The Social Contract... wait, what?

Hey peeps!  Long time!  Thanks for tuning in!

Yes, I am still around, and I do occasionally think of interesting things, I've just been really busy playing Candy Crush for a while... ;)

All kidding  aside, I finally decided to write something down because a) I find myself with a little spare time this evening, and b) it occurs to me that perhaps not everyone (of the age of majority) in Canada knows that they are indeed participating in a social contract and what that entails.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a good book about the idea of a social contract a few hundred years ago.  It was called Leviathan; famous for it's rather quotable idea (often misquoted) that life 'in a state of nature is... nasty, brutish and short':  

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.^[5]

 Rousseau later wrote a book called (oddly enough) The Social Contract.  Both excellent works as far as I'm concerned. 

To save you the effort of reading them (I know you're busy too), I'll sum up:  in order to enjoy a life free from the constant anxiety found in a state of nature (i.e. free from worry that your neighbour will rise up against you at any time for any reason; free to pursue your pursuits, whatever they may be; free to actually walk around freely, without undue fear) society needed to get together and come up with some kind of agreement.  An agreement that would allow us to feel safe in our homes.  An agreement that it was indeed not cool to attack your neighbour just because you wanted some of the stuff in her house.  An agreement that society could be and should be civilized and that we, as citizens of that society, should work together for the greater good.

Clearly I am paraphrasing A LOT.  And obviously, I've left out a lot about their discussions regarding government  and personal liberties etc., but the essence of a social contract is that we, the people participating in the social contract, agree to do so willingly, for the greater good (our safety and our betterment is included in this greater good too).  And that we give up certain things in exchange for the security the social contract affords us.  Things like the freedom to kill others willy-nilly, or steal their stuff.

So what is this greater good you ask?  I'm glad you asked!  Hobbes mentions some things in the quote above.  Arts, letters (written works), society itself, commerce, exploration, (and I'm going further here now) advancements in technology, education, medicine.  This list could go on ad infinitum.  Essentially the greater good is that which is good for humankind, that which is good for the advancement of the species:  our species.  US.  All of us.  You and me.

One of the reasons that I've been thinking about the the idea of the social contract lately is that we, as a society, seem to have forgotten the idea of a greater good.  I don't know whether or not you've noticed this, but it seems to me that we have become incredibly self-absorbed.  To some degree it may be that we just aren't as polite as we used to be but even beyond that, it's as though nothing else matters but us.  You could call it self-absorbed-ness (I know, that's not a word).

Everyone with access to the internet seems to think that he or she is an expert on something (or everything) and that everyone else in the world needs to know this and should join in (read: follow his or her example).   There is a ridiculous ad being shared on the interwebs by Similac that is supposed to remind us (well, mothers I think) that despite our differences, we all have the same goals, but it really just serves to remind us how extreme we've become in our know-it-all-ness (again, I know it's not a word) and our self-absorbed-ness.  We are so busy surfing the web and trying to tell other people how great we are that we lose sight of what's really important:  the greater good.

There's that term again!  What is up with that?!?  Well, when we're parents, the greater good is raising our children and everything that goes into that.  But then of course, everyone is an expert on that too:  no one agrees on anything, and everyone does their own thing which does no one any good, least of all the children; who, as Whitney Houston told us, are our future.  I jest only slightly.  I really do believe that raising children is a very serious responsibility.  It's why I haven't chosen to do it:  I would probably mess it up.  Before any of you think I'm being judge-y about parents, I'm not:  I admire people who are creating our future.  It is a tough job raising children, and, as is evidenced by that commercial, lots of people are always judging you as a parent.  It is always easier to criticize than to create.

I think one of the reasons that parents in particular seem to have forgotten 'the greater good' is that there is SO much involved in being a parent.  People want to do the best they can.  They want to provide the best life they can for their kids; they want to make sure their kids are as best prepared for the big scary world (which we know from Thomas Hobbes can be nasty, brutish and short) as they can be.  They want to protect them from it for as long as they can, and they want to make sure that they are not hurt by it in any way.  Unfortunately, this is impossible.  No one is perfect.  Life is not perfect.  Life is not fair.  You are never going to prevent your child from ever getting hurt ever; no matter how much research you do.  Regardless of how much you love them and how hard you try:  you can't always protect them from everything.  They have to live in this world.

But in our efforts to protect our children from the nasty brutish world, we seem to have lost sight of why we have a social contract in the first place.  Of course our instincts have always been to protect our children (it's why vaccines were developed in the first place), and now that most of us have never seen first hand what life in a developing nation is like, we have no idea the privilege we've been granted by our ancestors who first created the social contracts which enabled the societies we live in today.

As a result of social contracts, we, Canadians, enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world.  (I know, I've seen the discrepancies.)  With very few exceptions: we have hot and cold running water in our homes; we have national highways and railways from coast to coast to coast.  We have an airline that flies coast to coast to coast.  We have phone service all over the country.  (And we take all of this for granted:  not everyone can get anywhere in their country easily, or phone anyone from anywhere.)  We have universal healthcare (granted it's a little broken, but if you're having a heart attack, you'll be taken care of).  We have universal public education (again, not perfect, but it's pretty good and it's covered by your taxes).  We have labour laws.  We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  We have the right (obligation) to elect our own government, and the right to complain about it.  These are just the basics;  we have world class universities, museums, hospitals, and there is so much more, too much to list.  Compare all of this to life in Hobbes's state of nature:  we would have none of that if no one ever thought beyond what was best for him or herself (or their children).

So what is the actual greater good?  I'm sure people would debate that too.  A little bit of knowledge (and access to Google) can be a dangerous thing.

My short definition of the greater good is the advancement of humankind; not at any cost mind you, but overall.  I know that's easy for me to say when I have no children.  I know that your life changes completely when you have a child and that nothing else seems to be very important anymore (this seems to hold true for people in my life anyway).   

From a slightly distanced perspective (i.e. not a parent) it seems to me that the more import we put on ourselves and our children (i.e. the good of the one or few over the good of the many) the closer we get to being back in a state of nature.

I don't want to live like that.  Do you?

If we've learned anything from Star Trek, it's that Spock is usually right and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Until next time, drive safe!

Lesley

GSAs Part Deux

Hello my peeps!

In the interest of closure, I thought I should write a little post letting everyone know that the Ontario Catholic school trustees have changed their collective mind - a little - and decided to allow clubs in Catholic schools (not gay-straight alliances) which are focused on helping students who are bullied because they are gay. Here is the Toronto Star's article on the story.

Yay! It may seem like a small victory, but it's still nice to celebrate.

Peace out peeps, and don't forget to vote on Monday!

Mobbing the Vote

Happy Easter Everybody!

I guess it's about time that I posted a little bit about our current election. I just haven't been inspired to this time; until now.

There really hasn't been much of a campaign in my opinion. It seems to me to be mostly a scare campaign with each major party trying to scare you out of voting for the other. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but all the ads and all the headlines seem to be more about the same old stuff: Harper's evil (which of course we know is true, you can see it in his eyes) and wants to kill healthcare, Ignatieff is not really Canadian because he spent too long away from Canada (in the States and England) and only came back to be Prime Minister, and Layton is all about the 'ordinary' Canadians ('cuz anyone who has a post secondary education or is middle-class doesn't really count).

If you actually go to the Liberal and NDP sites and read their platforms they have some interesting stuff that isn't negative about the other guys (not a casual use of the word). Iggy wants to help us with childcare and education. They both want to help with job creation and healthcare. I'm not going to reprint their entire platforms for you, but you can follow the links if you're interested. If you go to the Conservative site, the first thing you see is a negative blurb about one of the other leaders. Nice.

Regardless, I'm pretty tired of hearing negative advertising myself. They all do it and they're all acting like children in my opinion. If they can't get elected on their own merits, then they're clearly not worthy of election. However I know that politics is all about the negative advertising now because that's what we respond to apparently. What does that say about us, the electorate? I don't think it says anything good.

It's a shame that the only candidates we have to choose from are name-calling, power-hungry adolescents who don't seem to have our best interests in mind. If they really did, they wouldn't behave the way they do. They would actually accomplish things when they got elected. They would try to work together despite their differences for the benefit of the people (you know, the people for whom they work). It's clear that our system has broken down to the point where those who have either been elected to or who work for the government in the bureaucracy have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people. It should be viewed as a privilege to serve in public office, but instead it seems from the actions of those who are currently elected officials that the prevailing attitude is rather one of entitlement to rule and behave badly - and not be held accountable.

Our elected officials in Ottawa do not believe that their spending of public money should be subject to audit. They expect to have their cake and eat it too. And we let them.

So the original point of this post was about a relatively new phenomenon: vote mobs. In case you don't know what one is here's a link to an article about the first ever. Ah, to be young again! These are happening all over the country and I say good on 'em! They're good clean fun and they get the message out: go vote!

Today's particular post was inspired by a different kind of article though. Not surprisingly it was a negative article by a former Stephen Harper lackey who thinks that vote mobs are bad. Why? Because it would be just awful to have a bunch of uninformed kids running around exercising their rights and making decisions regarding who should run our country. Umm, okay (that's sarcasm just in case it didn't translate well).

I guess we should start giving every person who votes a test before they do so to ensure that they know why they're voting for the candidates they're choosing. Perhaps we should start verifying education documents as well. We wouldn't want people of any age really who are uninformed making decisions about important things. Maybe we should just take the decision-making out of the hands of the people altogether because really, they can't be trusted to make the right decisions: they don't have all the relevant facts. (Again with the sarcasm, sorry, I just can't help myself.)

Obviously I think vote mobs are a good thing. They look fun, they seem harmless and they're inspiring. If even half of those people vote, then that's fabulous as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if my little rant was a little meander-y, but that's just how I'm rolling today.

Have a good long weekend and drive safe! Peace out!

Catholic Schools Ban GSAs? That's a Shocker!

Greetings my Friends,

I hope all is well with you on this sunny (in the GTA anyway) Sunday.

Today's little story came to me through an email from a friend of mine who is, understandably, alarmed at this news. His email didn't contain the actual story but I have great faith in him. Most of you don't know him so I'm including a link the The Globe's story.

If you don't want to jump to the Globe, I'll sum up: St Joseph's Catholic Secondary in Mississauga has decided not to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. This is not terribly surprising to me. It is a Catholic school.

PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM CONDONING OR AGREEING WITH THE DECISION. I am simply not surprised. I was raised as a Catholic and anyone who follows the goings-on in the Vatican should know that the Papacy officially frowns on homosexual behaviour. (I'm not even going to start on priests.) The Catholic Church frowns on any type of sexual behaviour outside of marriage too (marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman), and even within a marriage it really should only be for the sake of procreation. Seriously.

So, having said that, let's look at what institution is making this decision. An aging, fearful, corrupt one. I'm not suggesting that each and every Catholic is old, scared and corrupt/evil. I'm talking high-level.

I am not and have never been a Church-basher. The Catholic Church has been responsible for a lot of good in the course of modern history. They educated and nursed the poor (in droves); they provided light where there was only dark for many. They helped untold numbers of people. They gave me a good education and I never once was abused (neither were my brothers). However, they have also been responsible for their share of bad. I'm sure I don't need to go into it, but I think the biggest mistake the Church is making is not evolving.

Things which don't change die. The Church refuses to accept that the world and the people in it are not the same as we were 2,000 years ago. We are not afraid of the dark anymore. A growing number of us do not even believe in their God and thus we cannot be cowed into obediance with threats of everlasting hell.

There have been gay people as long as there have been people: that hasn't changed. What has changed is society's acceptance of difference. I'm not gay, but my friend who sent me the email offers this:

Growing up gay in suburban Toronto during the nineties was not easy. Feeling different from a young age, and hitting puberty with an attraction to the same-sex, I realized very quickly my environment was not friendly towards such feelings.

My attempts to suppress my attraction, and fit in, led to a major depression in my early teens, with self-destructive behaviours that were all-consuming.

The only support groups for gay teens were in downtown Toronto at the time, and accessing these supports was difficult for a north of Steeles Avenue teenager on a school-night. It involved making up stories about where I disappeared to every Tuesday night, and feeling there was no space for gay teenagers in the suburbs.

I was lucky enough to meet other gay, lesbian and bisexual students in my Thornhill public high school, and together we started York Region’s first LGBTQ support group in Richmond Hill , open to all youth living in York Region. With the support of the York Region Public Health Department, we secured a space, and were happy to see large numbers of youth attend these meetings, finding a place to grow their self-esteem and realize they were not alone. This group became very meaningful for me, and for many other youth who were struggling with isolation.

Perhaps I'm a little too jaded sometimes, but part of me thinks, is anyone really surprised by this school's decision? It's the second recently. The Halton District Catholic School Board had it's similar decision overturned (and I assume the same will happen here). Perhaps we shouldn't be sending our kids to Catholic schools if we don't want them to be excluded.

Perhaps most important to remember: the Catholic schools in Ontario are no longer separate. They are entirely funded by public money now. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. These are not Catholic schools any more, these are public schools that teach the Catholic religion. Of course, either way, individuals should not have to feel invisible or excluded. Either way, all kids should feel that they have a voice and a safe place at school.

That's all I've got for now peeps!

Peace out,

Judge Blames Victim in Sexual Assault Case? In Canada!

Hey Peeps!

Hope all is well with everyone.

A friend of mine posted a link to this article on Facebook.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at first. The I clicked on a few more stories (here's CBC's) and it seems to be true. A judge actually let a convicted rapist go free without jail time because the woman the rapist assaulted was dressed provocatively.

I'm in a little bit of shock right now. I know that there are still men in the world (and even this country) who probably believe that women 'deserve' to be raped, or 'are asking for it' when they're dressed in short skirts and tight tops and are wearing make-up, but I used to think that the men we trusted in our judicial system were more enlightened. I used to think that women who were brave enough to face their rapists would at least find some justice in the system and would be able to feel safe for a little while whilst their attackers were thinking about their actions in jail. I used to think that our justice system was moving forward, not backwards.

It seems that I was mistaken. This makes me sad. Decisions like this reinforce the idea that we really are not even close to being equals. Every now and then I get a little bit too optimistic, and I believe that we're moving towards equality in a slow, but steady manner; then something like this happens and I'm reminded that we're really only half a step above the state we were at when we weren't even allowed to own property.

I have nothing more to say about this right now.

Drive safe peeps,

Abortion? Again???

Why People Why????

Have they nothing better to do with their time? Seriously? Are there not more important issues concerning their constituents that they should be worried about? I think yes. Child poverty, health care, education, the military action in Afghanistan: these are but a few of the issues that are current, urgent and far more real than what some of our MPs seem to be spending their time and our money on.

According to a story in The Toronto Star today, some people are under the misapprehension that there is still such a thing as an 'abortion debate' in Canada. Are they not aware of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? According to section 7:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

As far as I'm concerned, this means I'm allowed to do whatever is necessary to secure my life as it is and I have the right not to be deprived of that right. Of course, I also must not be depriving any other person who also has a life and is entitled to the same rights.

Further, according to section 15:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This means that I cannot be discriminated against because I am a woman. Since only women can have abortions, then it follows (granted in a somewhat odd fashion) that preventing women from having abortions is discriminating against them.

Women have just as much right to self-determination as men do. Period. When are these people going to catch up? The so-called abortion debate is sooo twenty years ago. Or maybe they just can't come up with solutions to real problems so since they feel a need to be in the news, they figure they'll push our buttons about this.

Hmpf!

Peace out peeps,
Lesle

Ordinary People Don't Like the Arts?

You just had to know that I would respond to that one! However, before I finished my response, Margaret Atwood responded even more eloquently in the Globe and Mail last week:

MARGARET ATWOOD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an "estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined)."

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called "ordinary people" didn't care about something called "the arts." His idea of "the arts" is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an "ordinary person." Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. "Ordinary people" pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for "the arts" in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. "The arts" are not a "niche interest." They are part of being human.

Moreover, "ordinary people" are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. "Ordinary people" have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and "ordinary people" will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is "ordinary." It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of "ordinary people." He's the "niche interest." Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is "ideologically motivated." Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!

I don't think I need to add anything to that. Thanks for reading, and please remember to vote peeps!

Highway of Heroes

Good evening my friends,

I hope you are all well and ready for another exciting election season! ;)

Before I start in on our wonderful political landscape, I wanted to write about our 'Highway of Heroes'. I'm not sure how familiar anyone is with that name so I'll explain: sometime last year it was decided that a stretch of the 401 (or, more formally, the Macdonald-Cartier freeway) should be sub-named in honour of our deceased soldiers returning from Afghanistan. The stretch from Trenton to Toronto was chosen because the soldiers' bodies are flown to Trenton then transported via the freeway to Toronto.

I'm not writing this post about war, or about whether or not our soldiers should be there. It's not up to them where they go; they are brave enough to join our military and they are heroes regardless of what happens. This post is about us. The people who stay here. The people for whom the soldiers fight. The people who do not even think about those soldiers most of the time. I have a tendency to be somewhat cynical about us. Sometimes it seems as though we are heading quickly into hell in a hand-basket without any signs of slowing down. However, every now and then something happens and I feel as though there may be hope.

The highway of heroes gives me hope. If you haven't been on it or around it when soldiers have been coming home then you're missing something. Sorry. Twice in the past week I've been on the 401 when soldiers were coming home (which is probably why I'm writing this now). It makes me sad to think that twice in the past week we've lost Canadian soldiers, but it gives me hope to see all of the people who turn up to show their respect just by standing on an overpass and waving a flag. The first time I experienced it I didn't know what was going on because there were only police vehicles and personnel, firetrucks and fighters and other emergency personnel. The vehicles' lights were all flashing. We only found out later (from a firefighter) that they were showing their solidarity and respect in the best way they could think of.

The emergency personnel still come and flash their lights, but the overpasses are all crowded with ordinary citizens now from end to end. They hang the maple leaf flags overhead and they stand in silent vigil. It reminded me this past week that society is not wholly lost. There are still good citizens who care about what happens to others and about the good deeds done by those who have given their lives to protect ours (however remote that may seem).

I may not drink beer or play hockey, but I am Canadian and I am proud to be so.

Thanks for coming out, and drive safe peeps,

Dr. Morgantaler, I presume?

Greetings loyal friends and readers.

Happy summer to you all! Well at least to those of you living in the northern hemisphere. To those who do not, I wish a jolly cozy winter!

Enough with the niceties though. I've been thinking a fair amount recently about the appointment of Dr. Henry Morgantaler to the Order of Canada.

As you may expect, I think that this was an appropriate decision. If you know anything about his history, you don't need me to explain why, or if you read the story in the link, you also don't need me to explain why. I will simply state here that Dr. Morgantaler was perhaps the single most important figure in Canada's road to legalizing abortion.

What I've been thinking about though isn't really about what Dr. Morgantaler has done, or why I feel he is so worthy of one of our country's greatest honours. I was thinking about the other members of the Order, a former lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, Gilbert Finn, a B.C. Priest, and a charity organization whose founder received the award posthumously, the Madonna House, who have either returned their awards or have stated publicly that they are going to because the Order has been 'degraded', 'devalued' and 'tarnished' by Morgantaler's membership.

Why am I focussed on this you ask? Predominantly because Canadians are, in general, polite, and the actions mentioned above are not at all polite. Why were they doing this? What was their motivation? Clearly this was a good opportunity for at least one or two of these people to get another fifteen minutes of fame. I'm torn on how to feel about the Madonna House people's motivation. The award wasn't really theirs. Who are they to give it back? Regardless, it struck me that people have become so entirely self-centred and self-serving that it doesn't seem to matter that they are insulting our country. They have been granted one of the highest distinctions available in our country and they are publicly throwing it back in our faces and spitting on it. Figuratively of course. Who would even do that with a gift you didn't really want? Did no one teach them manners? It's as though they were invited to a party and arrived and found out that someone they don't like was also invited so they make a big fuss about not staying, but they're probably going to take their loot bags with them.

It's one thing for anti-abortion activists to protest in front of Rideau Hall. People are always protesting something (they clearly have known no real hardship in their lives and thus need some excitement) and they will continue to do so until they get what they want (which will never happen). It is a whole other thing for someone who has done good works and has been recognized by the government as such to publicly protest the government's decisions in such a gross and childish manner.

If they felt this strongly about abortion then why did they accept the awards in the first place? Abortion was legalized by the government, not by Dr. Morgantaler. If it's abortion they abhor, they should be protesting at abortion clinics or at the legislative buildings in Ottawa. That's where abortion became legal. Instead, they're simply discriminating against one man who was brave enough to stand up for what he believed in to the point of incarceration, death threats and attempts on his life.

As far as I'm concerned the abortion issue is closed. Any person should have the right to self-determination. That is a basic human right in Canada. Abortion became legal in 1988. Twenty years ago it was decided that a woman should not have to ask a committee for permission. It took a long time to get to that point. Dr. Morgantaler was instrumental in that process. He was a key figure and a leader in his field. He deserves the Order of Canada just as much as Wayne Gretzky.

Thanks for stopping by!

Drive safe peeps,

Election Day Approacheth in Ontario

Greetings Good Peoples,

I hope you are all well, and I would like to thank any of you who are actually still clicking on my little blog occasionally to see whether or not my writer's block has ended yet.

I'm hoping it has. I have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to start blogging again, but those posts are still in draft form and are still incomplete.

Anyway, if there's one thing that may spur me into action, it is an election! Ontario is having a provincial election tomorrow and I'd like to urge all of you Ontarians to vote. As any of my regular readers may know, I am a huge supporter of participating in the electoral process; which, for most people, means voting. I don't even view the right to vote as a privilege (which it may be for some who do not possess it), I view it as an obligation. It is a duty to which we, as participants in our social contracts, are bound. How can we expect our political representatives to know what we want if we don't tell them? Further, how do we know which representative will best represent us if we don't get involved and find out what they (or their party) stand for?

This particular vote is especially important because it contains a referendum (yes! we can have them too!). If this is news to you (and you're an Ontarian) I urge you to visit YourBigDecision to see what all the hoopla is about. I'm not going to explain everything here, but the government is asking its citizens whether we want to keep our current electoral system (first-past-the-post) or if we want to change to a mixed system which involves both first-past-the-post and mixed-member-proportional. Please click on the link for further explanation of these. I don't want to explain these options in a perhaps slanted way.

As of this time, I have still not decided how I am going to mark my ballot tomorrow, but mark it I will, and I will do so with the knowledge that I have done all that I could to determine what I think are the best options for our province.

Thanks again for your time, and thanks for your patience.

Drive safe peeps,
Lesle

Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!

Hi Everybody,

It's that time of year again... Nope, not spring, because as the weather has just reminded us here in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), we really can't rely on the past to help us figure out the weather's behaviour in the present (maybe it's supposed to be spring, but no... some more snow for us). No, now is the time when all the little accountants start sharpening their little pencils and stacking up the rolls of adding machine paper (I don't really know the name of that paper, sorry). It's Tax Season folks!!!

Aren't you all excited? I am! Well, I was, but I got my refund two weeks ago, so my excitement has subsided a little. I have safely tucked most of it away (no I'm not telling where!). I am kidding about getting really excited about tax time; slightly. Taxes are so easy now if you use software and file on-line that it literally takes only a week (maybe two if you file closer to the deadline) to get your assessment. If you have arranged for direct deposit, and you're getting a refund of your hard-earned money, then the money is in your account before you even get the paper assessment.

But I digress. My excitement was not why I wanted to discuss taxes today. A friend of mine sent me an email today that reminded me that I've wanted to discuss taxes before (but clearly had not gotten around to it). This is what she sent me:

Explaining Taxation

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1
* The sixth would pay $3
* The seventh would pay $7
* The eighth would pay $12
* The ninth would pay $18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings... the least proportionate savings)

Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings: "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Okay, that may be a slightly heavy-handed example, but it's essentially true. As much of a socialist as I am (sort of), I am not a fanatic and I do understand money management. People (media, politicians) like to grab headlines, but the bottom line is that a tax cut is not 'free money' for anyone. It simply means that the amount of taxes we have to pay is proportionately less. That's why they call refunds; refunds. We're getting our money back. It was our money to begin with. It may seem as though the wealthy are getting a break when others are not (or are not getting much of one), but only because they were paying more originally. If we're not paying any taxes, then there is nothing to refund. If we're paying some, then we'll get some back, and if we pay lots, we'll get more back.

The bottom line for me is that I support paying taxes. I don't think I've ever complained about it, and I know several others who feel the same way. I think that we need to pay taxes to keep our social services alive and well. Yes, I am aware that there are some serious problems with our social services in Canada, and I am also aware that the more wealthy you are, the more opportunites your accountant will find to save you tax money. But, the wealthy (and businesses) still pay more in taxes than middle income or low income earners, and when there is a cut, the dollar value looks better for the wealthiest, even if the percentage doesn't.

When you enter into a social contract, there are benefits to be gained and there are obligations imposed. The taxes are one of the obligations we must meet so that we can benefit from living in one of the most developed nations in the world. Benefits like socialized healthcare and welfare, and passable roads and clean drinking water running hot and cold from our taps inside our homes (for the most part; if you don't have a home, you're probably not paying taxes).

I hope this little post of mine hasn't offended anyone!

Drive safe peeps!

Quandary over a Quagmire

Hello Friends,

I hope you are all well. I have had a somewhat tumultuous couple of weeks and have not been able to devote any time to blogging for a little while, but I've managed to squeeze a little time in now.

Updates:

The provincial Liberals in Quebec won the election, but barely. It was a very close race and I'm sure many people were biting their nails last Monday. The Liberals have formed a minority government, with the new guys, wild card party Action Democratique du Quebec (ADQ), forming the opposition. By the way, I must print a correction to my former post: the ADQ has not clearly and unequivocally stated that theirs is a party of separatists. I apologize for the misinformation. So, the newly formed government in Quebec is tenuous at best, but we'll have to keep watching to see how things unfold in the next little while.

Thank you to everyone for all your support of the WWF and my annual climb up the CN Tower!!! You are all very generous and kind! I promise to make it to the top and make you all proud.

I'm sure you're all wondering what any of that has to do with the title of my post today, and frankly, it has nothing to do with it. However, the reason I was prompted to write today was by a quandary. In fact, a quandary over a potential quagmire.

A friend of mine sent me an email, complete with not just one, but two, YouTube Links (the second one just includes interviews with people on the street) regarding this issue today.

The net of these are that the 'government' has decided to build a landfill in Tiny Township (yes, that really is its name, and yes, it's in Ontario). I know, we all make garbage, we all have to deal with it somehow. However, the quandary arises in this situation when we discover that the purest water on earth (literally) originates from Arteysian wells there. It's one thing to dump garbage in a place where the water is already tainted or the soil has already been contaminated, but the purest water on earth? One of the reasons they want to use this land is because of the unique formulation of clay which results in a super efficient filtering system (that's my paraphrase, not to be quoted) which will, theoretically, help with the breaking down of the garbage etc. eventually. However, it is precisely that filtering system which produces the purest water on earth, and if the filters get all clogged up with garbage, how effective will they be on the water? All indicators are that they will not be effective at all any more.

So what do we think about this? The people in Tiny Township don't want their water tainted, but we keep making more and more garbage and we have to have places to put it don't we? The citizens there have agreed to have a landfill built in their (county?), but they disagree with the location chosen. Should the local residents not be able to have a vote in this type of decision? I clearly don't have all the answers, but it doesn't look to me as though this is your typical 'not in my backyard' situation. I think maybe the government (whichever level it is) should listen to the residents (because the citizens are the people for whom the elected officials work) and try to come up with a solution that doesn't involve polluting the purest water on earth.

I know it's difficult to know where to draw the line. If we accede to this request, then how many local environmental groups will we have given ammunition to? It may open a Pandora's box of sorts that we don't want to have to face. However, just because we want to avoid confrontation doesn't mean that we shouldn't do the right thing. We should not make decisions based on what the results may lead to in other cases; we should make these decisions on the particulars of each case in point.

One of the best things about being Canadian is that we have a fabulous country. I mean geographically, or geophysically. Ours is a beautiful land. We have tonnes of water. Some of it is pure, some of it is not so pure (e.g. Lake Ontario). That doesn't mean that we should deliberately poison some just because we have more and it's the most politically expedient solution.

Rant over for today folks.

Drive safe & car pool when you can peeps,

Quebec Votes 2007

Good Rainy Morning to you!

I don't know what it's like where you are, but it's raining like crazy here in the Big Smoke. It was sunny when I was driving to work, then about an hour later it was pouring, then it stopped, then it was pouring, now it's drizzling... Like I said, crazy! However, the temperature is a balmy 14 degrees Celsius and I am pretty pleased with that. I think we may be on the road to spring!

So, with spring in mind, I'd like to point out a little something to my faithful friends: Quebec is having a provincial election on Monday and apparently, the Liberals may not win! Follow along with the CBC to keep tabs on the nail-biting, mud-slinging, name-calling race.

Some of you who are Canadian, will understand what it means for the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) not to win the provincial election: the issue of separation will once again rear its ugly head. If the Liberals are not elected to government, then (most likely) the Parti Quebecois (PQ) will be elected; although that is also not guaranteed any longer because there is a relatively new player, the Action Democratique de Quebec (ADQ), that is right up at the top of the polls with the other two. Both the PQ and the ADQ are sovereigntist parties. Therefore, if either of these two form the provincial government in Quebec, there will be more, and louder, and more insistent talk of referendums and separating from the rest of Canada.

The rest of Canada (as far as I know) doesn't want them to separate; aside from the whole 'losing a vital part of your country and its history' thing, we'd be cutting our country in half and that would mess up our maps. Thus, I will be following the results on Monday as closely as I can. I'll have to do it in French, but that's cool; they say better stuff in French anyway.

I'm not sure how many of you knew about the upcoming election, or the platforms of the parties or how the race was going, or anything like that. As I was reading the French language articles on canoe.ca from Quebec I began to realize that I should have been aware of more than I was. There's a lot of stuff going on in our country that we don't know about because we don't read their newspapers, or watch local French news, etc. It occurred to me that if we (the rest of Canada) always wait until the horse has left before closing the barn door (so to speak) then we're not going to be able to have any credibility with the Quebecois. Or, to put it more simply: Most of us are going to wait until a separatist party is elected before we even think about the fact that a large amount of people in Quebec are willing to separate from Canada.

I don't think that's a good idea. I know it seems as though there is nothing we, the rest of Canada, can do since we don't get to vote in a referendum, but perhaps we're wrong. What if we did think about it more? What if we tried to make it an issue with our MPs? What if we told them that we wanted Quebec to be a part of Canada and that we wanted making that happen a priority? Isn't that what government is for? Aren't the elected officials supposed to represent the will of the people? Are we not obligated to take an active role in public life in some way as part of our social contract? Yes. To all of those questions. If we want something to be done, we should not wait until the milk is spilling to start crying about it. We should be working pre-emptively to try to prevent the milk jug from tipping over in the first place.

I am as guilty as the next person. It wasn't until my friend from Quebec pointed these articles out to me that I woke up to the realization that all sorts of wierd political stuff is going on in Quebec right now and that a separatist party just might win the election on Monday.

We (the rest of Canada) may be 'tired' of hearing about Quebec's distinct society, or some of us may think they should just let it go because they've had two referendums and lost both; but at least the Quebecois care about their nation and their politics. That's more than you can say for most of the rest of us. (I'm not suggesting that their position is a good one.) Would we all get out and vote if we were allowed to vote in the referendum? I'm not sure that all of the people I know would.

Rant over for today, thanks for coming along for the ride!

Drive safe peeps,

I'm Climbing the CN Tower Again

Greetings Good People,

Spring is beginning to spring here in what used to be called "Toronto the Good' and 'Toronto the Clean'. With a high of ten or eleven degrees Celsius yesterday and today, much of the snow and ice is beginning to melt, leaving behind an awful lot of... dirt. This isn't just normal dirt like the kind you used to dig up in your backyard as a kid. This isn't just bits of gravel or sand used by the snow clearing trucks when they're salting the roads. This is dirt of all kinds.

This is dog dirt that people thought they would just leave because it was cold and no one would notice anyway in the snow. It is actual garbage that people didn't bother to throw in a bin . It is cigarette butts, pop cans, fast food packaging, lost gloves, windshield fluid bottles, and probably anything else that you can think of. This is the kind of garbage that makes cities in developing nations smell (I know; I've been there). However, they are developing nations, we live in what is supposed to be one of the richest nations in the world. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world and we're throwing garbage around as if we live in a sty. Clearly I am not impressed with my fellow citizens lately.

This brings me to my point today: with spring springing and garbage polluting our rivers and lakes (and just about everything else in the GTA), it is time once again to start thinking about Earth Week, which happens once a year, and during that week, the World Wildlife Fund in Canada holds their major fundraiser for the year. They challenge people to raise money and climb the stairs in the CN Tower. There are 1776 stairs. This is (strangely enough) not quite as hard as it may sound. It's not easy, but it's doable. Even for me. I've done it probably ten times now. This year the team challenge is on Thursday, April 26th. Here is a link to the website if you'd like more info.

Some of you will be getting personal invitations to sponsor me (because you know me personally and I have your email addresses), however, if any of you who may not know me very well would like to sponsor me, I've included a link below.

It seems that everyone is talking about the environment these days. It has become a very popular topic, especially since Al Gore did his little presentation about it. The WWF has been working to protect wildlife and wild spaces for years. They have been fighting the reduction of wilderness; they have been fighting to protect the coral reefs; they have been working hard to protect spaces in which indigenous plants and animals may continue to exist without fear of extinction. This is not new to them. They've been working on this for years. They are not extremists, like some people believe Greenpeace and PETA are. If you'd like to review their record for yourselves, please visit their website www.wwf.ca.


This is a link to my page if you'd like to sponsor me: Please Sponsor Lesley. I would greatly appreciate any support (including emotional!) you may be able to give.

Drive safe peeps,

Tragedies

Greetings from snowy Toronto,

Sorry I've been slacking with the posts of late and only putting up videos, but they were good songs weren't they? Please forgive me, I've been distracted.

So, as I was reading through news headlines today, I found this:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/sask_child_shot

This is a tragic incident. An eight year old girl was shot and killed by accident with a rifle by her fourteen year old brother in their home. Their parents and another brother were also home at the time. I'm sure they're all feeling all kinds of guilt right now.

I'm not going to rant too long or hard about this one. One of the things that first came to my mind when reading this story is that this is another death that our infamous gun registry would not have prevented. However, blaming the colossal waste of money and resources that is our nation's gun registry is not going to bring this little girl back to life.

My next point is directed specifically at NRA types who like to say that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Yes, typically someone has to pull the trigger, but if the boy was moving a hammer or even an axe, his sister would still be alive.

My final (though not least important) point is that this did not make national front page news. The CBC's news landing page has lots of other tragic stuff on it (dozens dead in Baghdad bombings, 34 452 civilians killed in Iraq last year, Brazilian subway collapse); but that's my point (though not made very well =). There is so much tragedy happening in the world right now (and for so long) that the accidental shooting death of one little girl in a small town in Saskatchewan isn't important enough to make the front page of our nation's public broadcasting website.

I'm not suggesting that the producers or editors at CBC are necessarily doing a bad job: this story made the provincial page. I'm just commenting on the state of our world today. I know, you don't really need me to point it out to you, but every now and then it hits me hard and makes me a little more sad.

On that note, I leave you.

Drive safe peeps,

The Weather Outside is Frightful

Hello Beautiful People,

I don't know how many of you are in southern Ontario, but just to inform those of you who aren't, it's freakin' cold here now. It has officially become winter. This happened practically overnight! It was 17 degrees last (ummm Tuesday / Wednesday?), then BLAM! Highs of 0, lows of -6. Factor in the windchill and it feels like -13! What the hell? All of a sudden I need to get my winter tires on!

As many of you know, southern Ontario is not the only place in the country where unseasonal weather has been occurring. Vancouver (and the lower mainland), for instance, had floods (so bad that they had a boil water advisory for 12 days), then they had freezing rain and snow (this all happened while it was warm in Toronto). The east coast went through similar unseasonably warm weather, but theirs was more wet than Toronto's and I believe it's been kind of slushy of late.

You're probably all saying, so what? If we want the weather, we can go to the weather network's page (and you are correct). My point today is simply to highlight the following:

1 - I don't like winter in Toronto (it's way too cold for me)
2 - Our climate is changing

Ignoring the first point (because there isn't really anything we can do about that except move), I'll move to the second. I think it should be pretty clear to even the most staunch hold-outs by now that our climate is changing. Regardless of why, they must be able to look at the empirical evidence and and recognize the facts in the same way as everyone else. Our climate is warming. Nay-sayers like to say that this has happened before (the average temperatures in the world have risen a degree or two), but not to this degree, not since the industrial revolution and not at such a great rate of increase.

It is harder for us (the environmentalists among us) to clearly point to all of the reasons for this, and it's not worth anyone's time to try to 'hold anyone (country, company, industry, etc.) responsible'. Our responsibilites as stewards of the earth are to figure out what is happening and how we can best survive without using up all of the world's natural, renewable resources. We need to find reasonable, efficient methods of powering our world or we will run out and the earth will be spent. It's as simple as that.

Thus ends my rant for today. Have fun in the snow if you've got any. I will be driving with my seat-heater turned on today.

Drive safe peeps,

George Stroumboulopoulos Plays Softball with Belinda

Greetings Good People,

I know, it's been a while, but you know me... I've been busy getting lost in the dark. So, I apologize and I would sincerely appreciate your forgiveness.

Moving on... CBC's The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos began its new season last week (how very exciting!) and like a good little Canadian, I've been watching it. Partly because it's Canadian, and partly because George amuses me; he makes me smile and frankly, I can use all the help I can get these days climbing back up out of the dark place. But I digress.

One of his first guests was Belinda Stronach and he did bring up the Tie Domi affair, but he let her off easily. She practically admitted it and he just let the statement float by without pouncing on it (la la la... I'm not listening). If you want to watch the whole interview, you can view it here:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1075

One of the points George made is that everyone is concerned about her personal life (i.e. whom she's dating) because she's a woman. However, I think that's wrong. He mentioned the next day after receiving email about it that he wasn't going to ask because he wouldn't ask a man. Well, isn't that nice and polite of him? I guess that's why we all love him so much. How very Canadian.

However, as a woman, I'd like to know why he didn't ask her why she thinks it's okay to commit adultery. I am nowhere near being a Conservative, nor am I a member of the religious right, but seriously folks: she practically admitted to being an adulterer on national television and George let it go. Yes, I know it happens all the time, and I know that you shouldn't judge someone until you've walked a day in her shoes, but she is one of the most powerful women in Canada and is supposed to be a role model for young women. What kind of a message is she sending? I seriously don't care about whom Belinda is dating, but could she not wait to go out in public with him until the separation papers were filed? Yes, I am holding her to a higher standard. It may seem unfair, but that's part of what you get when you sign up for the job. She is an elected official. I think George was going easy on her specifically because she is a woman and a newbie at politics. She's not ready for prime time and he knew it. Doesn't he realize that it's more insulting to treat someone with kid gloves than it is to give them a place at the grown-ups' table and let them take their lumps like everyone else? Maybe Belinda doesn't mind being babied because she's a woman and a newbie, but it bothers me. And yes, I would feel the same way about a single male politician committing adultery and admitting to it on national television.

Aside from the whole role model aspect, it bothers me that Belinda is a cheater. She broke the code. It's one of those unwritten female rules: you don't cheat with someone else's guy, even if you don't like her. You wouldn't want it to happen to you. If he wants you enough, he should break up with her first; if he doesn't then he's not worth it. Because if he's willing to cheat on her, then he's willing to cheat on you. I used to respect Belinda; I don't anymore.

For a little while I thought maybe George had lost more than his nose-ring. Then I saw him interview Iggy, and then Charles McVety and I regained a little faith. I will continue to watch Gemini-award-winning George. He makes me laugh and he interviews interesting people.

Thanks for dropping by.

Peace out peeps,

Anastasia De Sousa, Rest in Peace

Greetings,

It was another dark day for Canadians when Kimveer Gill decided to go on a rampage and shoot up Dawson College in Montreal. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past few days, go here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dawson-college/

for the full story. I don't think I have to recap much. Alienated young man hates life and himself and decides to take out his frustrations on the rest of the world with his gun, then shoots himself in the head in a stand-off with police.

I think you can probably all guess what my opinion of random, senseless killing is. While I have all the understanding in the world for people who feel lost and alienated (being a bit of a loner myself), there is absolutely no excuse for that kind of behaviour. If he needed help, he could have asked. He lived in Canada. We have social programs for everything. I will go out on a limb and say that our system isn't perfect. I will even go so far as to say that sometimes life is difficult even with help, but that does not now and will never excuse killing as a cry for attention.

As I was watching all the news coverage (or listening to it) after the initial shock wore off and the actual emergency was over, the coverage focussed predominantly on how this could have been prevented. The news on Friday (I think) was highlighting the fact that he purchased his guns legally, and that the infamous gun registry failed. I don't think that this proves that it failed; au contraire, I think that it proves that it works admirably in showing that the registry was pointless in the first place. A gun registry is not going to prevent incidents such as this. What this shows is that this particular person was in need of serious help and didn't get it. This sort of thing is becoming all too frequent and is certainly indicative of a greater societal ill, but the gun registry is not to blame. (I believe the guns used in Colombine were also legal, but don't quote me on that.)

The point of this particular little rant of mine is that the news coverage was all too ready to focus on how we could have prevented this tragedy, and they were talking to security specialists, counselors, police and people on the street. They were all looking for answers and reassurance. They wanted to be able to pin the blame on someone, and since the gunman was dead, we couldn't really blame him any longer. That bothered me. Our society has come to a state where we have to find an excuse/reason for everything. I understand why they want the reassurance; they want someone to tell them everything's going to be all right and it won't happen to them. They want to know that their little world is secure and that if anyone does anything like this to them (or theirs), then they will at least be able to sue someone. They're looking for security in an increasingly insecure world. I get that, but what they don't get is that the harder they grasp, the more elusive it becomes.

The articles I've read included references to the US Secret Service and the findings from the review after Colombine. The bottom line is that this kind of violence really can't be accurately predicted, thus it can't really be prevented. Scary, but true. It's kind of like terrorism in that way except that there's no real message from the killer here.

Another thing I noticed in yesterday's news coverage was something Anastasia's mother said. She was being interviewed and she made an excellent point: this pathetic, sad little man will be remembered (albeit as being a crazy killer) and her daughter will be either forgotten or remembered as a sidenote. She was only 18 years old and the only reason she's dead is that she went to school on Wednesday. So I'm posting her picture, not his. There are pictures of him all over the web, but I can only find one of her (I think I got it from the CBC).

That's all I have to say for now peeps. Peace out,

The Social Contract Between the State and its Citizens

Bon Soir Mes Amies...

I was sitting in a waiting room today and so picked up a staple of doctors' waiting room reading in Canada: Maclean's. One of my personal faves for waiting room reading because not only do the articles vary in length: they can be short (sometimes only a page or two) or, if you're in for the long wait, they can be longer (six to ten pages even); they are current (if you have this week's issue) and they are Canadian.

The editorial this week brought up a thorny issue which I've not only heard discussed much of late, it's also something I've pondered somewhat frequently recently: did Canada have an obligation to rescue (at some risk and a not inconsequential expense) all Canadians from Lebanon and bring them back to Canada safely?

Apparently, the Canadian government promised passage to Canada to anyone holding a valid Canadian passport. This included full-time residents of Canada who were visiting Lebanon (i.e. people who live here and pay taxes here on a regular basis). This also included people who are not residents of Canada and no longer pay taxes here, but maintain a passport (presumably because a Canadian passport is good to have). And this included everyone in between these two states.

So, where do we stand on this one? Typically, in the event of wars, it is a government's responsibility to protect its citizens. (Silly me, it's a government's responsibility to protect its citizens in times of war or peace!) However, how far does that responsibility extend? As the editorial pointed out, Canada does not have a policy to govern these decisions, so we have made these decisions in the past (including this most recent one) on an ad hoc basis. Now that we've made this decision, law and policy following the rules that they usually do, we will probably continue along these lines that we have drawn in the sand: i.e. we have set precedence here and next time, the same will be expected of us. If we do not behave in the same manner (policy or not) that sitting government will be chastised and maligned as being heartless or brutal or some such beastly bureaucratic adjective.

Does that mean then, that we should continue along this same path simply because this is what has been done? Well that would be foolish; lemming-like even. It's possible that this is what will happen, but what should happen?

Some people have suggested that the government should be responsible for all Canadian citizens, regardless of where they currently reside. Others have suggested that we should be responsible only for those of us who are current residents. The editorial in Maclean's mentioned that others have even gone so far as to suggest that people who travel to high risk areas are putting themselves at risk and thus, the government should not be held responsible for the choices that those individuals make.

Currently, this is a very hot topic because of the war going on in Lebanon. Therefore, this is probably not the best time to come up with policy regarding these types of situations. I think it's also somewhat negligent of the government, because this is not the first time in the history of our country that this (sort of thing) has happened. We have been involved in world wars in the past. We have, more recently, had ex-patriates in parts of the world where there was civil unrest, or outright wars between other nations. After those crises were dealt with, we should have come up with policy. That is a responsibility of government. I don't suggest that the policy necessarily need be written in stone or be all-encompassing, but at least some general guidelines should have been sketched in at some point when there was no humanitarian crisis underway.

I mention the social contract in the title because that is precisely the issue at hand: with rights come responsibilities at some expense (whether the expense of some type of freedom, or, in some cases a monetary expense), and how far do those rights extend? Or, put another way, what exactly do you gain by consenting to the social contract? Well, currently, in Canada, once you become a citizen, you can get a passport, then move away, stop paying taxes and being a productive, contributing member of Canadian society, but as long as you maintain your passport, you are entitled to all the privileges and benefits that a resident Canadian taxpayer is. Healthcare is a slightly grey area, but you are essentially entitled to a rescue mission from your home in another country and relocation in Canada if need be. Once relocated in Canada, if you're hurt, you would not be denied medical attention. You are entitled to this even after you stop contributing to Canada in any way. You do not need to pay taxes, nor do you need to vote. You are entitled to other things as well, but for our purposes today, this is what is important.

While I may not hold a very popular view in light of the current situation in the mideast, I think that we need to get our government to come up with a policy which protects our citizens; predominantly the ones who actively participate in the social contract. Taking responsibility for people who do not participate is failing to protect those of us who do participate. We are being exploited by those people who take advantage of the fact that we have no policy and that we have a history of generous social programs.

How do we rectify this? By getting involved. Actively participate in your social contract. Make sure that your MP knows that this issue is important and that we shouldn't let this opportunity slip by again once the media hype moves on to the next big story.

I am not suggesting that we leave people to fend entirely for themselves, but it struck me as somewhat odd that many (perhaps most) of the people that were opting to be evacuated from Lebanon, were residents of Lebanon. These people live there. They were leaving their homes to come to Canada to avoid the war (understandable), but I kept thinking, 'why is this our responsibility?' It's one thing to give aid to foreign countries, especially in times like these, but what I was questioning was the tacit assumption that Canada was responsible for these ex-patriates. Not that we were helping, but that it was an obligation.

For many people, helping others (any others) is an obligation. I don't disagree: I think it's a moral imperative. But not all people all the time. I think the murkiest problem with this situation is that there are no official guidelines as to what the government's obligations are. People here don't know how far our rights extend, and people who leave here but maintain their passports do so with some degree of expectation of benefits. Unless and until those benefits are defined, there will always be confusion on this point.

That's all I have for now kids. Peace out,

Big Brother & Biometric Scans

So, I was perusing the news today and found this interesting little tidbit:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153692610630&call_
pageid=970599119419

According to this story, Canada's passport office is on the road to using biometric scans. The short version of the story is that once the system is implemented, they will be able to take your passport application photo, scan it into their system and run it against not only their database of passport photos (to see if you still look like your old passport photo, or if you've got another passport in a different name perhaps), but also against other databases of photos; photos of terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or maybe even photos of people we just don't like. Who knows who they'll compare your photo to right now; they haven't decided yet.

So, how do we feel about this one? Strangely enough, it doesn't really bother me. Of course, I've had my whole hand scanned into the INS' QuickPass database and that didn't bother me either because it meant that I could bypass the lines at US Customs & Immigration at the airport whenever I was flying into the States. That means that my prints are on file with the US government. Yes, I know what that means. Perhaps I'm naive, but I've always felt that if you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing serious to fear.

However, I do recognize the dangers that come with the new laws that were enacted after September 11 in the States and I am aware that the US government can now hold people (citizens of the US included) for an indeterminate length of time without charge, bail or attorney present on the suspicion of terrorism. Scary? Definitely. Even if you're caucasian and born in Canada. Luckily I don't have to travel to the States as much as I used to anymore.

So, am I at all worried about Canada's passport office scanning my photos into their database? Still not really. This may slow down processing time and it may increase the price of our passports, but I think the biggest reason it doesn't frighten me is that they're telling us about it.

When the time comes for them to implement the system, they will have decided which databases of photos they will be comparing the applicant photos against and they will tell us that too. If you'd like to opt out of this, you don't have to apply for a passport. If you're seriously against this, then you can protest it. However, at least we live in a country whose government tells its citizens when it is doing stuff like this. I think it would be more frightening if we didn't know about it and you only found out when your passport application was rejected on the basis that you look like someone else who already has a passport. Or worse, when they arrested you.

Ciao ciao peoples,