Life Inside the Institution

Hi,

Just a little FYI: I tend to post comments a fair bit on my dear friends Noel & Leslie Waghorn's blog (hence the title of this entry).

If you just gotta satisfy a Blake craving/fix :-), you can usually find some good stuff there. Either click on "Leslie & Noel Waghorn" under the "My Friends" heading, or go directly to the following link:

http://thewaghorns.blogspot.com/

Ah, the brilliant art of cross-promotion....

Mayhem and Matrimony

Sorry about the delay in posting - busy week. Can't always guarantee I'll post stuff on a regular basis. Depends on level of fatigue, time & availability, and whether or not I damn well feel like writing something! I'm not pondering, intellectualizing or brainstorming all the time... Most of the time my cerebrum is in "standby" mode :-)

Anyway, first thing I wanna mention is the whole London terrorist bombings thing. What a tragedy! To be hit twice in as many weeks...talk about bad luck! I'm just thankful that the second attack didn't result in as many casualties. What sticks in my mind, though, is the overall reaction of the British people and Londoners in particular. I truly admire their unflappable calm, quiet defiance and witty tenacity in the face of such hardship and suffering. For the most part, they stayed rational, and their responses were reasoned and even-tempered. I find that most extraordinary and praiseworthy. They just pick up the pieces and keep right on going, living their lives as normal. I suppose that comes from experience. Londoners proved their mettle during the Blitz and later against IRA terrorists in the 1970s. If German and Irish bombs didn't break them, I suppose nothing will! Still, I think it says something about the British character. The English seem to have the wisdom, courage and forbearance not to overreact and fly off the handle in a crisis like this. They don't let their emotions overwhelm them (or their government) and immediately start screaming for blood and vengeance like some (I won't name names here, but I think you know who I have in mind...) I thought PM Blair's speech after the first attack was positively brilliant (as an Englishman would say!) - a superb mixture of refined Churchillian rhetoric and plain-spoken honesty. What's more, while the speech was passionate and inspiring, it wasn't inflammatory. That's the key. England won't surrender herself to terror, despair and anguish, but neither will she storm out to battle recklessly. I've always liked Tony Blair; I admire him even more now. I can only hope that if, God forbid, Canada should face a similar challenge in the future, the Canadian people and government would show an equal amount of calm bravery and restraint in the face of cowardly terrorist mayhem. Given the choice, though, I'd rather not have to find out in the first place...

The second thing I wanted to note is that, as of last Wednesday (July 20), same-sex marriage is legal across my fair country. Bill C-38 was passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate, and has received Royal Assent; the Civil Marriage Act is thus enacted. The historian (as well as the liberal) in me swelled with pride. Despite a storm of criticism and the risk of electoral defeat, the current Canadian government (i.e. the Liberal Party) did the right thing and validated the human rights & equality of gays and lesbians. All Canadian couples, regardless of sexual orientation, can now officially consummate their mutual love and commitment under the law. This makes Canada only the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage - after the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain - and the only non-European country to do so thus far. It's a great moment for us, in my opinion.

Now, there have been plenty of arguments and counter-arguments when it comes to the debate over this issue. I won't go over them all - that would take way too much time and space. I don't want to bore you! If you're that interested, there's more than enough material on the Web that'll break it all down for you. I just wanted to take a moment to refute a few of the main arguments put forth by opponents to this law.

1. Marriage is about having kids and raising a family. Since homosexuals can't do this, it's not really marriage. That's crap. True, historically, marriage used to be about procreation. However, this was due to biological necessity. Farmers, peasants and the like needed to have lots of kids in order to help work in the fields and thus ensure the family's survival from one winter to the next. Also, the infant mortality and overall death rates were higher due to disease and other factors; people needed to stack the proverbial deck in their favour, to account for "statistical loss". However, that's changed in the last century or two. More and more people live in the well-supplied cities; medical advances have resulted in mortality rates going down. Therefore, the whole survival issue isn't as precarious anymore. Nowadays, people tend not to marry simply in order to have kids so that they can keep eating. Factor that out and marriage becomes something deeper and more meaningful. It's about love, companionship, making a lifelong commitment to each other, combining incomes, etc. - all of which homosexuals need and desire as much as heterosexuals. And there are other ways to have children in today's world (adoption, surrogate parentage, in vitro fertilization). So barring gays from marrying simply because they can't biologically have children with each other is ludicrous. Besides, with divorce rates being as high as they are these days (50%+!!!), the whole "sanctity of marriage" line is increasingly suspect. Matrimony ain't so holy anymore... I know plenty of straight people out there who don't deserve to be married - why deny scores of couples who do deserve it? I say let's give gays and lesbians an equal chance to screw up the institution of marriage as much as we have already! Could they do any worse?
2. Civil Unions. Okay, we'll let them get hitched but, for the love of God, we won't call it marriage... C'mon, give me a break! Utterly ridiculous - the king of all euphemisms. Splitting hairs, plain and simple. It's just a freakin' word! Let them get "married" if they want to, not "civilly united". The latter just sounds stupid to me, too cumbersome and pretentious. Besides, creating a parallel, second-tier version of marriage is inherently discriminatory. You'd be legally enshrining homosexuals as second-class citizens, that they're not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. An intrepid young preacher by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. proved that "separate but equal" is neither separate nor equal...
3. Judicial activism! Unelected judges shouldn't be imposing their views on us and setting public policy! Leave it to our duly elected representatives in Parliament. Oh heavens! I guess the Supreme Court has no authority to make decisions when it comes to the law... Bullshit. That's what we pay them to do, people!! Between having to deal with corporate lawsuits run amok and absurd small-claims court escalations, they actually render a thoughtful and well-considered opinion on changing the definition of marriage. Key word: opinion. They're not forcing the government to do anything. In fact, the opinion was solicited by the government in the first place! The government took it upon itself to draft the legislation. It IS in Parliament's hands, silly! Besides, we have these judges there in the first place because they're educated and erudite folk who've spent their lives studying the proper relationship between law and society, morality and logic. They're a smart bunch who I would hope and expect know what they're talking about! They try to see past lingering cultural prejudices in order to serve the greater good. I'd certainly trust them more than a bunch of ignorant blowhards or unscrupulous politicians only trying to get re-elected when it comes to such an important decision. The Supreme Court is far more qualified, I think. Judicial activism? Let me ask you this: would the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. have succeeded without Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education ? Civil rights was a highly controversial issue at the time, opposed by many "upstanding" American citizens no different than you or I. I'd wager that civil rights legislation would have never made it through Congress without the Supreme Court rulings backing it up. Those judges dared to interpret the Constitution as it related to the fundamental rights of African-Americans. Without their activism, it's quite likely blacks would still be disenfranchised to a significant extent today. The vaunted, fickle (white) American public, in all their wisdom, were still blinded by old, persistent prejudices and bigotries - would it have been right and proper to trust them with such a crucial decision? It's unfortunate, but sometimes the people are wrong. The Germans did legitimately elect Adolf Hitler into power, after all... So, don't criticize judges for doing their jobs. In essence, they help protect us from ourselves sometimes.

There are many more arguments on both sides of the issue, but the three above were some main ones I wanted to address. Needless to say, it's kind of a moot point now, since the legislation is officially enacted. The Civil Marriage Act is now the law of the land, confirming what eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories had already said was just and right. It makes me all the more proud to be Canadian!

Beam me up, Scotty

James Montgomery Doohan (1920-2005)

Rest in peace, Jimmy. You will be missed!

Here's a good article on the life, career and impact of this great Canadian actor (ironically, the BBC article is better than the equivalent CBC article, in my opinion...):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1493093.stm

Giv'er, ya hosehead!!!

Nothing greatly intellectual or insightful to post today. I just thought the list in the following link is kinda cool. Canuckspeak 101. I've heard and often used many of these terms. There are a few "new" ones for me, though... Fun to learn. Chuckled at a few of them. Anyway, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_slang

For all you linguists, lexicographers, and other assorted language historians/scholars out there, here's another neat article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English

Hope you enjoy these! Useful reading for American tourists, I think :-)

Hehehehe..It's pronounced "nu-kyou-lar", dummy. The "s" is silent

Ah, to start my first topical post with a Family Guy reference... God bless you, Peter Griffin! But, anyway, I digress... I just want to go on record right off the bat as airing out my beef/pet peeve against anti-intellectualism. It's something that's always bothered me. Not to mention confounded me. Why do a lot of people attack, dimiss, or mistrust those who seem (or are) more intelligent than they? Are the well-educated and articulate a bunch of subversives or what? It's just not logical. I know there are plenty of theories and explanations (jealousy, narrow-mindedness, fear, inferiority complex, etc.), but still... I've always admired smart people, to a point (when they get arrogant, elitist and full of themselves, I start to lose respect). We should aspire to be more like such people, follow their example as much as possible - not ridicule or marginalize them. Now, I know I'm a reasonably intelligent guy, but I'm humble enough to realize that there are lots of people out there who are smarter than me. And I don't feel insecure or put off by it. That's why I value learning and knowledge so much, to strive to towards that goal of understanding and wisdom. It's why I started this blog. To quote Sir Francis Bacon, "Knowledge is power." (in more ways than one). Or Rabbi Hyman Krustofski (yay Simpsons!): "No one is poor except he [or she] who lacks knowledge." Unfortunately, it often seems that I'm increasingly in the minority these days. This anti-intellectual trend seems to be growing and becoming more and more pervasive. Yes, I'm talking to you, George Bush!! While I generally admire the USA and its citizenry, I sometime question the sanity and competence of the American electorate. Why do they continue to elect presidents solely based on his being "normal", "down to earth", "plain-spoken" etc. The leader is a reflection of the people and their will, I suppose (which is kinda scary at times). Still, if you ask me, I'd take an Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy or John Kerry (perhaps) over a Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan or George Bush any day! Heaven forbid smart people should be in charge, especially in charge of the world's most powerful country! Such a setup makes sense to me. Intelligence is nothing to hide or be ashamed of! But the teeming masses don't seem to agree... Anti-intellectualism permeates all levels of society nowadays. Today, terms like "egghead", "poindexter" and "liberal" are thrown around as insults with the same degree of venom and hatred as, say, "terrorist" or "communist". It's sad, really. It's like the Simpsons episode where Lisa thinks she's doomed by the family "stupidity" gene - that's so me at times. Now, granted, I'm the first to admit that I indulge in my own plebeian pleasures now and then. You may have noticed my affinity for Fox cartoon shows, for example. Not ashamed of that at all - I'm not one of those uber-intellectuals that disdain ALL forms of pop culture (yes, I know there's a certain irony in that statement...smartass! ;-) But I don't revel in it. I watch PBS, rent foreign films now and then, and reads books other than Harry Potter. I try to get a bit smarter every so often. Does that make me weird or unconventional? I hope so. I'd take it as a compliment.

Indeed, as I say in my profile, I'm an "unapologetic user of 'big words' and other esoteric jargon." I stand by that. I hope that standard will hold true in my blog as well. If you've got a problem with all 'dem fancy words 'n such, maybe this blog isn't the best place for you. If you don't understand a word or term I or someone else have used here at any point, look it up!! You might learn something! I have Dictionary.com down as one my links - avail yourself of the resource whenever necessary! I do all the time. Or, better yet, feel free to ask me! I'll happily define or explain concepts to those who want to know. There's no shame in not knowing something, as long as you try to correct and change that. Ignorance is a vice, not a virtue - don't perpetuate this regrettable trend any further, I implore you! We need to hold the line against the proverbial night, keep the barbarian hordes at bay. Rome shall not fall again...

Eggheads of the world, Unite!!! You have nothing to lose but your chains!!!

Welcome to my blog!!!

Hello all! Let me welcome you to my little corner of the Internet and my contribution to the wonderful world of blogging! I'm glad you've taken the time to check out my humble little creative endeavour here in cyberspace - your interest is very much appreciated. While I'm not entirely new to this particular form of expression - I've posted many replies on my friends' blogs over time - this is the first time I've ever created and managed my own blog. Should be very exciting, and hopefully enlightening! A good way for me to express myself and talk about things that are important to me, to get stuff off my proverbial chest whenever I need to. And if all you readers out there can take away something positive from this every once in a while - whether it be a new perspective on something, an extra little bit of knowledge, the occasional laugh, whatever - even better! That's my goal with this - to inwardly ponder and outwardly stimulate (*aside* no, not that kind of stimulate! Take your mind out of the gutter! ;-) Thus, my reasons for starting this blog are both selfish and selfless; it's as much for me as it is for you!

Just a little advance warning: as a proud and patriotic Canadian, I imagine my posts will inevitably be littered with cultural, social, historical, political and other kinds of references that will be Canada-specific. Or perhaps more broadly North America-specific every so often (I'm also something of a student of American society, history and politics). If this will confuse or confound you (i.e. if I manage to get some U.S. and/or international readers), please let me apologize up front for that. Unconscious habit, I'm sure! I'll try to minimize it as much as possible without sacrificing quality or meaning. However, I'm sure my Canuck upbringing and its idiosyncracies will seep through and manifest themselves now and again regardless. If you ever need some clarification or any background explanation, please don't hesitate to ask! There's absolutely no shame in it! After all, the gaining of knowledge (and hopefully wisdom) is my central objective here. Doesn't matter how big or small that piece of knowledge is - as long as we find some kind of value in it. Or, if you'd rather, I'd encourage you to look it up yourself. Hooray for Google! I sometimes think that particular search engine is a divine gift and blessing... So great for research! You never know, you might even find something even more interesting in the process! It's all good, eh! :-)

There are some ground rules I'd like to establish first, though:

1. I don't mind if you swear or curse occasionally in your replies, as long as its sensible and non-derogatory. Hell, I'll slip in a few choice words often enough ;-) I will not tolerate frequent and/or gratuitous profanity, though. If you're one of those people who uses the word "fuck" to punctuate your sentences, you're not welcome here. I do have standards. Using the occasional colourful metaphor to emphasize a point is okay by me; casual swearing merely to offend or to shock is NOT acceptable. Remember, I reserve the right to remove any inappropriate or offensive posts...
2. No personal attacks against me or any contributors to this blog will be permitted. I'm big on mutual respect and dignity. If you disagree with something that was said, present your counter-arguments and/or rebuttals in a calm, reasonable and professional manner. An open dialogue is a good thing - I'll be happy to start a debate or two, as long as it remains civil. No Jerry Springer-type crap here. Namecalling belongs in the schoolyard.
3. Any and all topics are fair game here. My posts will generally be of a historical or political bent a lot of the time, but not exclusively. I'll most likely include personal updates and anecdotes at times. If I feel like posting something on psychology, music, TV, new gadgets, how drunk I got on the weekend or whatever, I will. It's my blog, after all. The same goes for all of you. Don't be shy. I'm a pretty opinionated guy - I'll always put my two cents in if I can! No subject is off-limits. Just try not to give me a daily report on the state of Britney's marriage, Paris Hilton's exercise regimen, Lindsay Lohan's party schedule, etc.
4. Basically, all I ask is that you use a measure of common sense (which may not be so common anymore...) and courtesy when you're posting replies. No one here is better or smarter or more right than anyone else, least of all me! I respect everybody's opinions, even if I happen to disagree with them. Just keep in mind we all have feelings which can be hurt. It's all about the R-E-S-P-E-C-T, to quote the great Aretha Franklin.

One last thing: in case you're wondering, I got the title for my blog from a quote by Sir Winston Churchill (one of my heroes/idols): "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." It's from a speech he gave at Harvard University on September 6, 1943. Truth be told, there was no particular reason for the choice, no great and insightful underlying metaphor in mind - I just like the way it sounds! Besides, I'm always fond of quoting good old Winston! Feel free to draw from it whatever meaning or symbolism you wish...