Freedumb

Feb. 6th, 2022 09:55 pm
jamesq: (Rage)
I was chatting with a friend online.

“So how are you doing these days?”
“Oh, I’m doing fine... Actually, that’s not true. In addition to all the other COVD-related stuff, I’m feeling a lot of anger. I am filled with rage about these fucking #FluTruxKlan assholes. These clowns exist, are in our collective faces, and there’s not a damn thing I can do about it. So yeah, felling an awful lot of rage.”
“Same.”
You know, if we were just dealing with COVID - social distancing, isolating when possible, getting our vaccines, and basically just waiting until it is collectively safe again - this would all be a lot easier. Not easy mind you, because all of that takes effort. Nobody wants things to be this way, and we’d all be happy if it were over. But there is a sort of camaraderie that happens when everyone works together towards a goal. It’s not pleasant to live through a natural disaster, but it does bind people together in common cause.

There’s a quote from The Martian that I’ve always liked:
“Every human being has a basic instinct: to help each other out. If a hiker gets lost in the mountains, people will coordinate a search. If a train crashes, people will line up to give blood. If an earthquake levels a city, people all over the world will send emergency supplies. This is so fundamentally human that it's found in every culture without exception.”
I’m not sure if that quote made it into the movie (I remember it as a voice-over in the trailer, rather than a scene in the movie), which is why I was really surprised that the line continues:
“Yes, there are assholes who just don't care, but they're massively outnumbered by the people who do.”
I’m sure that if you were to film an earthquake disaster movie, and you included victims who denied that an Earthquake took place, despite the evidence being all around them, it wouldn’t make it past test audiences to the final cut. And if some of those victims insisted on pissing into limited clean water supply at the aid station, they’d rightly be seen as villains.

Real life is not like movies, because movies have to make sense, or so the saying goes. Which brings us to current events: The Freedom Convoy, which has been holding Ottawa hostage for going on ten days now. It’s closed down two of Alberta’s border crossings (including the main one, which is the only one that can process livestock). It’s been irritating people in every major city. Hell, these hillbillies have been tying up the streets in Calgary, every Saturday for months, like clockwork.

They are maliciously ignorant - a term I learned this week. Not just stupid, but cruel and mean in their stupidity. An ignorance so profound that it’s morphed into evil through it’s black hole-like density.

They scream at retail workers, block traffic, blow their air horns at all hours. There have been threats of violence, as well as threats followed through on. Just today, I learned that they tried to set fire to an apartment building in Ottawa. And on that incident, one of the most galling things was seeing a twitter reply from a convoy-supporter say, basically, “crybaby, that lobby didn’t look that flammable to me”. As if the problem wasn’t someone setting a fire in a lobby. Oh, and they wrapped the front door knobs in tape to make it harder to get out.

The cops refuse to do anything (in general - time will tell if they take the arson seriously), because why would they arrest their drinking buddies people they are ideologically aligned with.

If the rank-and-file are just maliciously ignorant, verging on evil, the organizers started out at evil, and doubled down. Like, every big name in this protest is a fascist. As in, members or leaders of known white-supremacist hate groups.

Which is where I really worry about this becoming an insurrection. You have a bunch of “merely” right-wing nut jobs, that are being deliberately agitated on the issue of the week by a bunch of stealth-Nazis. And that’s a recipe for disaster. Especially when you a few of your fellows start waiving around swastikas and Confederate flags along with the F*ck Trudeau banners. Suddenly, everyone hates you and your cause (because Nazis), and lacking any sort of critical thinking skills, you conclude that since you’re perfectly reasonable, and everyone hates you, and everyone hates Nazis, those Nazis can’t be so bad, maybe I’ll hear what they have to say.

And suddenly, you have more Nazis. Or at the very least, you’ve got a large population of people who are willing to let Nazism slide.

It really is true, History is doomed to repeat itself. And my theory is that it does so just as soon as the generation that had to experience it is all or mostly dead. Ten years after the Great Depression, we had the rise of fascism and the Second World War. Ten years after the Great Recession and we have this. All just as the Greatest Generation’s numbers are dwindling to nothing. Ugh.

Vancouver at least has the good sense to counter-protest these yokels. I fear Calgary is too right-wing for the left to do that without putting themselves into great danger.

I am just so sick of this bad situation being deliberately made worse by a bunch of morons who whine about their freedoms on one hand, while dreaming about being the guards of the concentration camp on the other.

So how are you doing?
jamesq: (Default)
GS moved to Edmonton for a few years to work, then ended up coming back to Calgary to work at a high-end hotel. Sometime around then I bought my house, and he ended up couch surfing because he didn't have a place to stay.
  • I let him stay until he could get back on his feet.
  • At some point, someone moved out, so I let him use that room, instead of the literal couch.
  • He got accepted into ACAD, and I let him stay until he graduated.
  • Then he couldn't get a job, and he entered UofC and got a Masters degree, and I let him stay until he graduated.
  • Then he couldn't get a job, and he got a second Masters, so I let him stay until he graduated.
  • Then he couldn't get a job, until he did, but now he couldn't move because the job takes up so much time.
Etc. Etc. What was always supposed to be a temporary situation until he could get back on his feet ended up being a 15 year tenancy. Remember when I said I was a slow learner?

He was planning on getting a Doctorate, which would have been great, because that would have required moving. But that didn’t happen.

Which brings us to now.

One thing you have to know about GS is that he's a hoarder. Given enough time, and no push back from others, his crap will spread out from his space to take up everything else in the house. Like a sort of kudzu made out of note paper, vintage luggage, computer components, and random art supplies.

GS objects to my classifying him as a hoarder. To that I say:
  1. He is unable to throw things away, because of their perceived value, even when the actual value is nothing.
  2. Areas of the house where his kudzu have taken over can no longer be used for their intended purpose.
So while the area might not be full of old newspapers and mason jars of urine, he's certainly well on his way. And this has been a major contentious issue with us.

I've suggested he clean it up, because it's in the public areas of the house. I've asked him nicely. I've pulled rank and ordered him to clean up. Is any of this sounding familiar?

For years, I've not been able to use my living room. The maids have to vacuum around the piles of crap. He'll say “I'll see what I can do”, which is occasionally cleaning off the table, or moving a pile.

Somewhere along the way, he really started to resent me. I became aware of this a few years ago when he started snorting again. He’d do it very occasionally, but it would always be deliberate, with just enough deniability that I wouldn’t call him on it. In retrospect, that was probably when he decided we weren’t friends anymore. Also, that was the point where I went from thinking “I wish this guy would just move out already” to “I should really kick him out”. Of note, this was also when requests to clean up his mess were simply ignored. Oh, he’d “see what he could do”, but now nothing would happen at all.

As for the snorting, I decided to fight passive-aggressiveness with passive-aggressiveness. Namely, whenever he snorted, I’d change the topic to something he didn’t like.
“…and the bear said, ‘you’re not in this for the hunting’. Ha ha!” *pause* *snort*.
“So I was wondering when you were going to pay back that two grand you owe me?”
He later adapted to this, and would only snort if there was a third person around.

COVID meant I had to spend a lot more time around him. And his mess. Plus, he needed space to work on his latest art project, so he turned a table in the garage into his workspace. And the kudzu spread there. About a third of my garage ended up being his crap. Now I had a whole new space I couldn't use for it's intended purpose.

Which brings us to current events.

I went on a trip to the left coast recently. As I was packing my car, GS came out to get in his car and go for his morning coffee. Since I was going to be gone for two weeks, I figured this would be a good time to ask again.
“Have a good trip.”
“Thanks. While I’m gone, I want you to clean up all of your stuff in the living room.”
*pause* “Well, I’ll see what I can do, but only because you said ‘your stuff’, and not ‘your *shit*’. I don’t like you belittling my belongings by calling it ‘shit’, so I didn’t feel I should have to before.”
*me stunned*
“Anyway, you have a good trip” *rushes to his car and drives away before I have time to process what I just heard.*
And then I was angry.

So I finished packing the car, and I wrote him the following message:
Well you left me gobsmacked this morning, and I couldn’t respond the way I should have.

I thought about what you said. I think what’s worse than living with a hoarder is the idea that you’ve been deliberately living like this because of some perceived slight based on my tone and language. As if you shouldn’t keep the public spaces clean because it’s the right thing to do. Without me asking at all.

What’s really upsetting is the idea that you would live like this - for years - to teach me a lesson.

I am tired of this. I am tired of living in a shit hole. So here’s what’s going to happen: You’re going to clean up, and keep it clean (and this goes for the garage too), or I’m evicting you.
I turned off my computer, got in the car and left. Ended up having a decent visit with folks over the next two weeks, too.

Aside: Whenever I would talk about GS to my friends, and especially during this trip, everyone had the same advice: He is taking advantage of you, just evict the guy already. And I'd always think, “well, he'd be homeless if it weren't for me, I can't evict him.” Except that's not true. I mean, an arts degree isn't useless. And he also has a STEM degree, so he could get a job programming easily. And he's got a boatload of tech skills and experience in hospitality. Literally the only thing stopping him from getting a job was his unwillingness to get a job that wasn't art related - specifically his art.

As I was driving back to Calgary, it occurred to me that I was hoping that he wouldn't clean up the kudzu. So I'd have a reason. No such luck – when I came into the house, I discovered that not only had he cleaned up the living room, he had removed every one of his belongings from the room. Including his X-Box, and the art on the walls!

Ok, fine. As long as it's clean.

But he was super sulky about it, and was largely giving me the silent treatment. He had bitched to my uncle (who has been doing renos in the house), and the other roommate, while I was gone though. Roommate stayed out of it; uncle told him to grow up.

A few days after I got back from the trip, I was returning from a bike ride and he was working in the garage.
“We really need to talk about things. It's going to upset you.”
“Go ahead.”
“Oh, not now; you're working and I don't want to mess your day up.”
Whatever. I've no desire to have an upsetting conversation. I wasn't about to genuflect to him to get one - he could see me whenever he wanted.

A few days go by. I get a text.
“I'm still waiting to have that conversation.”
“So what's stopping you?”
He comes down to my office, angry and ready for a confrontation, and I'm just done.
“So I have to get summoned to the principal's office if I want to talk to you?”
“So talk.”
“Do you know how much of a disruption to my life having to clean out the living room was? Why? Why was it so important to you? And giving me only two weeks? When I should have been working on my project.”
“I didn't give you two weeks – I've been asking you to clean up your mess literally for years. As for why, I don't want to live with a hoarder.”
“I'm not a hoarder!”
“I believe you are.”
“What's the definition of a hoarder?”
“I'm not having a debate with you.”
“Well I can see you're just hearing, not listening, so FUCK YOU.”
He storms off. The switch in my head gets flipped, and a decision is made.

I finish my work day, and then I start researching. The goal: Can I evict GS legally? Turns out he had nary a legal avenue to turn to. As a tenant sharing public areas with the landlord, the Residential Tenancy Act didn't apply. Since I don't rent out to anyone who shows up at my door, the Innkeepers Act also didn't apply. And since there was no contract, either written or verbal, he had no civil solution. I could have changed the locks the next day if I'd wanted to. But I try not to be a monster. I write up two formal notifications that I'm terminating his tenancy. The short one of which will be for the end of September, and the second one is for the end of November (because I know he has two months left on his contract, and I don't want to derail his job). I'll serve one of them before the beginning of September, so both are valid under the rules of the Residential Tenancy Act, even though they didn't apply.

August 28th, I confront him.
“I no longer want you living with me. You have two choices: One month, or, if you're willing to be civil while you're here, three months.”
“Well one of us is willing to be civil.”
“Ok, that's the sort of passive-aggressive bullshit that I'm talking about. I don't care if you never speak to me again, but I don't want you snarking at me. I certainly don't want you taking it out on the other roommate. So let me ask again: one month, or three months?”
“Three months.”
I hand him the written notification and leave.

I wasn't too happy about that, because I didn't really want to deal with living with a storm cloud for three months. Turns out I didn't have to. Within a few days, GS started moving his stuff out. A few car loads at a time, but it was steady. About a week ago he stopped sleeping here. Today, all of his stuff was gone, and he left an envelope with nothing but my name on it and the house key inside. Oh, and a bunch of debt that I'm going to write off.

I'll likely never see him again. Given we haven't really been friends since the snorting restarted, and me only realizing that on my trip, I'm OK with that. Still, I wish it had ended differently – for example, with him being a casual acquaintance who lived with me for a year or two in the distant past.

I'm probably not going to rent out the room unless someone I know is in dire straits. In a few years when the other roommate leaves, I'll sell the place and downsize. Pepperland is big enough that a family should really live here.
jamesq: (Default)
I'm a slow learner. Let's just get that out there right now. At least for things related to my ongoing mental health. When you read the following and marvel at how it keeps going, remember that and be a little more understanding than normal.

There's a guy I've known since the Holt days. We'll call him GS. And he has taken advantage of my good graces for a long time, Mostly in a passive-aggressive way that allows him to get his digs in, but not quite enough for me to finally wash my hands of him. Here are two stories that will sum it up. I need to tell you these two stories so you can understand current events.

Tale #1

Many years ago – probably when we were both in our 20s, GS engaged in a really irritating behavior to get a rise out of me. He's grab my knee. And when I say that, I mean in a full-on under-the-table-with-a-date-hoping-to-get-lucky way.

Aside: I have no idea what his gender identity or preferences are. They long ago got categorized into none-of-my-business, and not-my-problem.

I didn't like it, and because it got a reaction out of me, he'd keep doing it. And so, over a span of a year, I'd tell him not to do that. Or I'd ask him nicely not to do that. Or I'd take him aside and explain to him, like a grown-up, using my words, how much this behavior upset me and made me feel uncomfortable, so pretty please with sprinkles, don't do it. I'd yell at him, or order him not to do it. Sometimes it would work for one or two social gatherings, but always, he'd do it again.

Finally, we were at a party and he squeezed my knee.
“The next time you do that, I will punch you in the leg as hard as I can.”
“Oh, ha ha.” squeeze.
And I punched him as hard as I could in the leg. It was the kind of punch that would go through a wall easily, and I aimed it straight at the middle of the rectus femoris.

He yelled in pain and clutched his thigh.
“You didn't have to do that!”
“Apparently, I did.”
The result was him limping for the rest of the night, and sulking for a month; but he never did it again.

Tale #2

GS liked to snort when he laughs. And this wasn't an involuntary snort, it was a deliberate effort to call attention to itself, like “ha ha ha” pause long enough for you to notice the pause… “snort”. And when I told him it annoyed me, he made an extra effort to do it all the time.

Now this was less annoying than the knee-squeezing, but it also went on a lot longer.

It really pissed me off. Especially when I realized he did it expressly to piss me off.

Now this is one of those things that I find hard to articulate. After all, it's just a noise, and shouldn't I just ignore it? All I can tell you is that I know the difference between random irritating habits, and a deliberate effort to get on my nerves.

As with the knee-squeezing, I ran through the gamut of responses from ignoring it, to asking nicely, to flat out ordering. Punching him wasn't on the table, since this wasn't a physical violation. This went on for years.

Finally, I'd had enough. He was hanging out at my apartment and let out a particularly loud snort.
“Get out.”
“What?”
“You heard me. Get out, and don't come back until you're ready to knock that shit off.”
He left in a huff, and I didn't see him again for over a year.

I got admonished by my roommate for my reaction, but he didn't contradict me, or invite him over after that. And no, I didn't overreact.

When I saw him next, and for many years later, he never* snorted in my presence again.

Anyway, the point of these two tales is to demonstrate that some people will only respond to the nuclear option.

*never say never.
jamesq: (Rage)
Jogging along Dalhousie Drive this morning, I got chased by an uncontrolled dog. Of course, that should never have happened in the first place because all dogs should be on a leash. But the number of dogs I see not on a leash (and I'm not talking about off-leash areas, but bog-standard city streets) is around half of all dogs.

Here's a link to the city's page concerning dog bylaws:
https://www.calgary.ca/csps/abs/bylaws-by-topic/dogs.html

Keep your damn dog on a leash. A short leash. All the time that you're not in a designated off-leash area, or on your own property. This is not a hard concept to understand.

You know what it doesn't say? It doesn't say "except for in back alleys", it doesn't say "unless you think your dog is special", it doesn't say "unless you don't feel like it".

And if you're getting angry and want to argue back with me because you're offended I might have said something negative about your dog, consider that maybe you're the problem. I'm pretty sure the *responsible* dog owners agree with me.
jamesq: (Don Quixote)
A friend of mine set the local SCA Facebook group on fire a few months ago. He did so with a simple question: If the SCA knowingly allows a sexual predator to events, are they opening themselves up to a lawsuit if the predator reoffends at an event?

Now my friend posted this as a hypothetical, but it's a little more than that. A few years back someone was banned for a reign. The ban did not mention why, but the rumour mill suggested that they were arrested and charged with rape. (Aside: I'm going to use layman's terms and IANAL. People who object to my descriptions based on pedantic grounds are on thin ice - if I was talking gun violence and use "clip" when I should have said "magazine", trying to use that to invalidate unrelated points is just going to piss me off) Anyway, I am in no way close to this situation, but I have talked to several of the victims, and I believe them. Realistically, there's still a high chance he'll get away with it. I don't say this based on the merits of the case, but only because I can read statistics. Last I heard it hadn't gone to trial.

But again, this person was banned for one reign, several years ago, and reigns average six months in length, so they've been back in the fold for longer than they were banned. From what was described to me, they were welcomed back into their clique as though nothing had happened. That fucking baffled me. Though it probably shouldn't.

So that's the background. I think my friend made one mistake, and that was addressing this in a legal way, rather than a moral one. Doing so let everyone fall back on legalistic language (and for the most part they're not lawyers either), which I think lets them off the hook.

Do you feel the SCA has a moral obligation to protect its members? Never mind the legalistic things that might handicap that for now. Do you think it has (or should have) that obligation? Do you believe that you have that obligation yourself? It doesn't mean you have to arrest/try/punish the person as though you were the government, but do you at least side with the victims over the (alleged) predator?

If the answer is yes, what should the SCA do? What should you do?

Many years ago, I was the Seneschal of the local barony. Someone was harassing a woman in the local group and I decided that his behaviour was bad enough that he didn't get to attend events. I instructed the event coordinator that if he showed up to the next event, not to let him in, and that, if there was heat for that decision, I would take it. I told my superiors that I was going to do this (based on an obscure rule that allowed us to eject people from events if they were a danger to themselves or others - since there was a non-trivial chance someone would decide to take-it-outside, I figured this qualified). As it turns out this was all unnecessary as he never showed up, and to my knowledge he's never gone to another SCA event again.

Sexual assault happen. They happen a lot more than people (especially when those people are men) like to admit. There was (an unrelated) attempt at a camping event a few years ago. I don't think charges were ever laid, but the (different) predator in question was suddenly persona non grata. I remember him coming up to me and starting a conversation at Tavern, and I just walked away without speaking to him. A lot of people did that. After a few months, he got the hint. I haven't seen him again.

I tell these two stories to illustrate that organizational and individual action are both possible, if the will to do so is there.

But here's the thing - both those guys were unknown/unpopular to start with, and their victims were popular. And I think that's where a lot of the unspoken objections come from. I can't be expected to do something like that when it's my friend. Why are you making me think about this stuff. You're bringing up this stuff means you're the real problem. And my friend from above who made the legal argument on Facebook? He's taken a lot of heat for asking these questions. It's even broken some significant relationships in his life, because to some people, the SCA is their life, and they don't want people pointing out its inadequacies. I'd say he's gotten a worse backlash than the (alleged) predator he was talking about.

Mostly I think this illustrates, that for all its talk of chivalry and being better than the real world, the SCA isn't any better. Oh, I don't think it's any worse either - I just think it's a human organization with normal human failings. With 20K members worldwide, we're going to see some truly wonderful people, and also some monsters. But people still protect the ones in their cliques, monster or not. When some noob assaults a well-liked person in the group, it's easy to eject them. When it's the person you've publicly announced is your squire/protege/cadet/arcarius/apprentice/brother-in-arms/household-member, it's considerably harder.

I also think it's worth remembering that keeping someone like that away isn't necessarily a punishment against that person; it's protection for their potential victims. We're not in a position to be able to investigate crime or render legal judgement. But we are in a position where we can protect our members. We don't make everyone sign waivers because we think it's a given they're going to get clobbered by a loose chunk or rattan, we do so because we acknowledge that it's possible. And we take precautions against that despite the waiver - we have marshals, and inspections, and keep people out of the erics. What we don't do is whine that these rules are punishing the participants. Similarly, we have rules in place to protect people from social predators too. We demand background checks for some positions. We have the "two deep leadership" rule for children's activities . And it's why there's a rule allowing us to expel people for pending criminal investigations. Maybe we should use it more often.
jamesq: (Rage)
I mostly have good luck with AirBnB. Mostly. While on the train, after getting my new (old) phone working, I found that my host wanted to meet at 6 pm instead of 5 pm. Inconvenient, but OK, I had time to kill. I cooled my heels at Brutopia (best beer Queen Heffy), and then they asked if they could make it 7:00. Um. Ok. I guess.

Half-assedness ahead... )

Vaccinate!

Feb. 19th, 2019 07:29 pm
jamesq: (Rage)
Vaccines are in the news again, because there's a bunch of measles outbreaks, including here in Alberta. People think of measles as one of those harmless diseases, but it really can kill or permanently disable people. If you're reading my blog, you're likely already aware of that and on my side. So I'd rather talk about the mindset of anti-vaxxers than get into the reasons why they should vaccinate themselves and their kids.

One of the things that's come out of the latest outbreak is stories of kids getting themselves vaccinated against their parents wishes. Sometimes this is as soon as they're legally adults. Sometimes - if they live in a jurisdiction that allows it - well before. In Alberta, it's when a doctor agrees you're old enough to understand and give informed consent.

This leads me to a story. I had a coworker many years ago who had four kids. The first two turned out to be autistic and the younger two were below the age when you could really determine that. He decided not to vaccinate them. We discussed this.
"You have a science background, so you're perfectly capable of seeing that studies show vaccines have nothing to do with autism. You know how important vaccines are. So why are you risking it?"

"Because my family is clearly at risk for autism, and if there is any chance at all, I want to avoid it. I can always vaccinate them when they're older."
I can always vaccinate them when they're older. Now I didn't agree with him then or now, but I could at least understand where he was coming from emotionally. However, the fact that he still planned on vaccinating them eventually struck me as, if not good, at least less bad. He ended up leaving the company when caring for his children became too much for his wife to handle, so I don't know if he ever ended up getting the kids vaccinated. I like to hope that he did. Here's the thing though - all those 12-16 year olds trying to sneak a vaccine without their parents knowing it? They're all well past the point where autism is a factor - by this point in their lives, it would have been diagnosed. If vaccines caused autism (and they don't), your reason for not vaccinating your kids has gone away.

Lets be clear: I think you should get all your (children's) vaccinations when your paediatrician says you should. But if you must avoid it for your imaginary reasons, at least do it later. And if you're an adult, just get it done. And that's why I think autism is a smoke screen. It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with their self-image as radical free thinkers who aren't going to let The Man push them around. It's why evidence only makes them double down.

So don't bother with evidence, just make it hurt. This is starting to happen now, where a lot of news stories aren't bothering with their justifications anymore. The stories either don't go into why they're anti-vaxxers at all, or flatly point out that their reasons are bogus. Given the news media's usual show-both-sides stance on contentious topics, that's a big change.

But we need to do more. I suggest making vaccinations, except in cases where avoiding them is medically necessary, a pre-condition for attending school. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine, you can home school them. If I could think of a way to keep them out of public swimming pools and similar venues, I'd do that too.

Another suggestion: Make them pay for the privilege. Don't want to vaccinate? That'll be $1000 per year per kid. I bet this change would make the vast majority of anti-vaxxers comply.

Finally, there's always ostracization. If enough people refuse to have anything to do with you if you're unvaccinated, I bet they'd come around. Sucks for the kids though. But then, their parents are anti-vaxxers, so their life already sucks.

These three measures might get enough of them to get their shots, and hopefully kick herd immunity higher. They'd still bitch and moan about it, but I don't give a fuck about that. Let them bitch, so long as kids aren't dying of measles.
jamesq: (Rage)
My ride home was rather eventful today. I got attacked by two dogs who tried to run me down like a deer. Naturally, their owner couldn't control them, because he was 100 yards away, not paying attention to them. Big dogs too, not German Shepherds, but one of the I-breed-this-dog-for-its-luxurious-hair breeds. They kept up with me for a block, and I had that bike up to 40 Kph.

I seriously contemplated A) simply veering into the near dog and counting on the resulting crash killing it while only injuring me severely, and B) turning around on foot to beat them to death with my ULock. However, simply getting away from them allowed me to get my temper under control so all I did was yell CONTROL YOUR DOGS YOU ASSHOLE at the top of my lungs.

Seriously, it's the *first* rule for off-leash parks, which the owner was in, even if his dogs weren't.

Then I had three separate cars cut me off because they can't bother to see the *lighted* vehicle in the *bike lane* they had to cross. One did this *after watching the guy in front of him do it*. I didn't stop to let you through, idiot, I did it so I wouldn't get run over. I still had the right of way. And in case anyone wants to talk about bikes running signs and red lights, this happened at a lighted intersection that I had a green light at.

I'm seriously thinking of making a fully armoured bracer/gauntlet as part of my gear. I am still fucking furious.
jamesq: (Rage)
I woke up this morning to the news that Donald Trump is President-Elect.

Fuck.

I haven't looked at any news or opinion pieces about this yet, but I do have some thoughts.

The Blame

  • Voter suppression tactics in numerous states, aimed towards minorities.
  • The media, for trying to make the race "even", by weighing Trump's many many sins, against a lot of manufactured hearsay about Clinton. You hear people say "Crooked Hillary" enough, and you start to believe there's something to it, despite the lack of evidence. Now, the fact that Clinton lost will be cited as evidence that she must have been crooked.
  • The FBI. Seriously? WTF.
  • Third-party voters who think that voting is akin to some kind of consumer activity, rather than a civic duty.
  • Political tribesmen, who think that political parties are like the local sports team, and you have to root for them, because you've always rooted for them.
  • But most of all, I think we can blame the fact that there are simply a lot of misogynistic, racist, authoritarian assholes, and those people looked at Trump, warts and all, and said "I want him to be president".
Some random thoughts...

The Supreme Court is going to go conservative. The deciding vote is going to be a Trump nominee, and a lot of the Justices are getting old. Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsberg can last another four years, maybe not. Maybe Trump will nominate his sister.

Kiss goodbye to any progressive actions of the last eight years. I fully expect the Affordable Care Act to be effectively abolished in the next two years. Oh, maybe there'll be something called that, and there'll still be a requirement to buy health insurance; you just won't get anything for it. It'll be a tax payable to corporations.

Some pissant little country is going to get thrown up against the wall, just to show the world that Trump means business. I really hope it's not us.

That said, Trump is going to use the political machinery to go after his enemies, of which there are many, because he views anyone who disagrees with him, or makes fun of him, as the enemy. The difference between him and Nixon is that Nixon tried to keep it secret and got impeached for it. Trump will likely be quite open about it, and be praised for it.

I really feel sorry for the women who came forward about Trump's assaulting them. Maybe you'll have a case for immigrating to Canada based on persecution?

The Republican Party still can't stand the guy. They'll be fine with working with him, just like they were fine with voting for him, so long as he signs anything Paul Ryan puts on his desk. If he doesn't, I think they'll be happy to impeach him and get behind Pence. At no point will a fight between Trump and the Republican party mean a relaxation of their being awful to America.

Finally, I really did think "Do you want to write this? You could have jack-booted thugs coming to your door in a few years." Ultimately, I decided, what the hell - If things ever get that bad, they'll be plenty of things I've written over the years that will get me shot. It's too late to worry about that now.

Here's to hoping he's just a Berlusconi, and not a Mussolini.
jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
So I just read an article from #MetroNewsCanada. Here's a quote:
Since it’s release in the U.S. and Australia last week, hundreds of Calgarians have found a work-around (that we can’t legally explain here) to download the mobile app and begin hunting in popular areas like Kensington or the Bow River.
Wait... what? They can't legally explain it? What exactly is the relevant law here? Was it the Nintendo Media Non-Disclosure Act of 2015 (aka the Gotta-hide-'em-all act)?

I get that they might not want to publish a technical how-to for assorted reasons (it's likely long, dry, and not pertinent to most of their readers), but why are they blaming the legal system?

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure I can describe illegal things in public. That includes such facts as "breaking someone's windshield with a sledgehammer is vandalism", without people misinterpreting my level of detail as instructions. There might be a few exceptions - court-ordered publication bans for example, but I'm pretty sure Nintendo's terms of service don't qualify.

Maybe - maybe - you could argue that Metro News was under some kind of contract not to release the information (in which case, they need better lawyers), but then they say this in the last paragraph:
"The game isn’t officially out in Canada yet, but there are plans to roll it out eventually. Until then, players are going online to find a work-around at get the game."
Ok, got it - if you want to play the game, go online and ask how. Thanks for the explanation that you're not legally allowed to give.

Murder is illegal. Somebody violating the terms of service of a video game by using a proxy server to download it (I imagine - haven't checked) is also illegal, technically. I wish we had a term to differentiate between those extremes. I guess we have summary conviction offenses (roughly what an American would call a misdemeanor) here, but even that seems harsh compared to this level of "crime". Is there a term even more damp and milquetoast? Maybe the Latin phrase for "you've got to be kidding me".

I'm really curious what prompted them to write that disclaimer.

As to Pokémon GO, not me thing. But hey, if it sounds like fun, have at 'er. Just watch you don't get hit by a car, and be mindful that there are people around you not playing the game.
jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
I hesitate to write this, lest someone use it against me. That's happened to me before. It's happened to me in adulthood.

I have a few phrases that are literally triggering. One of them is when people call me "big guy". There are few things in this world that will fill me with an instant, incandescent rage then when people refer to me that way. Why? Because growing up it was the go to phrase for any bully who was trying to be friendly with me, either as the setup for extra-cruel bullying, or because they wanted something from me. To me "big guy" is exactly synonymous with "I think you're too stupid to realize I'm patronizing you, and if I don't get what I want from you, the next thing I'll call you is big fat loser".

I was 100% accurate with that assessment as of graduating high school, and it happened more times than I can count. If someone called me "big guy" when trying to be friendly, that friendliness was fake, and it would be followed up soon after with real insults about my weight.

I get called that occasionally in adulthood. They're probably just trying to be friendly, and aren't actually bullies. Still, the trigger remains. When it happens, I tell them, flatly, "don't ever call me 'big guy' again". When this happens, I generally get some kind of excuse along the lines of "oh, it's because you're so tall". No it's not. Some really want to argue that they didn't mean anything by it, and should be allowed to keep doing it based on their good intentions. No. I get to decide what I'm called and I have a perfectly good name.

The correct response is "OK, I won't call you that again". I don't need an apology, because (assuming a first offence) this is something the person would have had no reason to know was a problem.

Today, an old acquaintance did it online and I was literally seconds from unfriending/blocking them on social media. They agreed not to do it again when I told them not to, so the triggering event is settled. However, I was still an anxiety-ridden grouch for the rest of the morning because of it. Only getting out of the office for an appointment/nice lunch snapped me out of it. That's when I realized that this was a trigger, and not simply something I don't like. My emotions were out of control. Hell, writing about it now has got me all fucked up emotionally, but I feel I need to write this down as a first step towards it not being a trigger.

In conclusion, don't call me that. If you do, knowing this, we're through. People who do so unwittingly will be told not to (hopefully politely, but it will likely be terse even with all my efforts to not be a jerk about it).
jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
On Wednesday I resigned as president of the MSCA. This is part of my current put-the-SCA-at-arm's-length plan. Today, I went to the bank to get my name taken off of the list of designated cheque-signers. It turns out I can't actually do this, despite it being my signature.

Here's what needs to happen: The MSCA needs to have a meeting to decide who the current cheque-signers are. Then they need to make an appointment to the bank where they bring a copy of those minutes. They'll sign a bunch of papers. I, apparently, cannot affect this process at all, despite it being my signature.

Now those hoops aren't terribly difficult, but that they exist at all tells me this: It will never happen. Never. I know this.

Bottom line is, I was the last person on council who gave a shit about the MSCA. As long as someone with authority doesn't hold their feet to the fire, and they have enough people who can still sign cheques, nothing will be done. They simply do not think it's worth lifting a finger for.

Hell, about a year ago, we were discussing getting the proper people (MSCA officers, rather than just random MSCA members) as signatories, I asked the treasurer to undergo a background check as a first step and he flatly refused. This is the lowest level of background check, where you fill out a form, give the police a couple of bucks to cover the costs, and they send you a letter saying they couldn't find anything obviously wrong. The guy refused to even consider it. I don't know if it's because he has some 18-year old's bullshit on his record that he doesn't want anyone to know about, or he's just some kind of libertarian you're-not-the-boss-of-me type (the latter seems more likely), but he simply wasn't going to do it, even though being able to interact with the bank is a job requirement for the treasurer.

Lots of other things have needed to happen for a long time, including simply getting rid of the MSCA (all SCA branch accounts need to be accessible by the SCA, and the MSCA is a separate legal entity, so we're not supposed to do it). They never get done. Oh, people will agree to do them, but that never matters. The aforementioned treasurer was especially cheerful when agreeing to do the things he never did.

Anyway, I figured there was one thing in my control, and that was getting my own name off the roster. Turns out I can't, and I'm basically stuck.
jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
Hackers exposed the user information from 37 million Ashely Madison/Established Men users. The former is the well-known cheat-on-your-spouse site, the latter, a site for rich men looking for young women. Both are pretty creepy.

I was briefly tempted to download the leaked data and see what I could find (searching for friends/relatives/coworkers basically) but changed my mind temporarily when I discovered the compressed data was almost 10GB in size. If I'm going to clobber my bandwidth, it's going to be for something worthwhile, like season 3 of Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries (I didn't download it - it fell off the back of a truck - honest).

My resolve became permanent when it occurred to me that this was like those leaked celebrity photos of Jennifer Lawrence et al. It was none of my business. If they want me, personally, to see their nude body, then they can let me know, or take a role involving nudity. And private pictures meant for someone else, just don't cut it.

Similarly, I have zero business looking at the Ashley Madison data. Why? Because it's a cheating website and I do not have a partner. If I were in a relationship where there was an expectation of monogamy, and I suspected my partner of cheating, then I have cause to look at that data - and even then, I should only look for them.

As Amanda Marcotte points out, cheating on your spouse does not violate the social contract, only a personal one.

There was a point where I found the whole Josh Duggar thing funny. It stopped being funny when I read this. A lot of people in less savory areas of the world (and let's be honest, here in the civilized west too) are now at severe risk, because of the hackers who stole this information. That risk goes beyond destroyed relationships and could include lost jobs, social ostracism, and death. You're a gay man in Saudi Arabia and you've been outed? Get the hell out of there if you can, is my advice. I can't imagine the religious police taking "it's none of your business" to heart. Religious Police is basically claiming the role of busybody and combining it with coercive violence. If you know anyone who makes the claim that that's a good thing, it's time to stop having anything to do with them.

One thing I've learned over the years is that lots of people cheat. While this may be a bad act, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad people - a distinction that took a long time to grok. Doesn't mean the victim needs to be sympathetic to them (I certainly wouldn't be, if I were the victim), but sometimes us innocent bystanders should be. Or if not forgiving, at least not willing to join in on the dog-pile. A simple "Yeah, maybe you should have split up before that, if things were so bad. Anyway, it's not my problem, so let's move on" should do, if it needs comment at all. In the end, what does going after a third-party cheater gain you? Nothing.

This whole situation is one in which there are no good guys, but we can unambiguously define a bad guy. Not Ashley Madison; though conceiving of, building, and maintaining such a project points to systemic sociopathy. Not the cheaters; while a lot of them are assholes, there's enough (like those gay, traveling, Saudis) that aren't that you should not indulge the dog-piling urge. It's the hackers. They tried to destroy a legal (if congenitally icky) company, thus imposing their questionable morals on others. In this I think they have little difference from the religious police. They're just gutless enough not to swing the truncheons themselves. Remember, they opted to release confidential information about random strangers to punish a company. And then they had the gall to claim it was Ashley Madison's fault that they had to release the data, as if they weren't independent moral actors. That like a bad trope that always makes me rage when I see it in fiction. "You forced me to shoot your wife when you didn't hand over your wallet. Her death is on you." No asshole, I think I can firmly put the blame on a murderous mugger. And bad a company as Ashely Madison is, and as bad as their policy to "delete" information was (not) implemented, I can definitely blame you guys for leaking it. Heads will literally roll over this. I hope someday you'll realize that you're to blame.
jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
One of the Saturday panels I was on was Gaming Controversies. I went hoping to hear something lucid about Gamergate and it's ilk. In fact, the panel was a bit deeper than that, though it was concerned with it.

I haven't linked to any Gamergate synopsis. Let's just go with misogynistic douchebags think that they're the victim when people object to them being misogynistic douchebags. They lash out at anyone who doesn't enthusiastically endorse their campaign to silence any woman with an opinion on the internet.

The panel was given by a collection of academics who studied Gaming culture. They were interested in how abusive online interaction occurs, what triggers it, and the ramifications of it. Others were more concrete in that they were focused on some of the issues directly (for example, sexual tropes in gaming, hence gamergate).

The panel itself was OK. The problem was that each of the panelists had a different focus, and by the time they each had introduced themselves and given their opening speech, we had used up 30 minutes of the 45 minute talk. It could have benefitted from either a unified approach, more time, or both.

During the Q&A period, one fellow got up and wanted the panelists to address how Social Justice Warriors were quashing dissent and censoring people. This was such a warped statement that it gave my brain that chewing-on-tinfoil sensation. In fact, it was so fractally wrong that I couldn't immediately come up with a proper rebuttal - I couldn't load enough information into one statement to encompass everything.

I tweeted about it and got a response from some jerk who wanted to Sea Lion me. I engaged briefly and then remembered that I had better things to do. Enjoying the rest of the expo for example.

I later learned that there was an organized bunch of GG assholes that decided to "infiltrate" the expo and got their asses kicked out the day before. I imagine the guy at the panel was a supporter - albeit not enough to show his solitarity by leaving the expo (and I wholeheartedly encourage any Gamergate supporters to boycott CCEE - vote with your wallets, misogynistic douchebags). Good on CCEE for doing that - not much point having a zero tolerance for abuse policy if you don't enforce it.
jamesq: (Foot in Ass)
Today, I want to rant a bit. First, go read this - it was what triggered the rant.

My old circle of friends had one of these guys - let's call him "Ed". He was perpetually late for all planned events. It was inevitable and he never apologized or changed. And people would just make excuses for him, and wait for him, for hours, over and over again. He wasn't quite alone in this behaviour (the circle was called Grey Mountain, and we called this overall behaviour Grey Mountain Standard Time), but he was the worst for it.

Aside: Like the article says, there's a big difference from the out-of-your-hands lateness that we're all victim of from time to time. This is about chronic lateness without excuse. Don't think I'm talking about you if you've been late now and then. I'm sympathetic about stuff like that - it happens to us all. No, this is about lateness as a sign of inconsideration.

Funny thing was, if the timing of something was out of our hands - the start time of a movie say - Ed would be there. And as far as I know, he was employed or in school for the entire time I've known him, so he could clearly get to work/school in a timely fashion. Apparently the only thing he felt he didn't have to be on time for was... us.

When I realized that, I stopped putting up with it. Sadly at the time, my ability to not put up with it was limited to urging the folks around me to simply move on without him. Going to Banff? We've been waiting two hours for Ed, let's just go. "Oh, we can't," they'd say, "Ed said he was coming". Yeah, and I bet if he gets here and finds out we've left without him, he'll make a point of being here on time for the next trip. Unfortunately, I didn't drive then, so I couldn't do anything but grind my teeth.

How bad was it? I sometimes thought he did it deliberately to "test" how well he was thought of.

This was an early lesson in how to spot the people around you who don't actually respect you. And if they don't respect you, but call you "friend", they're no such thing. Think of it as one of the early warning signs.
jamesq: (Rage)
I failed to get up on time for my morning jog. Rather than skip it, I took my gym strip to work with the intent of running the long way back home (The long way involves Bowmont park and Dalhousie Station and is 7-8K, whereas the short way is only 3.5). Today I remembered why I jog early. People.

The run was mostly good, but I stopped running at 5k because one of my shielding bandaids sweated off. It was damned hot for this ginger.

Anyway, I'm walking across the bridge at Dalhousie station and there are lots of young ladies walking towards me dressed nicely - no doubt they're going Stampeding and want to look their best. Unfortunately there was this skeevy guy just ahead of me who decided to harass one of them. He simply veered directly into the path of one lone young women so that she had to squeeze/brush past him to get on her way. And this wasn't something one could mistake for anything other than harassment - there were only a handful of people on the bridge, and you can normally walk four abreast without touching. This guy had no excuse.

I was stunned, and didn't really know what to say or do. And then he sees I'm watching him so he addresses me, like I'm on his side.
"Heh, they don't like it when you do that."
"Do what?", I ask, wondering how he's going to justify it.
"When you point at them."
Leaving aside the fact that this guy did not just point at her, he came so close to groping her as to be a pedantic distinction rather than a real one.
"I. Guess. You. Shouldn't. Do. That. Then.", I enunciate.
"I don't care.", he says as he veers off
Dumbass creep. If you don't care, why are you looking for validation from me? Sadly, I didn't think to say that since I was still stunned. I also didn't say "Maybe you should grow up then", but sadly, perfect retorts only come minutes later.

Still, I'd rather have not needed to confront this guy. I might have been bigger than him, but I'm no fighter. I can't imagine what that poor woman must have felt. I hope it didn't ruin her night out.

Honestly, I don't know how women put up with that crap like that day after day after day. And to all the women I've ever creeped on - I'm sorry, I'll do better in the future.

Later, while walking up the hill to my house some woman parks her car, opens the passenger door to let her two dogs out. The tiny one is on a leash and the medium sized one immediately runs to jump me, barking furiously. I swing my groceries in between us but the dog keeps hoping around, looking for an opening.

Meanwhile, the owner is yelling at her dog to sit/heel/get back/whatever. The dog is ignoring her.
"Jesus Christ lady, fucking grab your dog already!"
She doesn't, but it finally backs away from me to her.
"Sit", she says.
It doesn't sit.
"Yeah, that's doing a lot of good. If you can't fucking control your dog, put it on a fucking leash."
"Sorry."
I don't point out that sorry won't help me if I'm getting stitches. Instead, I just move around her car and continue home.

I walk in the door to my home.
Gerry says, "Hello."
"You know what I hate?", I ask.
"What?"
"People."
jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
I was walking to the Commercial/Broadway Skytrain today and didn't make it past the gauntlet. The gauntlet being the assorted panhandlers, hucksters and pollsters that inhabit the bridge over the Grandview Cut, where the station is built. A young woman is there with a clipboard and she managed to get my attention. Like an idiot, I let her.
There's a behavior that annoys me that I'm seeing more and more. Salespeople use it all the time now, especially if they work at mall kiosks that have a lot of foot traffic that goes by. It depends on there being a base level of social expectation in society. The young woman was using this method good and hard. I didn't follow the script though.

She started by asking my name. I didn't give it, instead saying she needed to make her pitch first. So she goes on to tell me about a charity. She asked lots of leading questions - questions designed to get me involved in a positive conversation about the charity. She described successful stories of the charity. She guesses (correctly) that I'm in favour of gender equality, education and democracy, and appeals to that sense of justice. She got into my personal space, looked me in the eye and smiled a lot. If her hands weren't occupied, I'm sure she'd have been repeatedly touching my arm.

It's simple really, it's feigned friendliness to draw you in so they have a greater chance of succeeding with their sales pitch. It depends on people responding properly, politely. I think it's ultimately going to hurt us all. We're engaged in a sort of behavior one-upmanship where salespeople are more and more aggressive and their marks become more and more callous to calls for help from strangers under the belief that those people are trying to trick them. It drives us all to be more rude and isolated from each other.

Now I don't deny that it works - if it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. And that doesn't mean that it has to work with everyone - it only has to work over a population, not the individuals in the population.

As an aside, when I was the social outcast as a child, this sort of behavior was used on me to make the bullying worse. Someone socially popular would "befriend" me, usually to get some kind of information out of me (that would be used against me) or to place me in a situation where I could be isolated or attacked. I fell for it a lot. I fell for it when I knew better, such is the desperate desire to be part of the group.

What that means is I'm hyper-alert to the tactic, and when I twig to it, I react very negatively to it. That's not to say that other people don't have a negative reaction to it, or that they're not alert to it when it happens, just that I, personally, have good reasons for reacting the way I do. I'm positive that plenty of the people reading this will agree with me about it without having to be a traumatic lesson from childhood.

Getting back to the young woman, she finally twigged to the fact that my not following the script was deliberate rather than me being obtuse.

"Now what could you buy me for $1.20?"

I don't respond. I am thinking that I'd rather not buy her anything at all.

"Um. pardon?", she asks when she interprets my failure to respond as her not hearing what I said. "So what could you buy me for $1.20?"

I dig my heels in, look her straight in the eye and don't say anything.

"Could you buy a... doughnut for $1.20?"

Another awkward moment passes.

"Um. I'm getting the feeling you're not interested in this charity."
Finally, I respond. "Quite the contrary, the charity seems reasonable. It's your approach that I don't like."

She's taken aback. "May I ask why?"

"Because this whole time you've been talking like you want to get to know me better, but what you really want is my money. That's dishonest. You've done it by feigning friendliness to get close to me and that's creepy. and it's all unnecessary - the charity speaks for itself and doesn't need you to trick me into supporting it. But now I'm in the awkward position of liking the cause, but not wanting to reward your methods."

Let's say the situation was somewhat reversed. Let's say I encountered this woman in a nightclub and I used all of the same tactics on her in an attempt to pick her up. I'd be rightly judged as a creepy PUA type who depended on the fact that people are socialized not to be confrontational to succeed.

I compromised by asking for how I could look it up later rather than sign my name to a form that would obligate me to donating over and over again.

It's hours later now and it still bothers me. First, I has overly critical to a front-line worker who was just doing her job. She didn't know she was stepping into my drama. It also bothers me that I care about that - that I'm worried about the feelings of someone who was trying to emotionally manipulate me. It makes me simultaneously guilty and angry. Finally, it depresses me to recognize that building this sort of emotional armour comes with a terrible cost - I'm bitter and paranoid. In this case, reasonably so, but how many people have I turned away because I've assumed the worst from them?

Boston

Apr. 15th, 2013 04:46 pm
jamesq: (Rage)
As I write this, the Boston Marathon Terrorist Attack is still an ongoing thing. Nobody really knows anything other than a couple bombs went off near the finish line and there have been a few deaths and more injuries.

Once again some asshole has decided on their own volition that we can't have nice things. Not just in the immediate sense that it's affected the victims in Boston. No, now everyone is going to have low-level paranoia revolving around every little footrace. I hate that - and not just because I routinely participate in foot races. It would be equally bad if it were at a dog show or a fantasy-football convention (I was going to say "movie premiere", but of course, that's already happened).

[speculation on who's responsible redacted, because wild-ass guesses don't help]

Hopefully law enforcement solves this crime right away and the criminals are swiftly apprehended.

As for avoiding races, please don't. I heard an interesting statistic a few years ago - don't know if it's true: The number of people who die over the course of a big race due to heart attacks is smaller than that of the same amount of people who don't run. That is to say, the per-capita rate of heart attacks over the five hours of a marathon is greater for the population at large than it is for race participants. Or more to the point, participating in the race is safer.

A few caveats about that. With regards to Boston specifically, they probably get less heart attacks than normal for other races. You need to qualify for the Boston marathon. You don't need to qualify for the Calgary marathon, so it's going to get more people who aren't prepared to do it.

What does any of that have to do with the attack? Just that one should remember that what makes something newsworthy doesn't make it likely. A terrorist attack is so unlikely that my odds of dying during a run via lightning strike is higher, which in turn is less likely than me keeling over from a heart attack. And I don't let heart attacks or dark clouds stop me from running.

Don't let terrorists get under your skin. The perpetrators are criminals, not the boogie-man. Keep calm and carry on as they say - it's a lot better than freaking out.
jamesq: (Rage)
News from the Catholic Country of Ireland:
Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.
Source.

Disgusting. I hope that the authorities charge whoever they can with whatever they can at that hospital. They probably won't though. If any good comes of this, it will be because Ms. Halappanavar's death triggers a change. I can think of three changes, in decreasing order of goodness:

1) Legalize abortion. That's it. Not illegal unless raped and not illegal unless dying. Legal, across the board. It's between a woman and her doctor. The state should tell women how to use their uteri exactly as often as they tell me how to use my kidney.

And to be clear, I mean everywhere, not just Ireland where it's mostly illegal, or Canada where it's mostly legal.

2) Abortion on exceptions that would have helped this woman, and others. It's a step in the right direction. If my options are "legal for some exceptions" and "none at all", I'll hold my nose and pick the former.

3) Some doctor, when presented with a similar case, will simply lie. *unplugs heart monitor* "I can't hear a fetal heartbeat - rush this woman to the OR." Maybe the doctor will get away with that lie, maybe they won't (or maybe they'll come clean during the inquiry); I don't know how easy it would be to get away with it in the long term. However, if they can get away with it in the short term, their lie will have saved a life. I think lying to save a life is an acceptable sin. Perhaps one of Ms. Halappanavar's doctors, having trouble looking themselves in the mirror every morning, has quietly decided to do that next time. I hope so. Not just because it would be a positive change, but also because I'd like to think that their conscience does bother them. It should.
jamesq: (Jarhead)
There's a picture meme running around Facebook right now that I've included below:

Santa Loves Veterans

A friend conveyed the same sentiment in his status update in a much more erudite manner without the picture. He was not alone.

Does anyone other than me think this is actually somewhat disrespectful of veterans? We'll leave aside the fact that Remembrance Day is actually meant for remembering armed forces members who have died in the line of duty. One could easily reword the picture to reflect that.

Now I'm someone who has great respect for what our veterans have done. We ask them to do a difficult, sometimes life-threatening job and they don't often get thanks for it. Sometimes they do things I'd rather they didn't do, but that's not really their fault so much as it is the government that gives them their assignments. I can disagree with our military being in Afghanistan, and I can think that they're not accomplishing much while there, but that doesn't mean they're not trying and they're not in danger.

So yes, I respect our soldiers and our veterans.

My big objection is using veterans for emotional blackmail. Don't do X because Veterans! It's like the very similar argument of Think of the Children. It's not something you say if you are interested in debating something on its merits; You say it when you want to stifle debate. After all, you couldn't possibly support X, that means you hate our troops!

Completely unrelated to this, I agree that retailers get into Christmas-mode way too early (I know the meme says decorations, but it's really retailers who are guilty of this 99% of the time). If I had my druthers, it wouldn't begin until much later than November 12 - I'd put it at the American Thanksgiving weekend. This gives everyone time to prepare for Black Friday. A month-long span that begins and ends with holiday weekends should be plenty.

In short, there might be damn good reasons why we would want to limit Christmas. Or not, I suspect most people just find it a little exhausting rather than an affront. I say live-and-let-live. If a retailer wants to go all Christmas-y starting in July, it's no skin off my nose. I might decide not to shop there because it's irritating, but in the end I'll probably base my purchasing decisions on other criteria, like price or convenience. If too-early Christmas means that much to you, don't shop there. That means some personal inconvenience as you search for alternatives though and I bet most of the people who've posted this meme aren't going to put any more effort into this than clicking on "like". And that puts memes like this firmly into the realm of slacktivism - important enough to share, not important enough to take any real action. It's a little like prayer that way. As for supporting veterans by not doing something - I can claim I'm patriotic by not putting up decorations. It's so much easier than actually doing something, like attending Remembrance Day ceremonies. I support Canada's Justice system by not pissing on the courthouse steps! Easy!

I suppose one could simply actually ask a veteran their opinion in the matter - whether they think we should control behaviour prior to November 12th. I suspect they don't think that. However "veterans" is not some platonic ideal of a class of people who all share the same opinion. My dad served in the Canadian Forces (albeit not during wartime) and he couldn't get enough of Christmas - it was his favourite holiday. Other veterans might not celebrate Christmas at all.

On the subject of using veterans as your club to shame people? I'm guessing they like that even less than early Christmas decorations.

Profile

jamesq: (Default)
jamesq

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  1 23 456
7 89 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 29th, 2025 12:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios