would do in your situation.
Why is it like this? I am neither a sociologist or anthropologist, so I cannot be definitively sure, but I can say a few things. One, is that similar things beget similar things. It's not really all that different from the oft-mentioned notion that victims of physical or sexual abuse as children, tend to become perpetrators of the same once they become adults. After all, like it or not, we tend to be a product of our environment (and this doesn't even count my belief in the presence of sin as a key factor to why people are all born bad, in my opinion). So the Black child (a boy in particular) who grows up without a father generally does not have certain key elements of manhood passed down to him. What do I mean by this? Well, let me just say that is my belief that while a mother and father both equally impart important life lessons to a child (a boy in this case), a father has a particular role in teaching his son the value of accepting responsibility, honour, treating women properly, etc. Without that father teaching his son about these things (and enforcing them through example), the child grows up without a compass of masculinity. As a result, he seeks the acceptance he probably subconsciously wants from his father, so he will join a gang to get it. Women will be regarded as objects to be used, rather than people to love. Having a child would be considered a collateral event as a result of "hitting it" rather than a responsibility to be accepted.
Now, before you target me a closet racist (or even an overt racist), consider the following: I am really targeting my rant here towards young Black people. With older Black folks, it's a different ballgame. I have a deep respect for Black elders - if you look at Black folks who are 45+ years old, chances are you will see them married with kids, just like the rest of us. I guess I am talking about Black men here. In fact, one of the people on this earth I have the most respect for, is my former boss at work, who of all my bosses I have ever had, took care of my career and job development more than anyone else - he secured fantastic raises for me during the time I worked for him and he really looked out for my well being and best interest, career-wise, as well as peronal-wise. I actually will likely be leaving my company of 11 years and joining him within the next year, as a Network Manager at his establishment (he's the C.E.O., by the way). He also happens to be a born-again Christian, and a mature one at that. And this is one thing I really like about older Black people - there is a deep sense of spirituality that is very strong. I am not entirely sure where there is such a dichotomy between older Blacks and younger Blacks, but that's what I've noticed.
Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here - a lot of Black folks are equally as concerned about this problem in the "community". I am on an Asian cultural discussion forum and one of the topics one day was why you seldom see Asian male, Black female couples. Most of the Asian males did not bother responding to the topic, so one of the gals there, who is extremely articulate and well spoken, answered the question - it's the stereotype of Black people out there - the stereotype of the Black man is well known, but Black women are portrayed in the media as loud-mouthed, opinionated, fat-assed, rude bit..., er...persons. Now, I can tell you that that is a total media construct, as I have met more than my fair share of Black women who do not fit that stereotype in the least, starting when I was in high school. In fact, before I met my wife, I went on a couple of casual walks (don't know if I'd consider them dates or not, probably not) with this girl I met at our school named Lorna (interestingly enough, she was from the same town/city my wife is from). She was a really kind-hearted girl. And she was Black. A number of my female friends in school in grade 12 were Black - from Guyana, etc.). I know several Black ladies nowadays who are kindest, loveliest friends that we have. I know the stereotype is not true. Besides, you see these Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell types and know that loud-mouthed obnoxious women are not unique to Blacks.
(I'M NOT FINISHED THIS POST YET - MORE TO COME)...
But back to Obama - I cringe everytime I hear this guy talk - I swear, he sounds like an enthusiastic snake oil salesman. Speaks in platitudes and generalities, and why not? His experience is sorely lacking - he needs to make up for it in the only way a politician can - by generating revolutionary sound bytes and catch-phrases in order to ignite the imagination of a political audience who is cynical, despondent, and perhaps even ambivalent towards anything political.
But...his recent comments regarding problems in the black community, particularly in the area of absentee fathers and broken homes for black children was quite a welcome breath of fresh air (on Father's Day, no doubt). I mean, this is nothing new - Bill Cosby has been preaching this for years, yet for whatever reason, it seems as if when bright, highly educated Black folks like Cosby or Obama (well, not sure how bright he is, but anyhow) point a finger at the Black community and pours criticism on them for problems that are seriously over-represented in that community, they usually end up having charges of reverse discrimination, being an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor" and such thrown at them. Obama has been receiving some criticism for his words. But you know, I think this is symptomatic of what he is saying - not taking responsibility for one's actions.
You know, in my younger years when I was haplessly idealistic, naively egalitarian, and would rather turn a blind eye to a problem for fear of offending people, I would never have agreed to such a statement as what Obama and Cosby are saying. Hey, it's not just them - look at those loudmouths Louis Farrakkan (sp.) and Jesse Jackson - they all had that Million Man March back in 1995 - wasn't that sort of saying the same thing?
Now, I know what you are thinking - I certainly cannot be painting all Black people with the same brush. Of course I'm not - I do personally have several Black friends who are in strong, committed marriages, who discipline their kids and raise them right, who don't cry racism at the drop of a hat. I am smart enough to know that I cannot simply paint one broad brush on the "Black community" - which, incidentally is a bit of a peculiar term, since those Black folks I know do not associate with any "Black community" - I wonder whether this is more of a media construct than anything else.
But back to the point - Obama is touching primarily on the issues of Black men who disappear after porking their latest Black female, and producing a child. Who of course, ends up growing up without a father, and despite what the liberal media will tell you about the virtues of a strong single mother, let's all cut the bullshit here, shall we? It has been statistically proven over and over again (not to mention this is just basic common sense) that children from single-parent homes are many times more likely to join a gang, father a child at a very young age, or get pregnant at a very young age, get in trouble with the law, drop out of school, and so forth.
What gets me are these Black people who seem to have blinders on who say that single-parent families are not exclusive to the Black race. That is technically true, but my goodness, how can anyone deny the fact that over 50% of Black kids in the U.S. and Canada are not raised in a home where there is a father and mother present? I can you tell this - there is no better confirmation of something I hear than to see it myself. Several weeks ago, my wife (yes, the only one that I have), my kids (yes, I had them with my wife) and I went to a kids' party establishment. For whatever reason, at either of the locations of this establishment that we have frequented, there is a pronounced number of Black kids there (don't know why, can't be bothered to figure it out). Anyhow, it was of no surprise for me to see that only about 35% of these kids came with a mother and father (whether they were married, I wasn't sure). Yet, 90% of the White kids there, around 90% of the East Indian kids, and 95% of the Asian kids had both fathers and mothers present (and the ones that didn't, you could see that the mothers had wedding bands on - yes, I notice these types of things, and no, I wasn't looking for a date).
Now, I work at the corner of a major intersection in Toronto (and by major, I mean major - like, both of these intersecting streets encompass the length and width of the city, if not ore). On one of the streets, about a 10 minute drive Westbound, you will find perhaps the most notorious intersection in Toronto for crime and such. Again, when I was young and stupid, I used to think that that intersection's crime rate was a figment of the press' imagination. I've been there during the day (just driving through, though I've since learned to take severe detours around that intersection - even if it costs me an extra 15 minutes to do so). Let me tell you what I have seen and heard there. 1) I have seen several gangs openly doing drug deals (yes, I know what a gang looks like and what drugs look like). 2) I have heard gunshots during the freaking day - yes, I know what a gunshot sounds like. 3) I have seen all manner of complete lack of respect - ie. two young punks were trying to beat the light in crossing the street and plowed over an old man - which they didn't even bother checking to see if he was OK - he was. 4) it was a harem of single motherhood. Oh, did I mention that everyone in that neighbourhood was Black?
I am sorry, but whatever you may hear about Asians, I can confirm that the rate of children being raised in two-parent homes (and I mean a mother and father, not that gay/lesbian shit that has been all over the press lately) is significantly higher. In fact, in the whole time growing up, I think I only know or one or two Asian families whose mother and father figures divorced. I'm sure it's slightly higher now, based on the poisonous North America anti-marriage culture, but I can bet every dollar in my bank account that it is still nowhere near the epidemic proportions of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes that just permeate in the Black community. I'm pretty sure my fellow Asians aren't lining up the jails and penitentiaries. I'm almost certain that a high majority of gun crime in Toronto is not perpetrated by Asians. Heck, I think I'd be comfortable in saying that White folks, who have experienced a high incidence of divorce as this sad scenario continues to rise statistically, are still by and large more likely to be in two-parent homes, as compared to Black folks.
Now, onto a topic that is a favourite of mine: guns. Let's be honest here - who commits most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? Despite the fact that millions of Whites have guns, it's not the Whites perpetrating the crimes (sure, you'll see the Columbines and what not where White people are "featured", but for every reported White crime with a gun, I guarantee there are many more unreported Black crimes with guns. But of course, it is not fashionable to paint Blacks in a negative light nowadays, so the generally left-leaning press tends to ignore it. I find it funny that these "Black leaders" are calling for gun bans and extreme gun control measures, yet the eventual targets of these proposed bans would be mostly law abiding White folks. Consider this as well - you see guys like 50 Cent who, on both his "Get Rich or Die Trying" and "The Massacre" albums - by the way, both albums are pretty good from a music perspective even though the lyrics aren't exactly the more family-oriented - both of these albums feature 50 Cent and his posse holding Tec-9s, 9mm handguns, some assault rifles, and so all, while they are all dressed up in gang regalia. You ever see a White person dressed like this holding all these weapons? We'd probably all laugh at it. But for Black rappers for the most part, this is commonplace - and in a sense, it is almost portrayed as cool, and kids (and adults) buy into this. I remember when I was a teenager, the big controversy was Ice-T's track, "F*ck The Police", which at the time generated great concern among a number of folks. These days, no one would bat an eyelash, as Blacks seem to almost be synonymous with gangs and drive-by shootings, etc. I mean, looking like a pimp is not only in fashion in the Black community, but exudes an air of street credibility, and life experience (forget the fact that the practice is not exactly legal or moral).
I happened to turn to a radio call-in show on the car ride home from work today, and they interviewed a Black guy from Africa on this. He says that this problem with Blacks is U.S. issue - it's not like that in Africa at all. Is he kidding me? Africa - the place where the largest incidence of A.I.D.S. occurs. No, it's not because African males are bonking monkeys, as urban legend would have it (at least not anymore). Fact of the matter is, in Africa, Blacks encounter the same thing - lots of fatherless children, and the A.I.D.S. virus is passed by men having several women partners (whether by a polygamous "relationship" or wild, heathenistic living. Don't believe me? My wife and I sponsor an adorable little girl in Africa (Rwanda, to be exact). Her father and mother are not married. Where is the father? In jail. Sounds familiar?
Last year, I hired a guy at work from Africa. Aside from the fact that he really didn't do his job properly and we ended letting him go, I got to know him as a person through the number of months he was with us. I found out that he had two kids - ah, that's great, I said. I asked him why they didn't come to Canada with him. He said they are with their mother. I said, "oh, you mean your wife?" He said, "I'm not married". Sound familiar?
I keep in touch with this 46-year-old lady from Alabama, to whom I sold some Michael J. Fox collectibles. She has given me great insight on the American South, and have confirmed some of what I had always thought about the South. She did tell me, interestingly enough, that racism is alive and well there. However, it is her opinion (she she says is echoed by many) that she would never date a Black man. And I mean never. She said where she lives, the Asians there are "hard working and treated like Whites". The Blacks, however, no matter how hard working, are still not regarded well. And I think we're starting to see a subtle backlash now. Growing up, my parents were of the mindset that "you marry your own kind", though they added the caveat that "if you do decide to marry of a different race, please let it be anyone other than Black." Now, I will be the first to admit that Asian have their own hangups and can be one of the more racist groups out there (though as a general rule, Asians never have the balls to actually tell someone else how they feel about their race - ie. Asian parents are not likely to confront their daughter's Black boyfriend and tell him to get lost, at least not explicitly. Anyway, I am mentioning this because I am still seeing this nowadays talking with parents who have teenage kids - there's still an "anyone but Black" mentality out there. But whereas before I was disgusted at this sentiment, now that I look at it objectively, based on my observations, would I be happy with my daughter dating a Black guy, knowing what I know about the rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies among Black women (or White women who obviously try to be Black)? Probably not. If you are shocked by this, think about what you would do in your situation.
Why is it like this? I am neither a sociologist or anthropologist, so I cannot be definitively sure, but I can say a few things. One, is that similar things beget similar things. It's not really all that different from the oft-mentioned notion that victims of physical or sexual abuse as children, tend to become perpetrators of the same once they become adults. After all, like it or not, we tend to be a product of our environment (and this doesn't even count my belief in the presence of sin as a key factor to why people are all born bad, in my opinion). So the Black child (a boy in particular) who grows up without a father generally does not have certain key elements of manhood passed down to him. What do I mean by this? Well, let me just say that is my belief that while a mother and father both equally impart important life lessons to a child (a boy in this case), a father has a particular role in teaching his son the value of accepting responsibility, honour, treating women properly, etc. Without that father teaching his son about these things (and enforcing them through example), the child grows up without a compass of masculinity. As a result, he seeks the acceptance he probably subconsciously wants from his father, so he will join a gang to get it. Women will be regarded as objects to be used, rather than people to love. Having a child would be considered a collateral event as a result of "hitting it" rather than a responsibility to be accepted.
Now, before you target me a closet racist (or even an overt racist), consider the following: I am really targeting my rant here towards young Black people. With older Black folks, it's a different ballgame. I have a deep respect for Black elders - if you look at Black folks who are 45+ years old, chances are you will see them married with kids, just like the rest of us. I guess I am talking about Black men here. In fact, one of the people on this earth I have the most respect for, is my former boss at work, who of all my bosses I have ever had, took care of my career and job development more than anyone else - he secured fantastic raises for me during the time I worked for him and he really looked out for my well being and best interest, career-wise, as well as peronal-wise. I actually will likely be leaving my company of 11 years and joining him within the next year, as a Network Manager at his establishment (he's the C.E.O., by the way). He also happens to be a born-again Christian, and a mature one at that. And this is one thing I really like about older Black people - there is a deep sense of spirituality that is very strong. I am not entirely sure where there is such a dichotomy between older Blacks and younger Blacks, but that's what I've noticed.
Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here - a lot of Black folks are equally as concerned about this problem in the "community". I am on an Asian cultural discussion forum and one of the topics one day was why you seldom see Asian male, Black female couples. Most of the Asian males did not bother responding to the topic, so one of the gals there, who is extremely articulate and well spoken, answered the question - it's the stereotype of Black people out there - the stereotype of the Black man is well known, but Black women are portrayed in the media as loud-mouthed, opinionated, fat-assed, rude bit..., er...persons. Now, I can tell you that that is a total media construct, as I have met more than my fair share of Black women who do not fit that stereotype in the least, starting when I was in high school. In fact, before I met my wife, I went on a couple of casual walks (don't know if I'd consider them dates or not, probably not) with this girl I met at our school named Lorna (interestingly enough, she was from the same town/city my wife is from). She was a really kind-hearted girl. And she was Black. A number of my female friends in school in grade 12 were Black - from Guyana, etc.). I know several Black ladies nowadays who are kindest, loveliest friends that we have. I know the stereotype is not true. Besides, you see these Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell types and know that loud-mouthed obnoxious women are not unique to Blacks.
(I'M NOT FINISHED THIS POST YET - MORE TO COME)...
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Wrong Way to Explain Something to Telehealth
I'll switch gears a little, and tell you something humourous that happened to me last week, which at the time I didn't find funny, but as you look back, you can see the humour in it.
I suffer from allergies in the summertime. I suffer greatly. It's been like that since I was diagnosed in 1983. I, along with millions of people around the world, am allergic to pollen, ragweed, etc. For me, it acts up primarily in June/July. At one point, I thought I may have "kicked it", but nope, a year or two later, it resurfaces, worse than it was before. I start to sneeze, wheeze, my eyes get swollen, and I get hives. So while it may appear that I am being outright lazy by letting my wife do all of the lawnmowing in the summertime, I honestly have a good reason...of course, my wife also traditionally shovels the snow in winter as well, and that's due to my chronically bad back (which, by the way, can be medically proven).
Anyway, last Monday, I had the day off and volunteered at my son's school for some science fair. I knew upfront that my son's school was not air-conditioned (I suppose there's not many schools that are), so I naturally assumed that in order to ensure adequate air circulation, that they would open the windows. With my bad allergies, I knew that this would be problematic, so in anticipation of allergic side effects, I thought I'd take a Claritin (antihistamine) in the morning. Of course, I have to say that Claritin has never worked for me, but I wanted to finish the package anyway, and I also figured that something was better than nothing.
Of course, as it has happened in the past, the Claritin did not work in the least. I wheezed all day and as I was helping kids with science experiments, wet runny nose drippings and soggy boggers went everywhere, and I had to constantly go to the kiddie washroom to blow my nose. Anyhow, after the day was done, I came home and by night time, I knew that it was going to be a challenge going to sleep, so I decided to take another Claritin. After all, it was only supposed to work for 12 hours, right? I took the pill and then sat on the couch downstairs, analyzing how the day went. In between thoughts, I had the bright idea to have a glass of wine to finish off the day and unwind. I just bought a bottle of Merlot a few weeks back and thought, what the hey, may as well crack it open (my wife's breastfeeding our daughter, so it wasn't like she was going to help me finish it anyway). Of course, I knew after I uncorked it that I should probably check the Claritin box, since I remembered that I had just taken the antihistimine and I wanted to make sure that there was no prohibition of taking wine with it (there often is some verbiage about the fact that medication and alcohol simply don't mix).
So I looked at the box, and was horried to discover that the Claritin was, in fact, not a 12-hour version, but a 24-hour version. Didn't think much of it, until I saw in bold underlined print that the dosage was one pill in a 24 hour period and an associated warning that clearly stated to not exceed the instructed dosage. Uh-oh. So I went online and checked on this and discovered that double-dosing on Claritin was synonymous with induced heart trouble. Oh crap.
I quickly ran past my wife, who was gleefully playing online backgammon, and without providing her an explanation, ran downstairs and proceeded to stick my finger down my throat, hoping to induce vomiting the Claritin pill out. I was unsuccessfuly, so I frantically asked my wife what to do. She said, with great concern, that I should call Telehealth. Telehealth is a provincially funded free, live telephone service which provides assistance for health related questions and situations. My wife had previously called Telehealth on many occasions when she was pregnant, and the advice they dispensed was very helpful.
I ended up speaking to a woman, who informed me that because it was my first time calling, they had no file on me, so I would have to explain things slowly.
So I started to explain the fact that I had double-dosed on Claritin. She asked why I didn't read the box and I said, I don't know - didn't think to. I also mentioned that I was afraid that I may end up dead in the morning in my son's room (since I've been sleeping in there for a couple of months now, as my new daughter is now sleeping in the master bedroom). She then asked how I found out about the warning to not double-dose and I proceeded to honestly answer that it was when I was about to have a glass or two of wine that I thought I'd double-check. She said with some concern, "why did you want to have wine with the medication?" and I responded that I needed to relax. Guess that was the wrong answer. She then asked why I was concerned about dying, and I said, I didn't want to die in my son's room. Another wrong answer in retrospect. She then asked whether I had any loved ones nearby and I said, yes, my wife is here, and she asked if I could quiz my wife to see if I seem confused (which was an odd question). My wife overheard and whispered to me, "you're always in a state of confusion", to which I relayed to the Telehealth nurse, "she says I'm always confused." The nurse then paused, I heard the sound of paper shuffling in the background and then firmly, but nervously, she asked, "sir, may I ask you a question, only because I am concerned..." I said, sure ask away. She quickly followed up by asking, "are you trying to commit suicide"? As what I must assume was a defensive answer, I responded with a nervous chuckle, "What? Suicide? Me?" I was seriously taken aback by what she said. She could tell I was a bit confused and she clarified, "well, sir, you mention that you took twice the dose, did not want to find yourself dead in the morning, was going to take wine with your medication, and had trouble answering whether your wife found your behaviour confusing. Personally, I am a bit concerned." Of course, at that point, I went through and explained my whole lifetime issue with allergies, how I thought Claritin sucked, and that I wasn't thinking straight (probably shouldn't have said this either). I added that I normally am very careful at reading instructions and such, but you know, I assumed it was a 12-hour dose, instead of 24. OK, I admitted, the wine was a stupid idea, but I had forgotten I had taken the pill only 20 minutes earlier. I am definitely not suicidal or depressed and my wife is standing right here with me. I finally managed to convince her, at which point she told me that I would have only had heart trouble if I took both Claritin at the same time. As 12 hours had passed, the original dose's strength had waned significantly and the only thing I may feel is some fast breathing and possibly some mild tightness of my chest, not to mention increased drowsiness. I was relieved to hear that. Moral of the story: not only think before you speak, but think ahead to how others may construe what you say, especially within a particular context.
All that being said, that night, my son peed his bed and woke up screaming at around 2:30AM. Typically, I would have have appreciated being awakened so late in slumber, but you should have seen me, I jumped out of bed and the first thought was, "I'm alive! I'm alive!" With a spring in my nocturnal step, I happily changed my son's undergarments, pajamas and bedsheets.
I also have decided to throw out the rest of the Claritin. It's not like it works, anyway.
I suffer from allergies in the summertime. I suffer greatly. It's been like that since I was diagnosed in 1983. I, along with millions of people around the world, am allergic to pollen, ragweed, etc. For me, it acts up primarily in June/July. At one point, I thought I may have "kicked it", but nope, a year or two later, it resurfaces, worse than it was before. I start to sneeze, wheeze, my eyes get swollen, and I get hives. So while it may appear that I am being outright lazy by letting my wife do all of the lawnmowing in the summertime, I honestly have a good reason...of course, my wife also traditionally shovels the snow in winter as well, and that's due to my chronically bad back (which, by the way, can be medically proven).
Anyway, last Monday, I had the day off and volunteered at my son's school for some science fair. I knew upfront that my son's school was not air-conditioned (I suppose there's not many schools that are), so I naturally assumed that in order to ensure adequate air circulation, that they would open the windows. With my bad allergies, I knew that this would be problematic, so in anticipation of allergic side effects, I thought I'd take a Claritin (antihistamine) in the morning. Of course, I have to say that Claritin has never worked for me, but I wanted to finish the package anyway, and I also figured that something was better than nothing.
Of course, as it has happened in the past, the Claritin did not work in the least. I wheezed all day and as I was helping kids with science experiments, wet runny nose drippings and soggy boggers went everywhere, and I had to constantly go to the kiddie washroom to blow my nose. Anyhow, after the day was done, I came home and by night time, I knew that it was going to be a challenge going to sleep, so I decided to take another Claritin. After all, it was only supposed to work for 12 hours, right? I took the pill and then sat on the couch downstairs, analyzing how the day went. In between thoughts, I had the bright idea to have a glass of wine to finish off the day and unwind. I just bought a bottle of Merlot a few weeks back and thought, what the hey, may as well crack it open (my wife's breastfeeding our daughter, so it wasn't like she was going to help me finish it anyway). Of course, I knew after I uncorked it that I should probably check the Claritin box, since I remembered that I had just taken the antihistimine and I wanted to make sure that there was no prohibition of taking wine with it (there often is some verbiage about the fact that medication and alcohol simply don't mix).
So I looked at the box, and was horried to discover that the Claritin was, in fact, not a 12-hour version, but a 24-hour version. Didn't think much of it, until I saw in bold underlined print that the dosage was one pill in a 24 hour period and an associated warning that clearly stated to not exceed the instructed dosage. Uh-oh. So I went online and checked on this and discovered that double-dosing on Claritin was synonymous with induced heart trouble. Oh crap.
I quickly ran past my wife, who was gleefully playing online backgammon, and without providing her an explanation, ran downstairs and proceeded to stick my finger down my throat, hoping to induce vomiting the Claritin pill out. I was unsuccessfuly, so I frantically asked my wife what to do. She said, with great concern, that I should call Telehealth. Telehealth is a provincially funded free, live telephone service which provides assistance for health related questions and situations. My wife had previously called Telehealth on many occasions when she was pregnant, and the advice they dispensed was very helpful.
I ended up speaking to a woman, who informed me that because it was my first time calling, they had no file on me, so I would have to explain things slowly.
So I started to explain the fact that I had double-dosed on Claritin. She asked why I didn't read the box and I said, I don't know - didn't think to. I also mentioned that I was afraid that I may end up dead in the morning in my son's room (since I've been sleeping in there for a couple of months now, as my new daughter is now sleeping in the master bedroom). She then asked how I found out about the warning to not double-dose and I proceeded to honestly answer that it was when I was about to have a glass or two of wine that I thought I'd double-check. She said with some concern, "why did you want to have wine with the medication?" and I responded that I needed to relax. Guess that was the wrong answer. She then asked why I was concerned about dying, and I said, I didn't want to die in my son's room. Another wrong answer in retrospect. She then asked whether I had any loved ones nearby and I said, yes, my wife is here, and she asked if I could quiz my wife to see if I seem confused (which was an odd question). My wife overheard and whispered to me, "you're always in a state of confusion", to which I relayed to the Telehealth nurse, "she says I'm always confused." The nurse then paused, I heard the sound of paper shuffling in the background and then firmly, but nervously, she asked, "sir, may I ask you a question, only because I am concerned..." I said, sure ask away. She quickly followed up by asking, "are you trying to commit suicide"? As what I must assume was a defensive answer, I responded with a nervous chuckle, "What? Suicide? Me?" I was seriously taken aback by what she said. She could tell I was a bit confused and she clarified, "well, sir, you mention that you took twice the dose, did not want to find yourself dead in the morning, was going to take wine with your medication, and had trouble answering whether your wife found your behaviour confusing. Personally, I am a bit concerned." Of course, at that point, I went through and explained my whole lifetime issue with allergies, how I thought Claritin sucked, and that I wasn't thinking straight (probably shouldn't have said this either). I added that I normally am very careful at reading instructions and such, but you know, I assumed it was a 12-hour dose, instead of 24. OK, I admitted, the wine was a stupid idea, but I had forgotten I had taken the pill only 20 minutes earlier. I am definitely not suicidal or depressed and my wife is standing right here with me. I finally managed to convince her, at which point she told me that I would have only had heart trouble if I took both Claritin at the same time. As 12 hours had passed, the original dose's strength had waned significantly and the only thing I may feel is some fast breathing and possibly some mild tightness of my chest, not to mention increased drowsiness. I was relieved to hear that. Moral of the story: not only think before you speak, but think ahead to how others may construe what you say, especially within a particular context.
All that being said, that night, my son peed his bed and woke up screaming at around 2:30AM. Typically, I would have have appreciated being awakened so late in slumber, but you should have seen me, I jumped out of bed and the first thought was, "I'm alive! I'm alive!" With a spring in my nocturnal step, I happily changed my son's undergarments, pajamas and bedsheets.
I also have decided to throw out the rest of the Claritin. It's not like it works, anyway.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Is It Okay To Yell At Other People's Kids?
Late this afternoon, my wife, son, baby daughter, and I went to the local bowling alley. Originally we were supposed to go to a fairly modernized, well-lit alley, but in the end, we went to one closer, one which is known for lots of little kids being there. In fact, my son had his birthday party there this year, and it was a blast. This bowling alley is older, more darker, and the technology is not as advanced, but my son wanted to go to this one, as a last minute change of heart, so we agreed.
We paid for an hour's worth of bowling and off we went. The first thing I noticed was that there was only one bowling ball available to us in our alley and the lane to the left of us only had 2-3. I thought it was strange that they did not seem well stocked, as far as their bowling ball availability went, so I hunted around and it didn't take long to find out where all the balls went - there was a birthday party taking 4 lanes up (this is 5-pin with rails). They hoarded all the balls. I went over and grabbed a couple from their 30 or so balls (in one lane!) that they had.
After my son bowled the first frame, I noticed that the balls weren't returning properly. I thought that our lane was broken, so I went to talk to the manager. He pointed out that there was nothing wrong with the lane, but instead one of the kids from the birthday party kept coming up to our lane and when the ball was returned, he'd stop it before it reached the incline, so all the balls were backed up. I can't believe that as observant as I normally am, that I didn't see this. So he fixed it for me, and I was watching. Sure enough, just like a rat coming out at night when no one was watching, this pain-in-the-ass kid snuck up to our lane while my wife took her turn and stopped the balls from coming back. I stepped up to the ball return and glared at him. To my surprise, he looked at me, and kept doing it. I looked over to his family, who looked over at me and then said, "Zachary, come here please." Of course, pain-in-the-ass kid did not listen to them, until the fourth or fifth time they insisted. I kept an eye on things while it was my turn to bowl and he didn't come back.
The manager walked over to me and rolled his eyes, saying, "Sorry about this - we get these pain in the ass kids all the time along with their more pain in the ass parents. I just had a party here where the kids were going to various lanes and stealing the balls from other participants." Then he proceeded to preach to the choir, telling me how he wishes parents would give their kids a swat on the bottom more these days, and said it in a meek, apologizing way, not knowing what my position was. I said, "damn right - if that punk bothers us again, I'll say something to him", and the manager said, "please do".
My son went to bowl again and sure enough, this kid, who must have been 3-4 years old, comes back again and blocks our balls from returning by sticking his hand out before the ball hits the return uphill incline. My son was getting irritated, but did not say anything. I then said to the kid, "Uh, can you not touch my balls, please?" (probably not the most quotable thing to say to a kid, but he was so dumb, he wouldn't have remembered anyways). He stepped away. On my second throw, he came back and balls started backing up again. So I turned to him and got angry, "Get your freaking hands off our balls and get the hell out of here!" (yes, that is what I said, and yes, if I were to do it again, I'd say the same thing). Finally, taking a hint, his older sister or friend (about 7-8) came and grabbed the kid, and I then threw a menacing glance over at his parents, who said, "Zachary, please don't do that." No gesture of apology or firm correction for this behaviour. No wonder he was like that - his parents must have been graduates of the Shitty Parenting School of Ontario. Unfortunately, I have seen more than my fair share of these parents, and it always seems to be at birthday parties joints for kids. I remember a few weeks back, my son was invited to a Chuck E Cheese party - we had a great time seeing our friends there, and my son had fun, but I had to police the games he was playing, because without a doubt, there were tons of these other kids who I just know did not come from stable homes, and in all cases out of curiosity, my eyes followed them back to their table, and yep, single mom in charge. During that day, I had to yell at several kids, who took my son's Chuck E Cheese tickets once they spat out of the machine, kids who butted in front of my son in line (that was fun - I really gave it to them) and another kid, who pushed my son out of the way. Honestly, these are our future inmates in our penitentiary system, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, just like my wife did today, other parents did at Chuck E Cheese. My wife told me I did not have to get mad at the kid, just like the other parents at Chuck E Cheese gave me odd looks. My simple answer: damn right I had to get mad at them. I was probably the only person in that child's history who disseminated something the looked like order to them.
Now, I know what my wife was REALLY thinking, and I'm sure what other parents may think: that these days, yelling at another person's kid is not acceptable, given the touchy-feely attitude towards kids as delicate creatures who must have their self-worth and self-esteem shielded at all costs. Plus, as an aside, I may be giving the impression that I was not in control of my emotions and my temper was out of check. Well, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart, frankly my dear, I don't give a shit.
How children choose to drive their parents nuts is their parents' problem. If they choose not to listen to their parents, well, that's for their parents to figure out. Those are not my kids. The only exception is for kids who are related to me or who are part of our church family. I obviously have more of a responsibility in this area, though even then, there are some things I would never do. Spanking another kid is one of them - I only spank my kid. I can correct another kid verbally, but that's about as far as I go. Interestingly though, I have never once had to yell at a relative kid or a kid who is in our church family. These kids are all from stable two-parent homes who teach discipline, so in a sense, they are like us.
But for others, it is a different story. Again, it doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether a stranger's kid listens to his/her parents or not. Where I do have an issue is when their kid's bad behaviour infringes on the rights of my family or friends. In the case of Chuck E Cheese, I wasn't about to idly sit by and watch my son get pushed, or give my son the impression that people who butt in line in front of us will automatically be OK with us, or that it's OK for these kids to steal my son's hard-earned Chuck E Cheese ticket. It is NOT OK, and in fact, the issue I have is the lack of respect these kids (there were a lot of commonalities amongst these kids other than from single-mother homes, but I won't go there just now) for others. Many parents nowadays, with their non-confrontational approach to things, do not want to create a scene. How sad. And what does this teach their own kids, who watch their own parents accept bad behaviour?
Now, as for how I look when I correct other kids - I think by now you can safely surmise that I really don't care whether what I do is socially acceptable to others. I really don't care - honestly, I don't. Whether you like me or hate my guts, that's not my concern - I have more important things to deal with than how I come across to others. For one, I know that I am teaching my son some valuable lessons about not letting others bully you - and ladies and gentlemen, that is essentially what is happening - by allowing - my goodness - little children to infringe on your rights to peaceful enjoyment of an activity - that passivism is showing both your cowardice as well as your complacency. Don't you care that other kids are mis-behaving, and as a direct result, your liberty to enjoy your activity is being infringed upon? I don't know about you, but I paid good money for that hour of bowling and I wasn't going to have some brat screw up the ball returns for our son. It's no different than people who have a noisy neighbour who make a racket all night, but never call the cops on them; instead, like good passive Canadians, they simply bitch and moan, without actually doing anything.
In the end, I don't regret getting upset at Zachary. He certainly needed to hear that he just can't do whatever he pleases whenever he wants. Obviously his parents aren't teaching him that - I feel sad for that, but that's for them to figure out. As for me, if anyone infringes on my personal liberty or the liberty of my family, you can be sure that they will not be met with passive response, at least not from me. Hopefully, by more parents taking this approach, we will be able to start correcting a disturbing trend of kids growing up with no respect or fear for elders, authority figures and such. At the very least, even if we may not be able to change other kids, we are providing a positive value-based life lesson for our own children, and doing them a favour in the long-run.
We paid for an hour's worth of bowling and off we went. The first thing I noticed was that there was only one bowling ball available to us in our alley and the lane to the left of us only had 2-3. I thought it was strange that they did not seem well stocked, as far as their bowling ball availability went, so I hunted around and it didn't take long to find out where all the balls went - there was a birthday party taking 4 lanes up (this is 5-pin with rails). They hoarded all the balls. I went over and grabbed a couple from their 30 or so balls (in one lane!) that they had.
After my son bowled the first frame, I noticed that the balls weren't returning properly. I thought that our lane was broken, so I went to talk to the manager. He pointed out that there was nothing wrong with the lane, but instead one of the kids from the birthday party kept coming up to our lane and when the ball was returned, he'd stop it before it reached the incline, so all the balls were backed up. I can't believe that as observant as I normally am, that I didn't see this. So he fixed it for me, and I was watching. Sure enough, just like a rat coming out at night when no one was watching, this pain-in-the-ass kid snuck up to our lane while my wife took her turn and stopped the balls from coming back. I stepped up to the ball return and glared at him. To my surprise, he looked at me, and kept doing it. I looked over to his family, who looked over at me and then said, "Zachary, come here please." Of course, pain-in-the-ass kid did not listen to them, until the fourth or fifth time they insisted. I kept an eye on things while it was my turn to bowl and he didn't come back.
The manager walked over to me and rolled his eyes, saying, "Sorry about this - we get these pain in the ass kids all the time along with their more pain in the ass parents. I just had a party here where the kids were going to various lanes and stealing the balls from other participants." Then he proceeded to preach to the choir, telling me how he wishes parents would give their kids a swat on the bottom more these days, and said it in a meek, apologizing way, not knowing what my position was. I said, "damn right - if that punk bothers us again, I'll say something to him", and the manager said, "please do".
My son went to bowl again and sure enough, this kid, who must have been 3-4 years old, comes back again and blocks our balls from returning by sticking his hand out before the ball hits the return uphill incline. My son was getting irritated, but did not say anything. I then said to the kid, "Uh, can you not touch my balls, please?" (probably not the most quotable thing to say to a kid, but he was so dumb, he wouldn't have remembered anyways). He stepped away. On my second throw, he came back and balls started backing up again. So I turned to him and got angry, "Get your freaking hands off our balls and get the hell out of here!" (yes, that is what I said, and yes, if I were to do it again, I'd say the same thing). Finally, taking a hint, his older sister or friend (about 7-8) came and grabbed the kid, and I then threw a menacing glance over at his parents, who said, "Zachary, please don't do that." No gesture of apology or firm correction for this behaviour. No wonder he was like that - his parents must have been graduates of the Shitty Parenting School of Ontario. Unfortunately, I have seen more than my fair share of these parents, and it always seems to be at birthday parties joints for kids. I remember a few weeks back, my son was invited to a Chuck E Cheese party - we had a great time seeing our friends there, and my son had fun, but I had to police the games he was playing, because without a doubt, there were tons of these other kids who I just know did not come from stable homes, and in all cases out of curiosity, my eyes followed them back to their table, and yep, single mom in charge. During that day, I had to yell at several kids, who took my son's Chuck E Cheese tickets once they spat out of the machine, kids who butted in front of my son in line (that was fun - I really gave it to them) and another kid, who pushed my son out of the way. Honestly, these are our future inmates in our penitentiary system, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, just like my wife did today, other parents did at Chuck E Cheese. My wife told me I did not have to get mad at the kid, just like the other parents at Chuck E Cheese gave me odd looks. My simple answer: damn right I had to get mad at them. I was probably the only person in that child's history who disseminated something the looked like order to them.
Now, I know what my wife was REALLY thinking, and I'm sure what other parents may think: that these days, yelling at another person's kid is not acceptable, given the touchy-feely attitude towards kids as delicate creatures who must have their self-worth and self-esteem shielded at all costs. Plus, as an aside, I may be giving the impression that I was not in control of my emotions and my temper was out of check. Well, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart, frankly my dear, I don't give a shit.
How children choose to drive their parents nuts is their parents' problem. If they choose not to listen to their parents, well, that's for their parents to figure out. Those are not my kids. The only exception is for kids who are related to me or who are part of our church family. I obviously have more of a responsibility in this area, though even then, there are some things I would never do. Spanking another kid is one of them - I only spank my kid. I can correct another kid verbally, but that's about as far as I go. Interestingly though, I have never once had to yell at a relative kid or a kid who is in our church family. These kids are all from stable two-parent homes who teach discipline, so in a sense, they are like us.
But for others, it is a different story. Again, it doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether a stranger's kid listens to his/her parents or not. Where I do have an issue is when their kid's bad behaviour infringes on the rights of my family or friends. In the case of Chuck E Cheese, I wasn't about to idly sit by and watch my son get pushed, or give my son the impression that people who butt in line in front of us will automatically be OK with us, or that it's OK for these kids to steal my son's hard-earned Chuck E Cheese ticket. It is NOT OK, and in fact, the issue I have is the lack of respect these kids (there were a lot of commonalities amongst these kids other than from single-mother homes, but I won't go there just now) for others. Many parents nowadays, with their non-confrontational approach to things, do not want to create a scene. How sad. And what does this teach their own kids, who watch their own parents accept bad behaviour?
Now, as for how I look when I correct other kids - I think by now you can safely surmise that I really don't care whether what I do is socially acceptable to others. I really don't care - honestly, I don't. Whether you like me or hate my guts, that's not my concern - I have more important things to deal with than how I come across to others. For one, I know that I am teaching my son some valuable lessons about not letting others bully you - and ladies and gentlemen, that is essentially what is happening - by allowing - my goodness - little children to infringe on your rights to peaceful enjoyment of an activity - that passivism is showing both your cowardice as well as your complacency. Don't you care that other kids are mis-behaving, and as a direct result, your liberty to enjoy your activity is being infringed upon? I don't know about you, but I paid good money for that hour of bowling and I wasn't going to have some brat screw up the ball returns for our son. It's no different than people who have a noisy neighbour who make a racket all night, but never call the cops on them; instead, like good passive Canadians, they simply bitch and moan, without actually doing anything.
In the end, I don't regret getting upset at Zachary. He certainly needed to hear that he just can't do whatever he pleases whenever he wants. Obviously his parents aren't teaching him that - I feel sad for that, but that's for them to figure out. As for me, if anyone infringes on my personal liberty or the liberty of my family, you can be sure that they will not be met with passive response, at least not from me. Hopefully, by more parents taking this approach, we will be able to start correcting a disturbing trend of kids growing up with no respect or fear for elders, authority figures and such. At the very least, even if we may not be able to change other kids, we are providing a positive value-based life lesson for our own children, and doing them a favour in the long-run.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Firearms For Home Defence Not Really An Option in Canada
I very recently went to the local gunshop to pick up a Savage Arms .22 bolt-action rimfire target rifle (Father's Day present to myself), and ended up having a very informative discussion with a friend in the gunshop, with whom I deal a lot for my purchases. Home defence with firearms is a relatively taboo subject in Canada, given our legislated safe storage laws here, and it's really incredible how many people here who own firearms are mum when it comes to talking about home defence. A very different contrast, compared to our neighbours to the south, who, for the most part, can lean on second amendment rights in their constitution in order to defend their right to use firearms for home defence.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Book Review: The War Within, By Robert Daniels
I generally try to give a book its due, whether it be in the area of praise or constructive criticism. Seldom do I find a book that I really did not like from cover to cover. This is one of those books, and I suppose it is especially distressing to me that I have to give a thumbs down to a Christian book, but hey, even Christian books are susceptible to lousy writing, poor idea formulation and just sheer cheesiness.
In this case, while I appreciate the author, Mr. Daniels, sharing some of his struggles with sexual purity, I think he ended up really writing a book about nothing. There are much better choices out there (such as Every Man's Battle - I got mine from Focus on the Family, though you can probably find it cheaper at Chapters...I recently got the N.T. Wright "Gospel for Everyone Series" for 34% off the retail price via the Chapters website).
First, my biggest beef with this book is that he really doesn't say anything new. Much of what he says can be gleaned from Scripture without much theological interpretation or exhaustive exegetical study. Of course, he commits the common Christian book faux-pas of using massive amounts of Scripture under the guise of citation, whereas I suspect he is simply using the Word is filler for his book. Some of the passages have little to no correlation to the point he is trying to make.
Another beef I have is his constant references to his time onboard a ship. OK, I get it, he likes ships and being part of a crew, but to everyone else who has neither the experience nor the interest (or both), this reader was particularly lost in his endless ship and naval analogies, and your humble reviewer found myself interrupting his wife, as she was reading what surely would have been a better book.
The author also speaks in a lot of generalities without getting very specific in terms of some of the subsequent struggles in embarking on a quest to become sexually pure. As a porn dealer before I became saved, I can tell you that sexual temptation will always be there, even after you get married. I've talked with enough married guys to know that this ongoing struggle will likely be life-long - the issue is far more complex than Daniels makes it out to be. He seems to have a touchy-feely type of Christianese solution, which is great, except that Scripture talks about ongoing struggle and temptation. Perhaps the book could not have ended on such a note, but I think it's more realistic this way. I certainly don't want to suggest that God cannot miraculously heal one of past purity issues, but I think that this may be one of those "thorn in the flesh" type of issues that are with men for life, and as such it makes it so much more important for us men to acknowledge our weaknesses and failings to God, ask for His forgiveness, and rely on His strength going forward. I don't think there's any easy multi-step solution here.
Honestly, there's not a lot of good things I can say about this book. Even the Eros Defiled/Eros Redeemed series, though simplistic, would be better suited to handle such a delicate topic.
In this case, while I appreciate the author, Mr. Daniels, sharing some of his struggles with sexual purity, I think he ended up really writing a book about nothing. There are much better choices out there (such as Every Man's Battle - I got mine from Focus on the Family, though you can probably find it cheaper at Chapters...I recently got the N.T. Wright "Gospel for Everyone Series" for 34% off the retail price via the Chapters website).
First, my biggest beef with this book is that he really doesn't say anything new. Much of what he says can be gleaned from Scripture without much theological interpretation or exhaustive exegetical study. Of course, he commits the common Christian book faux-pas of using massive amounts of Scripture under the guise of citation, whereas I suspect he is simply using the Word is filler for his book. Some of the passages have little to no correlation to the point he is trying to make.
Another beef I have is his constant references to his time onboard a ship. OK, I get it, he likes ships and being part of a crew, but to everyone else who has neither the experience nor the interest (or both), this reader was particularly lost in his endless ship and naval analogies, and your humble reviewer found myself interrupting his wife, as she was reading what surely would have been a better book.
The author also speaks in a lot of generalities without getting very specific in terms of some of the subsequent struggles in embarking on a quest to become sexually pure. As a porn dealer before I became saved, I can tell you that sexual temptation will always be there, even after you get married. I've talked with enough married guys to know that this ongoing struggle will likely be life-long - the issue is far more complex than Daniels makes it out to be. He seems to have a touchy-feely type of Christianese solution, which is great, except that Scripture talks about ongoing struggle and temptation. Perhaps the book could not have ended on such a note, but I think it's more realistic this way. I certainly don't want to suggest that God cannot miraculously heal one of past purity issues, but I think that this may be one of those "thorn in the flesh" type of issues that are with men for life, and as such it makes it so much more important for us men to acknowledge our weaknesses and failings to God, ask for His forgiveness, and rely on His strength going forward. I don't think there's any easy multi-step solution here.
Honestly, there's not a lot of good things I can say about this book. Even the Eros Defiled/Eros Redeemed series, though simplistic, would be better suited to handle such a delicate topic.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Gay Pride Parade - What Is There to be Proud Of?
There are just some things I will never get. The annual gay pride parade is one of them. Unfortunately, as a guy who reads the newspaper fairly regularly, I can't really say that I can get away from reading about it - every time about this time of year, it hits Toronto and many other cities, and is advertised as a family event. Yeah, right. There are many other things that I could take my kids to - that is not one of them.
The most absurd thing coming from the pro-gay camp is that this event is not about sexuality. It's not, eh? Then why the hell do many of the participants wear next to nothing and move and dance suggestively? Why do they throw condoms to the crowd? Why is there intense groping and so forth? Before you suggest that I'm just watching a conservative TV station's coverage of the event, let me say that I had the great misfortune in bumping into the event several years ago when I went downtown to buy a pair of shoes one weekend. It hadn't dawned on me that it was gay pride weekend, and when I was done buying my shoes, I decided to stick around and see what the parade was about (I thought it was some protest parade, until I saw the floats, the cross-dressing and ever-annoying water guns and super-soakers (which seems to be only present during gay festivities - I've often wondered over the years why water guns are chosen and my only conclusion is that they simulate the ejaculatory effect. Regardless, I saw with my own eyes sex being paraded. But such is the nature of the homosexual lifestyle, isn't it? Years ago, out of curiosity, I went into a gay bookshop in the Church/Wellesley (gay central) area of downtown Toronto. Now, you're probably wondering with all this gayness experience, am I a closet homosexual. My wife can readily attest that I am not, as I obviously can as well. But anyhow, when I went in there, I was expecting a Chapters type of retail store with coffee served by effeminate males, hard pumping Euro techno music, and perfumy incense being burned. Well, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when I saw none of that, but instead walls of gay pictorial books, sexual aids, and lesbian and homosexual erotica. Honestly, it was like an adult bookstore for gays. The focus on sex was very strong in there, if not overpowering - so don't tell me that whey the community has an opportunity to celebrate, that sex is not in the mix. Even Crime Stoppers, the police-driven organization that allows people to call and provide anonymous tips on crimes, has decided to turn political this year in getting involved in the parade, by handing out condoms with a note attached that reads, "your tip's safe with us" (read into that what you will).
Considering my ardent belief that homosexuality is a choice (and yeah, yeah, I know that the argument goes that if it's a choice, who would choose that kind of lifestyle, given the backlash from society - but my argument is that people make all sorts of morally bad and societally-frowned-upon choices everyday. You think that child molester doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong - he does it because he wants the instant gratification of his base desires - I really don't see homosexuality being much different), I am not sure what exactly there is to be proud of. Some people who are against the parade argue that there is not a heterosexual pride parade, and the gay community will counter that every day is heterosexual pride day, but I think that argument is B.S. Think about this for a minute - let's say that we are all products, the formation of which we had no input. I am of Asian background - I had no choice in the matter. I am a male - I had no choice in the matter. It's like those white supremacists out there - "white power!" Or the black militants - "black power!" Whatever. Why would we be proud of something we had no control over? Unless...you chose something and it turned out a way that you seem to like - ie. I am a proud Canadian, because I chose to be a Canadian (as you may have read, I am one of those successful immigrant stories0. I am a proud born-again Christian - it is a choice that I made to believe in Jesus Christ. I am a proud conservative - I chose my belief system. And the list goes on - I am a proud member of the NRA and proud gun owner, I am a proud father and husband, etc. Pride for me is defined as the decisions I made and the expected outcomes. If homosexuality is natural (which I believe it is not) there is nothing to be proud of, just like I am not necessarily proud to be a heterosexual or proud to have Asian roots. It is what it is, unless I personally made the decision to be a member or something or deliberately participated in something on my own volition, etc.
I also don't get why so many conservatives have softened their stance on all things gay, particularly in light of their own personal convictions. I guess to a degree I can understand it somewhat. Make no mistake - there are nice gay people out there. I work with a fellow who is gay and is probably one of the kindest people at work here. He never flaunts his "gayness" (well, he has a photo of his boyfriend on his computer) so there are not comfort issues. He's also a guy I'd be happy to go out and have a beer with. I am not one of those weirdo conservatives who not only hate everything gay-related, but hate gays as people. I don't share that view - I certainly do not like the lifestyle, will never support it, will never agree with it, but I also recognize that behind the veneer of homosexuality and lesbianism are people who are like me, fallen, broken and make mistakes. I do not let my personal abhorrence with homosexuality cloud my ability to love the people who are in that lifestyle. As a follower of Jesus, I think it's expected that I befriend gays and love them as much as anyone else and show them God's love - but that certainly doesn't mean I need to participate in pro-gay parade events.
The most absurd thing coming from the pro-gay camp is that this event is not about sexuality. It's not, eh? Then why the hell do many of the participants wear next to nothing and move and dance suggestively? Why do they throw condoms to the crowd? Why is there intense groping and so forth? Before you suggest that I'm just watching a conservative TV station's coverage of the event, let me say that I had the great misfortune in bumping into the event several years ago when I went downtown to buy a pair of shoes one weekend. It hadn't dawned on me that it was gay pride weekend, and when I was done buying my shoes, I decided to stick around and see what the parade was about (I thought it was some protest parade, until I saw the floats, the cross-dressing and ever-annoying water guns and super-soakers (which seems to be only present during gay festivities - I've often wondered over the years why water guns are chosen and my only conclusion is that they simulate the ejaculatory effect. Regardless, I saw with my own eyes sex being paraded. But such is the nature of the homosexual lifestyle, isn't it? Years ago, out of curiosity, I went into a gay bookshop in the Church/Wellesley (gay central) area of downtown Toronto. Now, you're probably wondering with all this gayness experience, am I a closet homosexual. My wife can readily attest that I am not, as I obviously can as well. But anyhow, when I went in there, I was expecting a Chapters type of retail store with coffee served by effeminate males, hard pumping Euro techno music, and perfumy incense being burned. Well, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when I saw none of that, but instead walls of gay pictorial books, sexual aids, and lesbian and homosexual erotica. Honestly, it was like an adult bookstore for gays. The focus on sex was very strong in there, if not overpowering - so don't tell me that whey the community has an opportunity to celebrate, that sex is not in the mix. Even Crime Stoppers, the police-driven organization that allows people to call and provide anonymous tips on crimes, has decided to turn political this year in getting involved in the parade, by handing out condoms with a note attached that reads, "your tip's safe with us" (read into that what you will).
Considering my ardent belief that homosexuality is a choice (and yeah, yeah, I know that the argument goes that if it's a choice, who would choose that kind of lifestyle, given the backlash from society - but my argument is that people make all sorts of morally bad and societally-frowned-upon choices everyday. You think that child molester doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong - he does it because he wants the instant gratification of his base desires - I really don't see homosexuality being much different), I am not sure what exactly there is to be proud of. Some people who are against the parade argue that there is not a heterosexual pride parade, and the gay community will counter that every day is heterosexual pride day, but I think that argument is B.S. Think about this for a minute - let's say that we are all products, the formation of which we had no input. I am of Asian background - I had no choice in the matter. I am a male - I had no choice in the matter. It's like those white supremacists out there - "white power!" Or the black militants - "black power!" Whatever. Why would we be proud of something we had no control over? Unless...you chose something and it turned out a way that you seem to like - ie. I am a proud Canadian, because I chose to be a Canadian (as you may have read, I am one of those successful immigrant stories0. I am a proud born-again Christian - it is a choice that I made to believe in Jesus Christ. I am a proud conservative - I chose my belief system. And the list goes on - I am a proud member of the NRA and proud gun owner, I am a proud father and husband, etc. Pride for me is defined as the decisions I made and the expected outcomes. If homosexuality is natural (which I believe it is not) there is nothing to be proud of, just like I am not necessarily proud to be a heterosexual or proud to have Asian roots. It is what it is, unless I personally made the decision to be a member or something or deliberately participated in something on my own volition, etc.
I also don't get why so many conservatives have softened their stance on all things gay, particularly in light of their own personal convictions. I guess to a degree I can understand it somewhat. Make no mistake - there are nice gay people out there. I work with a fellow who is gay and is probably one of the kindest people at work here. He never flaunts his "gayness" (well, he has a photo of his boyfriend on his computer) so there are not comfort issues. He's also a guy I'd be happy to go out and have a beer with. I am not one of those weirdo conservatives who not only hate everything gay-related, but hate gays as people. I don't share that view - I certainly do not like the lifestyle, will never support it, will never agree with it, but I also recognize that behind the veneer of homosexuality and lesbianism are people who are like me, fallen, broken and make mistakes. I do not let my personal abhorrence with homosexuality cloud my ability to love the people who are in that lifestyle. As a follower of Jesus, I think it's expected that I befriend gays and love them as much as anyone else and show them God's love - but that certainly doesn't mean I need to participate in pro-gay parade events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)