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.

,,,And I'm Supposed To Feel Sorry For These People?

Well, Happy Victoria Day to you all. Say what you want about the monarchy or whether we should still be celebrating the life of someone who was born in 1819, but hey, it's nice not to have to go into the office, so I'll be happy to continue singing "God Save The Queen" and continue to support our British-style parliamentary system.

So my wife, kids and I were going to spend the day at a local conservation area, where I was going to get in hopefully a decent day of fishing and enjoying the outdoors and creation. Unfortunately, with very strong winds outside and nippy temperatures (my son and I went out to play baseball this morning and he needed mitts after a while - he was the batter), we thought we'd nix the idea. Besides, casting in windy weather is no fun. So we stayed indoors today and my wife played cards while my son watched his newest Veggie Tales DVD and my daughter slept. Well, the deck of cards we used was from the Pizzaville pizza chain, and of course, their advertising worked, since my wife and I got the strange idea that we should order in pizza for lunch. Besides, with the pizza order, I had an opportunity to get a free sleeve of Maxfli Fire golf balls for virtually nothing. My wife brought home the pizza and stuff, and we also got a free newspaper (Toronto Sun - not into the tabloidish trashy style, but hey...) Anyhow, I thought that I'd peruse the complimentary newspaper and see what was happening this weekend in the world.

Well, right on the front of the newspaper was a caption depicting a tragedy on the waters this long weekend in Richmond Hill. It piqued my interest, so I read the article. The details are interesting to note: on Saturday morning, at 1:30AM (that's AM), three young guys went out in a canoe, after a night of drinking and fireworks. The canoe ended up flipping over, and only one of the three swam to shore - the other two are presumed dead. Interviews with loved ones and friends followed, and the tone of the story seemed to want to get the reader to feel sorry for these two guys who presumably lost their lives in an tragedy, and a preventable one at that. I finished the story and turned to my wife, who was downing her coffee, and I said, "do you feel sorry for these guys?" I know I don't. Forget the fact that you drank before going on a boat in the middle of the night. These three clowns weren't even wearing lifejackets. And the boat wasn't theirs - it was taken from a bunch of boats that a neighbour warned them not to take.

I mean, what am I supposed to feel here? Sympathy? Hardly. It's their stupidity that led to their deaths. Of course, in the interviews with friends and families, the two missing canoeists were cited as "role models" and "ideal citizens". I tell you, I've known enough people in my life who engage in this kind of stuff, and it's nothing short of immature and irresponsible. Yeah, it sucks that two of them likely died, but this is sort of how the way the world works - you engage in risky behaviour - you should be prepared to endure the consequences. You reap what you sow.

I flip the page some more...and read about another tragedy that happened in the Toronto area. Three young girls (teenagers) were killed in a car crash on a country road. Of course, tributes pour in, saying how bright and beautiful (as if that makes a difference) they were and how smart they were. Were they? Cops investigating the incident say that these girls driving on a country road decided to make a U-turn, at which point a tractor trailer plowed into them. Now, who does a freaking U-turn on a country road? Sure, it's possible, but it's risky. Unfortunately, the girls paid with their lives. But I'm not sure why people, when being interviewed are blaming God for this - a woman said "how could God do this?" to which a pastor responded "I am honest when I say I do not know". What's God have to do with any of this? They made the choice to make this U-turn. I mean, if I were to run a red light, I know that there is always a chance I'll get into an accident. If I do that, I have to accept the consequences. If I die as a result, I don't expect, nor do I want, people to feel sorry for me and sad for me.

Years ago, my wife and I went to one of the biggest, if not the biggest, provincial park in Ontario. It was awesome going to it - it was like an hour or so driving from one end of the park to the other. Anyhow, my wife and I decided to go canoeing at one point - I can't swim, but she could, but regardless, we both wore life jackets. I did know, however, that there was always a chance my lifejacket my malfunction and given the right conditions, the boat could flip and I could die. I accepted that risk, as low as it was. About 20 minutes into our canoeing, big storm clouds darkened the sky and thunder and lightning started appearing. I nearly shat my pants as I feverously paddled back to shore (which was very far away), all the while hitting rough waters and waves, while I was barking rowing instructions to my wife. That canoe almost tipped over a couple of times, and I was so freaked out since I did not know how to swim. I knew that the risk of something happened to me just increased, but after a while, we managed to get back onto shore. I could have risked staying in the boat, but neither one of us accepted that risk in those conditions.

The next morning, we see police boats and divers near our campsite (which was near the water). They were obviously looking for something, and as it turns out, they were looking for someone. In turning on the news on the radio in our car, we realized that someone had apparently drowned. Story is that it was a young guy, who was camping as part of a honeymoon with his new wife. Both were in their very early 20s. As the report goes, at one point he stood up in his canoe, while his wife was on the beach, and he was flexing muscles or something like that, standing in the canoe. He did not have a lifejacket on. The canoe flipped over and he fell into the water, at which point his panicked wife called for help. They weren't able to locate him until the next day (we, unfortunately, had the misfortune of seeing the police divers drag what appeared to be a human body onto the boat and then covered it up. That was pretty disturbing. I feel for his new wife, but come on, what did you think would happen?

It's incidents like this that prove to me that the true tragedy here is that all of these deaths could have been prevented, with just a bit of common sense, and observing standard safety practices. We are all going to die one day; it's just a shame to hear of senseless deaths like this which could have been easily prevented.

EDIT 5/20/2008: So this morning, on the way to work, I hear about a fatal accident occuring about 7 minutes from my home, last night. A minivan was going 160KM/hour in a 60KM/hour zone. ????!!???? The driver, a 17-year-old, died in the accident when the van hit a lightpost, a tree, and then rolled over several times. His passengers all sustained serious injury. Thankfully no innocent bystanders or other drivers were hurt. I'm glad this guy died - at least that's one dangerous driver permanently off the road. And I'm sure his three surviving friends all learned a valuable lesson as well.

Self-Defence / Home Defence - A Response

After my last post on home defence options, I received three emails that had opposing positions. Two of the respondents questioned whether I was being way too paranoid - after all, we do live in Canada, while the other emailer was nothing short of what I would consider a trigger-happy individual, who seemed to be relishing the opportunity to shoot someone. I certainly hope that that was not the impression my post relayed - it was not my intention, and I think that only the most liberal interpretation of my post would signify that. Anyway, while I could have simply responded to the three commenters by email, I thought it would be more beneficial to address the issues raised by another post. It would also help me to formulate and perhaps cement my own positions on these areas. I won't bother rehashing the previous post found here
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.

First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:

1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.

OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.

2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.

Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.

Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).

The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.

3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?

This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.

The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.

The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.

Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?


4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.

That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.

Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:

1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.

I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).

2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.

Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.

I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.

3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.

I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.

The Self-Centred West

I generally don't rant much about the West, since I grew up here, but I gotta tell ya, people living in North America (and by extension I think I can say Western Society in general, irrespective of geography) are so self-absorbed in their own little bubble that they don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the world, save some popular media or celebrity-highlighted causes, which seem fashionable, particularly to the youth of this generation.

You know, I don't really have much of a philosophical dichotomy when it comes to the value of life. Which is why I do not put people on a sliding scale of life worth - the death of a celebrity does not resonate any more with me than a death of an unknown homeless person. It wasn't always this way, but over the years, I've developed a real distaste for how North American culture focuses on such trite things, yet at the same time, have a scale of life-worth that essentially pits fame and fortune with innate value. Now, I am not some crazy new-age, feely-touchy type who will say that all life is valuable. Clearly that is not the case, with guys like Paul Bernardo and the guy in Texas on death row who is the next to be executed for his part in the brutal rapes and murders of two teenagers - to me, these guys aren't human. Rather, my contention is that in general, human life has value.

So obviously my heart grieves when I hear that 10,000 people were killed today in an earthquake in China, a large magnitude earthquake at that (7.8 on the Richter scale). I mean, if you look at 9/11, there was something like 2800 lives lost. That was sad, and continues to be. I can't even visualize that many people. And sure, it has greater shock value when life is deliberately taken by way of a terrorist act. You'd have to have been hiding in a cave (hopefully not Bin Laden's) to not realize that there was an inordinate amount of press and media coverage for 9/11 and the subsequent deaths that occurred. Yet, for all this coverage, you hear what would amount to passing news almost on a daily basis of people who are dying everyday in other parts of the world - and make no mistake, North America does not have a monopoly on terrorist activities. Whether it is suicide bombers in the Middle East killing innocent people, or those in developing country who are starving to death, while we sit in North America and bitch and moan about how our freaking Blackberries are down for a day, I really do think that the West has such a self-absorbed mentality that it fails to even register why the rest of the world hates us so much.

On many discussion boards, today's tragedy is given passable coverage. Could you imagine if this was in North America? CNN would have full-screen pictures with a tabloid style headline and people would stop what they are doing and chime in on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Yet, when it's "them", that is people on the other side of the world, which for all intents and purposes, are different than you, or who have no real relation to you, geographic, political, or linguistic, then I guess the blase response would be, "well, these things happen", and worse, for those who tend to have a North American brainwashed mindset, coupled with some pretty ingrained religious beliefs, they simply chalk it up to "God's will" and something to do with the end times. It's almost as if there is a sort of acceptable resignation that these things happen and "oh well". Yet if this happened in Toronto, or New York, or L.A., or any manner of small towns in North America, it would be considered unnatural, a great tragedy, and you'd hear politicians blabbering away prayers and such for the victims. If it happens on the other side of the world, well...nobody gives a (fill in the blank here).

Tom Lukiwski, What's Wrong With You?

So Saskatchewan Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was embroiled over some controversy in the past week over some comments that he made on videotape 16 years ago, comments that were considered by the press as "anti-gay". Lukiwski made an impassioned apology this past week for his comments, citing that he was not then, nor is he now homophobic (a laughable term, at best). Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since stated that the case is closed, and he will not be seeking Lukiwski's resignation.

I shook my head upon hearing the news reports, followed by Lukiwski's very public apology. I don't get it - why does he have to apologize for something he said 16 years ago? Sure, some have mentioned to me that well, he is an MP, and as an MP, he has a responsibility to represent his constituents, some of which may be gay. OK, but all that being said, he wasn't an MP 16 years ago. And unless he has said something recently along the lines of his "faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases", I don't see the need for him to apologize, unless he has caved in to pressure from special interest groups. He said that he was not anti-gay then and he is not now.

Why does he need to apologize? Even if he has such opinions, he is entitled to have them, living in the free society as do - I suppose if in the course of his public duties as member of parliament for his riding, if he were to espouse such views, it may cause him trouble with his gay constituents (if he has any). Besides, it was 16 years ago... I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for anything I said 16 years ago, even if I did say some pretty stupid things. And honestly, even if he is not pro-gay, he should be entitled to his opinions, as not everyone will agree with one's personal convictions. I am sure I have lost a few acquaintances or so over the years due to the fact that I refuse to accept or embrace homosexuality as being normal. I don't and while people are free to disagree with me, I'm not going to bow to pressure simply because the fashionable thing to do these days is to spout the word "tolerance", just like it is fashionable to be a tree hugger and be on the anti-global warming bandwagon (which is quite a questionable ride to begin with).

In my view, it would have been better for Lukiwski to simply acknowledge that he made such remarks in the past, but suggest that unless he is not serving his constituents properly in his current role, his past (or even present) personal opinions shouldn't be scrutinized to the point where people are asking for his resignation. It's no different than me working with a admitted racist or bigot. As long as his personal views are not causing problems in his/her work, what business do I have asking them to be terminated from their job, upon learning their affiliation with a racist organization outside the workplace? If it doesn't affect their working relationship with their colleagues job-wise, he/she should be left alone, no matter how abhorrent we may find their views.

I practice this principle in my daily life. I have worked with gays before in my job, and while I am vehemently opposed to their lifestyle and such, I still am required to work with them and show them the same workplace courtesy as everyone else. As long as they are not pushing for special treatment or flaunting gay sexuality at work, I have no reason to ask them to resign, even though I may have personal philosophical and moral differences with them. In this case, people should just leave Lukiwski alone. The past is the past. And if he still harbours the same views, who cares? It's not impacting his job.

Have You Considered Your Home Defence Options?

Well, my son is still battling a fever tonight, and I've been up several times, so there is not much use in trying to go back to sleep (I'm sure you know the feeling - you get into deep sleep for 30 minutes or so and then get woken up, only to feel more gross than you would feel had you simply stayed up - that's sort of where I am right now). Besides, with new daughter in tow, I've been meaning to write about a topic that I've been thinking about for several years now.

Back in the summer of 2005 or 2006 (thankfully, it was long enough ago that I am starting to forget the incident), we had a rather scary situation where a agitated woman showed up on our doorstep (literally) at around 10:30AM on a Saturday night and tried to kick our front door down. My son was considerably younger back then, so we originally thought that it was him crying, but it turns out it was a lady in her 20s who was extremely irritated. She was shouting at the top of our lungs for us to open the door and started to kick at our door. She sounded like she was in great anguish, and an error my wife and I made that night was to open the front door to investigate.

Turns out that she had thought that someone in our household had kidnapped a child of hers, or at least the child in a photo that she was carrying in her wallet. So here I was in the doorway of the house, with my wife behind me (and my son soundly sleeping upstairs), and this lady is demanding to get into my house. Realizing that she wasn't kidding, I had to be firm in insisting that there was no way that she would get by me, since we do not know here nor did we kidnap that child. I suspected that she was inebriated or on some sort of illegal narcotics, but regardless, it was the first time I actually felt a bit frightened in my house. Now, this lady wouldn't relent and I thought I was about to get into a fistfight with her (something I didn't really want to do, since it's been 20+ years since I got into a physical confrontation with someone and I'd rather it stay that long). My wife wisely decided to call the cops, which we should have done once we realized she was trying to kick the door down. In the meantime, several neighbours had gathered outside our house, and were witnessing the whole thing. The lady (and I use that term loosely), upon realizing that I was not about to afford her entry, then started a profanity-filled, racially-charged barrage of racial epithets, most of which I have not heard in many years. I tell you, I was tempted to slug her one, but that is hardly a good example to my family, since I didn't exactly fear for my life by her name-calling. Anyhow, once I told her that we called the cops, she immediately rolled into her minivan and backed out of our driveway, but not before we recorded her licence plate number and before she crashed into lamp post in front of our house, causing all manner of external car parts to be strewn at the end of our driveway.

Cops showed up - this big, big dude named Police Constable Nigel showed up - I was admiring his muscles throughout our conversation, but I am glad my tax dollars pay for beefy cops like him. He ran her plates and proceeded to tell us that she was a known schitzophrenic who happened to have trashed a Tim Horton's the night before. He indicated that she was likely off her medication and was driving around aimlessly and happened upon our house, which was fairly visible on the street. He said that chances are, by the next day she would not even remember the incident, but they'd pay her a visit anyway to check up on her. They would be sending one of their cops who she thinks she is married to...I wasn't interested in hearing more of the soap opera, so I thanked him for looking into it and his assurances that it was probably a bad coincidence that she showed up at our door. We haven't heard from her since and have not had any such incident since, of which we were aware.

Now, some advice from the officer, and this was well received. It is not paranoia-based chain-mail B.S. that you get in your inbox that you are to circulate to all your friends. This came from the mouth of a police officer with whom I spoke. The first thing he said was that we made several tactical errors that night in assessing the situation. I don't disagree with him. The first was that we didn't call the police right away when we determined someone was kicking at our door. The second was that we opened our door. And the third, while the officer did not necessarily suggest this - when I suggested whether it would have been good if I was somehow armed with something at the door (and I don't mean a firearm, but anything that can more or less be used in self-defence like a baseball bat, a knife, or whatever) - he said that it wouldn't hurt, but obviously much care is needed, since citizens have been known to be disarmed of baseball bats and other forms of self-defence objects by perpetrators, and worse, these objects have been turned on the homeowners. I doubt that the police are at liberty to suggest homeowners arm themselves, like they seem to do more of in the States than in Canada, but it was interesting that he did not dismiss the option.

All that being said, I have had at least a couple of years (I believe it was 2005, so I had a few years) to think about what happened, and I can tell you that it is worthwhile for every homeowner to at least have a game plan in place in the event something as distressing as this happens. Now, I realize we're not in the wild-west mentality of the U.S., but let's face it - suberbs like where I live are not immune to crime. In fact, just down the street from me a few years back, a Marijuana grow-up was busted. About 5 minutes north of me, there was a major methanphetamine lab that was broken up - the cops who did that case reported in the news that they were surprised that the residence did not explode, due to the amount of volatile chemicals found in the house. And that was in a house that was valued at $525,000 Cdn., so it wasn't like we are talking in the housing projects here. About 15 minutes northeast of me, a double-murder took place in a home very close to where our good friends live. And despite our area's generally low crime rate, home invasions do happen - our youth pastor witnessed a police take-down of carjackers, which resulted in police drawing and using their weapons - this was less than five minutes away from where I live, and it only happened late last year. My former colleague at work, who has four kids of his own, has told me of problem neighbours that he has had that forced him to build his own home security camera system which feeds video into his computer.

OK, maybe these are all isolated incidents, but can you really afford to dismiss them as something that will never happen to you? I've learned only in the past few years never to assume that something will not happen to you. Anything can happen to anyone, so I feel it is prudent for the homeowner to at least consider what they would do (it may turn out to be nothing, but at least think about it) if they were a victim of a home invasion. As for me, I have a plan in place, which I don't advertise, and I have actually ran through the plan several times to test timing, etc. That being said, I still make tactical errors, which I have been correcting over time (ie. most recently, the house alarm was set off by a loose window and I bolted downstairs to turn off the alarm without carrying adequate protection with me (by protection I mean a home defence object, not a condom). Now, maybe it's because we just got home from the hospital with our newborn and I didn't want the kids awakened by a rather shrill and very boisterous sounding house alarm in the middle of the night. But still, in the heat of the moment, I should have assessed things properly and at least carried something with me downstairs, analyzing the situation in the process. One thing I have been thinking of doing for these sitautions is to put a corresponding alarm panel upstairs, so that I can arm the house from upstairs or contact the police/fire department from upstairs, rather than rely on the panel downstairs near the front door. At the very least, I can accurately assess what triggered the alarm and whether it was legit or false. In this case, I would have known it was a false alarm as we were in the room where the window's inside sensors had moved (we have older windows that shift a bit after a windy night). Installing a supplementary panel upstairs, while it would involve extra costs, is still something that is considered more of a passive option than an active one.

Now, if you are considering active options of defending your home (which is your right since it's your property), you should think through the consequences. Very easy for someone to carry a baseball bat or golf club or a kitchen knife to confront a burglar or a home invader, but the question you need to ask yourself is...are you prepared to use it? I am willing most people don't even know where to properly strike an attacker with a knife or bat to neutralize the threat, if they are even willing to do so in the first place. If you have a firearm, you need to consider that you may be using lethal force to stop someone, and there are certainly moral and legal issues that will arise as a result. Personally, I would never consider killing someone over theft of property - as long as our family is not threatened, they can have what they want for all I care. If you threaten my family, then all bets are off and you just authorized me to use lethal means if necessary. However, even then you need to think things through - a court of law would not look favourably on a person who shoots and attacker in the back or fires on a fleeing suspect. And of course, you have no doubt heard about the warped courts who find in favour of the felon or perpetrator who managed to successfully sue the homeowner for damages or injury. That being said, I still don't believe that we should develop the "shoot to kill" mentality. Lawyers will eat you for breakfast, painting you as a cold-blooded pre-meditated killing machine, even if you killed in self-defence. Most of the home defence experts will suggest that your mentality should be "shooting to stop"; that is, stop the attack on yourself or your loved ones. And while I am not entirely comfortable subscribing to the mindset that it's probably better to make sure that you kill the attacker so that they don't get a chance to finnegle the legal system to sue you later, I still place enough value on life to suggest that lethal force should always be the final option, unless your life is being immediately threatened at the time. Again, I know it's hard to hypothetically go through scenario after scenario, but the thought process is good to work through what you may do (and even then, I accept that people may do something totally different when confronted with that situation).

So, let's look at home defence options. Again, I am not going to reveal what my plan or options are, but I can tell you that in researching this topic, like everything else, different things work for different people. But one thing I can say for sure - forget the TV-and-movie based approach where people grab baseball bats and tennis racquets or fireplace prodding sticks or other such things. Unless you have training in hand-to-hand or close quarters combat, this is a complete waste of your time and the likelihood of a stronger attacker disarming you is very high. Not to mention, if it is an armed home invasion or an armed rape or kidnapping attempt (for the women who live by themselves or whose husbands are not home), taking out a tennis racquet will, I am sure, not neutralize the threat. A kitchen knife is a waste of time and even if you had a cold weapon like a hunting knife, Buck knife or a fillet knife - are you prepared to stab someone with it should the need arise? Do you know where to stab to stop the attack? Inflicting a superficial wound would no doubt piss off the attacker and you will likely have the object turned on you.

Now, I will address something quickly that I have heard people mention to me, who are avid airgun or air pistol shooting enthusiasts. I don't care what anyone says, airguns and air pistols (even PAL rated firearms-grade ones) do not have enough stopping power to put down an attacker. While it has not be conclusively proven, sub-500FPS velocity airguns are within legal limits for a reason - I have heard that any sub 500 FPS airgun projectile - whether the standard .177 or .22, will not break skin and the only way you can use it to protect your life is to shoot the perpetrator in the eye. In the dark, and in distress, I doubt many can make such a good shot. The firearms-grade airguns are mostly single shots and even then, are mostly .177, which is fine on a squirrel, but stopping a two-legged predator requires significantly more stopping power. So let's end that discussion right now. Air guns are used for target shooting and casual plinking, nothing more (OK, the occasional small game hunting or pest control).

There are some who argue that firearms are the answer. This is partially true. But even here, there are some issues. One is that, unless you live in a rural area, the chance of you having neighbours is very high. In many suberbs, the houses are built fairly close together. The last thing you want is using a firearm that shoots through walls and kills an innocent bystander on the street, in another room or even in another house. As such, I am not in favour of using centerfire or high powered handguns for home invasion. Again, in both cases in the dark and being a bit drowsy likely at night, what are the chances of you hitting your target? Handguns are also easily disarmable, especially if the owner does not know how to use it. I am not a fan of handguns at all, so that would not be an option. Centerfire weapons increase the risk of collateral injury/death, and are not really an option in the city. Another option is rimfire - .22 caliber - but studies and police reports have shown that it may not necessarily disarm your attacker - no one wants to get shot with a rimfire rifle, but there have been reports of bad guys who are strung out on drugs who simply ignore the small caliber bullet wounds. Of course if you get a large capacity mag and fire like crazy, you may get somewhere, but that doesn't look good in a court of law. If you must use firearms, then I would strongly recommend a shotgun - good for short range, and you really don't need to aim it per se - since the shot covers a wide area. Even then, the shotgun is only as good as the shotshells you use - I have read that using a shotgun with birdshot is a very poor choice - it will leave a grievous wound on the attacker, but it may not stop them on the spot. What I'd recommend is using 00 or 000 buckshot, but even then that may be overkill. I read that #3 or #4 buck is sufficent. A 20-gauge is probably preferrable to a 12-gauge, due to recoil issues (remember, you're sleepy at night), as well as the less likelihood of collateral damage. From what I read, if shotguns are used for home defence, there are really only two models to consider - the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500 - they're essentially the two big models competing against one another. If you ask me my opinion, I'd go with the Remington, since cops use the 870, so what's that tell ya? The Remington comes in various models, and has lots of mods (like interchageable short barrels, which is a must for a home defence gun). I've handled both and the Remington has a much more solid feel to it. There's nothing like the sound of racking the 870 to cause your bad guy to think twice. That being said, the chance of inflicting a lethal wound with a shotgun with buckshot is tremendously great, and if you use this method, you really will need to explain your actions in a court of law, not to mention deal with the mental consequences of taking another life. In this regard, someone once remarked, "better to be tried by twelve, than to be carried by six."

I can't speak on whether a 28-gauge or a .410 caliber shotgun would be effective or not (the .410 probably not, though some have argued otherwise - my guess is that it's probably as effective as a .22 rimfire) - I don't know enough about either to make a definitive statement. Stick with the 20 gauge - it's a great all purpose gun - you can use it to hunt, shoot skeet/clays/trap, and of course, for home defence. I also believe Stoeger makes a short-barreled coach gun (it's pretty ugly but I read that it can be suited for home defence). But there are still also other options...

A crossbow is pretty intimidating and as I've seen people use it to take down rather large animals, it is an option, though I suspect with a two-legged pest, its stopping power may be negligible. You'd have to fire many arrows in succession, or coat the razor-sharp arrowheads with some sort of incapacitant in order to stop the intruder in his/her tracks. Of course, you better be able to load the arrow quick and aim well. Tasers and stun guns are both wonderful short-to-medium range options which allow you to incapacitate an intruder, albeit doing it without resorting to lethal force. This would be on my recommended list, but last I heard, tasers and stun guns are illegal in Canada. Besides, you have likely heard of some very public incidents of tasering by security or law enforcement folks, which have gone horribly wrong, in some cases causing death. A downside to the taser and stun guns, aside from their illegality, is the fact that you still have to more or less aim it and in a tense situation where your hands are likely shaking and you're crapping your pants, your aiming technique may not be at its best. As a result, I'd have to apply the same logic to using stuff like bear spray or pepper spray - of course, both of these also carry much higher risks of being turned on you if you are not careful.

One option that is a generally good one is learning close-combat self-defence techniques - it could be martial arts or something like krav maga, which I am signing up for this summer. This training, however, should only be used to complement an existing home defence strategy - I don't recommend it to be used standalone and the reasons are obvious (if the attacker has a gun or something, unless you can confidently disarm him, you're up the creek).

Of course, no home defence discussion is complete unless the topic of guard dogs is brought up. This is an extremely attractive option for people, as dogs are alerted to the slightest noise, generally their bark scares the crap out of potential burglars, and assuming that the dog is a fairly large dog, it can pounce on an attacker like white on rice, and render the intruder useless until the owner or the cops decide otherwise. However, a knock against dogs is that they're only good if the intruder does not come armed. For me, dogs are not an option, since I am not fond of them (anything that sniffs and licks its ass and then proceeds to try to lick my face...no thanks - I've never understood people who enjoy playfully French-kissing their dogs, knowing where the dog's mouth has been - freaking gross, if you ask me). I also don't like the smell of dogs (or cats or hamsters) Also, I couldn't be bothered with all the maintenance that goes with a dog. I also have young kids, and while they may like dogs, I can't guarantee that the dog will always like them. But I can see the advantage of having a guard dog - the result of a dog attack is generally less lethal than having a firearm fired on you within close range. But just the presence of a guard dog is likely enough incentive for would-be home intruders to select another residence.

Finally, I want to discuss the option of passivity and non-resistance. I know a lot of people who would likely resort to this option and it's not a wrong choice, by any means. It certainly has its place, and it is part of my plan depending on the scenario (ie. it's probably not a first option in the case of sexual assault, though I have read of women who employ this in order to stay alive). However, if you are doing it because you believe in a Biblical ethic that teaches to "turn the other cheek" and not retaliate, I suggest you re-look your Bible and study the passages in question contextually. I don't believe the Bible preaches passivity and pacifism. The turning the other cheek and non-retaliatory ethic is understood in the spirit of not succumbing to one's pride - ie. you wrong me - out of spite or having my pride hurt, I lash back at you - that is sinful. Self-defence is not. I really resent how these liberal pacifists have turned the Bible into their reasoning behind just letting someone beat the crap out of you. Sure, people cite Jesus not striking back when he had was flogged and had to carry the cross with people spitting, kicking and throwing all manner of stuff at him - but remember, Jesus had a wider purpose in mind in accepting the fact that He will be dying for humanity and the abuse came with it. I can understand that people may read into this , with their "What Would Jesus Do" mentality and say that one should just sit back and not fend off attackers. How many of you (men) who advocate this position, would sit idly by while someone came into your house and helped themselves to your wife? Would you argue it is Biblical to simply let an intruder rape your wife while you watched and cited Bible verses at them? What about if they broke into your house and started attacking you with a knife? Would you simply sit back and let them stab you? Why or why not?

There is a place for non-resistance. There is a place for negotiation and mediation. And I agree, material things are not worth killing over. But when your life is threatened, I can't think of too many people who I know will stand idly by and let their life or their loved ones' lives be taken from them, without a fight.

Fatherhood, Part II

A few weeks ago, my wife and I welcomed into our family a brand new baby girl. We couldn't be more delighted, especially after experiencing a miscarriage in 2006 (which, for those who have experienced one, you will know that it really sucks, and for those who haven't, take my word for it that it really sucks). We eagerly anticipated the arrival of our new little one, and I for one could not have been more happy. My wife knew it was a girl during one of her previous ultrasounds, but me, being more of a traditionalist, didn't want to know until the doctor announced it officially. People have asked me in the past few months whether I looked more forward to a boy or a girl. It really didn't matter to me - the fact that I was going to be a Dad again was enough satisfaction. My wife was indicating that all she wants was for the baby to have ten fingers and ten toes, but you know, for me, I didn't even care about that. I was truly prepared for as much as I could be prepared for - had the baby come out with a deformity or a developmental condition or some other health issue, it wouldn't be cause for celebration, but I was at peace knowing that however our baby ended up turning out, God would give us the strength to continue to love him/her to the best of our ability. I'm not just saying that - I really honestly mean it.

So when our little girl popped out (well, she was delivered by c-section, but that's another story for another time), and it was announced that she was a girl, I was a bit surprised. Not because I didn't want a girl (far from it), but that I was so sure that it was a boy, based on a speaking error that the first ultrasound technician made - a definite slip of the tongue, that I bet my wife $500.00 that it was a boy - I was so sure of it (and I'm not a guy who bets at all). Well, either the technician and my wife knowingly played out a convincing subterfuge, or I simply learned a lesson to not be so sure of my ability to deduce subtle speaking errors. Either way, I am out five hundred bones.

It has been over two weeks since my daughter was born, and have to say, I am very glad that I have a girl. In retrospect, I think that it didn't have to take two weeks for me to realize this - I remember when she was born, I felt this immense pride and started crying in the operating room, though I limited my display since my wife probably didn't need to see me crying as she was being cut open.

Sure, babies are babies and you don't see the male/female differences coming out en masse, but there is just something special, something magical (I hate using that word, but I'll use it now) about a father holding onto his little girl. Sure, cliches abound, with "Daddy's Girl" and other monikers being tossed around, but you know, it feels different with a girl in tow. For me, it's as if I feel that I need to achieve a new level of protectionism for my child. I guess with boys, my inkling is that as they get older, they generally can learn to defend oneself and boys are generally a bit on the aggressive side anyway. Girls, on the other hand - call me old fashioned, but Trish Stratus aside, my way of thinking just does not include girls fighting off others using their fists, and such. And let's face it, and it's not paranoia - girls are more likely to be attacked by predators throughout their life. It is my job to protect my little girl, and I welcome the opportunity to be able to fulfill this role (this is by no means indicating that I look forward to kicking some as-of-yet-unknown male's ass in the future, but you know what I mean.

I also think about my wife and how she has probably had her fair share of my son and his Transformers fetish, following in the footsteps of his Dad. My son, praise God, will never be confused with a borderline (or even close) effeminate male. Of course, my wife, being a woman, probably has a harder time relating to him than a girl offspring - I mean, today my son was sick with a fever and in the late afternoon, I thought it would be relaxing if he and I took a bath together, but with squirt guns and super soakers in hand, shooting animal targets on the shower tap, and yelling in delight when we knocked the zebra or bear figurine into the water. I'm pretty sure this is not behaviour my wife would likely exhibit, so I am glad that we now have a girl that she will be able to relate to in due time, teach her how to become a woman, just like I am teaching my son how to become a man.

I also think - one day, she may decide to get married and have children of her own. I would be the one who would traditionally walk her down the aisle and hand her over to some guy who will obviously be taking my place as her future protector (or he better be, otherwise, he'll be the hypothetical aforementioned male who gets his ass kicked by yours truly).

In talking with my wife on this one, the second has definitely been easier, in most respects. I guess like anything else, we know what to expect, though obviously a lot can change quickly. We also leverage our son heavily, eliciting his help whenever necessary, to care for his new baby sister. He has, without question, been more than up to the task. Which I was reminded at church a couple of days ago by another parent, is something that we may have taken for granted - battling sibling jealously is something that just adds an extra layer of stress to an expanding family. Thankfully, we haven't had to deal with any of that, so yes, we are fortunate. Sure, our sleep patterns are no longer what they once were, once our son got accustomed to a regular bedtime and slept through the night and we can stay up and watch movies or whatever. On a day like today, where both kids are home and one is sick and the other is a bit fussy - well, I was telling my wife, it's hardly anything that I should complain about. The lack of sleep is not great, but that too, passes, as quickly as a toddler fart. I don't get those parents who want to have children badly, Very soon, our daughter will be sleeping through the night (hopefully sooner rather than later) and then she'll be talking and toilet training and then going to school, just like my little boy.