Heart of Canada

A Thought For The Weekend

Start by doing what's necessary, then do what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible."
--Saint Francis of Assisi

QQs

Here's another one:

"If you have nothing to lose, you can try everything."
- Yiddish proverb

No fear.

On another note, I think I'm going to buy a copy of Peter Newman's book on Mulroney. What Mulroney was quoted as saying about his own story looked pretty tantalizing to me:

The only question they're going to have to wonder about is whether they've got enough paper in the forest to print the fucking books," Mulroney said.  "I'll tell you this, if there ain't a good book in this, there's not a good book in Canadian history. [Link]

There's nothing quite like tales told from the inside. This one should be a keeper.

QQs

I saw this rather striking statement at the bottom of an e-mail sent to me today:

"He who sees a need and waits to be asked for help is as unkind as if he had refused it."
--Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

Positano

Tony Nuccio has absolutely beautiful pictures of Positano, Italy and the surrounding landscapes. It's nice to have Rachel Portman's Positano playing in the background while you look at the photos. *sigh*

I so very much want to live in a slow city and eat slow food.

Today's Thought

Some people seem regularly to be willing to blather on about things of which they know little or nothing at all.

/today's thought

If You've Decided To Use The F Word

Chances are, if you have something nasty to say, I have not only heard it before, but have heard it several times. Thus, if you intend to hurt my feelings, please be creative.Let me help you get started. Here is A Helpful Guide to Words and Phrases That Do Not Hurt: feminazi, socialist, Marxist, ugly, dyke, man-hater, man-eater, misandrist, frigid, sexist, bitch, slut, whore, etc. in all their various incarnations and related terminology. I will be more insulted if you badmouth one of my favorite bands than if you revert to name-calling. Really....

I am not interested in meeting feminist standards of card-carrying feminism. If you read feminist literature, it is likely you have run across the term “feminism(s)” or read that “there are as many feminisms as there are feminists.”

The quotation is an excerpt from a recent diatribe over at feministe. I kind of laughed when I read this part of her post, but it was the kind of laugh that springs from recognition, the kind that can be translated into a small nod of the head or a "yeah."

I've never embraced the word "feminist" to describe my view of the world, and I doubt I'd be mistaken for a Marxist. On the other hand, if I so much as open my mouth in the direction of expressing thoughts about women's status in society, protrayal in the media, or use in marketing, some readers will immediately reply with the F word -- feminist -- in retort to what I have said. Some of those readers are women.

Citing the ever encroaching authority of "the nanny state," these readers seem to want society to put no limits on marketers, and if you object to degrading posts on blogs about women, you will be sure to stir the dregs of hostility into a full-out blogwar. I don't usually advocate writing laws that restrict what marketers can do. Instead, I expect people to vote with their feet and not support organizations (or bloggers) who reap benefits from exploiting others. There are plenty of fine companies and bloggers out there who don't.

In day-to-day life, the situation is usually much different. People aren't so willing to jump out and pin a big F to your chest, but they show their biases in other ways. For example, I have seen men and women alike overtly discount the concerns of women by just denying that they hold any validity or credibility. When I've brought up concerns, myself, I've had men reply "No, that's not true," even to the mostly strikingly obvious of situations. On the other hand, I've also seen men override each other's rights and feelings and have found myself sticking up, at times, for them as well. Accordingly, I find myself feeling simultaneously alienated from and identifying with the word feminist.

Therefore, I've come to a decision: henceforth, I shall refer to myself as an androgynist, equally concerned with the rights of women and men, as well as the exploitation of adults and children, particularly in the media. What does this mean? Nothing, actually, because it's not like I'm going to be actively crusading for or against anything in particular. On the other hand, it will give me a link to point to the next time someone knee-jerkishly replies to one of my posts by using the "F" word simply because they couldn't think of something less hostile and more interesting so say.

If the same readers decide to use the A word, now, instead of the F word, at least we'll be on equal footing, as I know an, admittedly shorter, A word that would nicely apply to people who engage in dialogue like that. In the words of feministe, "If you address me with sarcasm, I likely will address you with the same. One cannot expect a thoughtful and intelligent answer to an unthoughtful comment." If I've directed you to this link because of something you said in my comments section, consider yourself corrected.

I, Fox.

You are the fox.

 Saint Exupery's 'The Little Prince' Quiz.

          brought to you by Quizilla

A woman I know lay critically ill. She always had a moment for me, a kind word, even when others close to her did not.

I would like to live in the world of The Little Prince tonight:

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye."

"To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world."

- Antoine de Sainte-Exupery

[Via Rana]

Why I Love New Yorkers

If I were to describe the essential quality of the New York spirit, the one quality I learned to admire and to emulate when I was schooled there, it would be sophisticated fearlessness. Who could help but admire a people so unabashedly unafraid of deeper thought, reflexive contemplation, that actually leads people to change their minds, grow beyond an experience, or admit they were mistaken?

Reflexive contemplation has been the death knell for many a politician or newspaper editor in the flurry-scurry business of inventing hasty headlines. Deep down, though, people essentially know that superficial assumptions and rhetoric make for cheap politics -- cheesy puffs -- whereas the meatiness of reflexive contemplation restores and builds.

The ability of a person to remain flexible in thinking, to have a change of heart, or to see another point of view, these qualities stand out, for me, as paramount. Sadly, many people would have anything but admiration for reflexive contemplation, seeing it as a threatening streak of boldness or some kind of churlish independence.

Surely only descendants of Diana Moon Glampers, herself, could interpret deeper thought as insolence, as if one were somehow taking unfair advantange of one's own brains; for change arising from reflexive contemplation remains a quality of true royalty, the inheritance of divine kings. Reflexive contemplation nurtures mercy and taps the wellspring of forgiveness. Without it, we are consigned to rigid partisanship and unrelenting dominance wrought by misunderstanding the true nature of power, for true power requires continual adjustment and calibrated change to the world's challenges.

In our era, having a change of heart seems a sign of weakness, mercy. Softening or changing one's mind signals a loss of control, not forgiveness. So imagine my surprise when I read these words published in New York Metro:

After the blizzard and before the fashion shows, you may have heard, the elections in Iraq went off extremely well. Remember?....

New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans, that the richness and difficulty of life here give our intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W. Bush).

Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush’s risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in a de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. We can be angry with Bush for bringing us to this nasty ethical crossroads, but here we are nonetheless.

New York. That bastion of liberalism. That crown jewel of chic. In truth, New Yorkers are better than that. Through the rich diversity of their city, from crushing poverty and drug dealing in Washington Square Park, to Village shops selling $15,000 Warhol prints and stunningly true wealth, New Yorkers recognize both the reality of difference and the importance of perspective. We chide them for being fashion kings and queens, yet it is that very sensitivity to what is trendy or gauche that asserts their very openness to change. Are they smarter than everyone else? Perhaps, but only because they don't handicap themselves like Vonnegutian thought police.

Coupled with careful thinking, New Yorkers' openness, not their liberalness, makes the New York spirit a national and international treasure. Their sophisticated fearlessness, perhaps borne by the greatness of their city, itself, enables them to communicate that openness of thought, that reflexive contemplation, to the world. More than the twin towers were targets on 9/11: it was the spirit of New Yorkers that terrorists wished to quell, and it is that very spirit, that sophisticated fearlessness rooted in genuine openness to change, which will, in the end, be an enduring frustration for tyrants in the world. Start spreadin' the news.

[Via Miltsfile]

Sunday Evening

Hello

Love Made This Film

"What is our humiliation at the moment is our glory later on."
- St. Therese of Lisieux

Hubby and I wanted to see the premier of a movie I'd been anticipating the release of for over a year. I was worried we wouldn't be able to get tickets because of Friday night line ups and, sure enough, but the time we finished up with dinner and did our driving-teens-around stint, we arrived at the theatre only a few minutes before the start of the film. The movie, of course, was the Canadian premiere of Thérèse, the story of St. Theresa of Lisieux, my patron saint. 

As we walked in, nobody was in line but us and then a friend of ours soon after. We hurried into the theatre and really had our pick of seats because there were only about a dozen people in attendance. The jaded part of me wasn't surprised, but the true me was disappointed. I wanted the theatre to be jam-packed. Then I thought, how appropriate, a little audience for her little way.

In a word, the film was gentle. Full of pathos and compassion, the film is a beautiful testament to the true vocation of the Little Flower, which was love. Everything about this film was love, from the donations that made the film possible to the simple beauty of the cinematography to the soundtrack written by a cloistered Carmelite sister, the film embraces you with its simple, yet powerful, message and emotion.

I have read many books about our Little Sister, including her autobiography, so as I watched the film, I kept filling in details from the works I had read. However, I thought the film producers captured the essential details of her life, including her continuing faith despite her long-suffering spiritual crisis.

Besides being a straighforward telling of her lifestory, however, this film, in its small way, succeeds in making a much larger point about the dignity and value of devotion to a true vocation. While we all have vocations -- callings -- to various types of service or work in life, this film illustrates the value of a religious vocation in service to others, prayer, and communal life. The film moves us with the power of her love.

When I think of Thérèse, I wonder whether it is possible for the world to tolerate a person who has so much love for others within her. Perhaps even in our own era -- especially in our own era -- we can take instruction from this young woman, this doctor of the church, in how to love one another.

True Charity consists in bearing with all the defects of our neighbor, in not being surprised at his failings, and in being edified by his least virtues; Charity must not remain shut up in the depths of the heart, for no man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. (Cf. Matthew 5:15). It seems to me that this candle represents the Charity which ought to enlighten and make joyful, not only those who are dearest to me, but all who are in the house.
- St. Theresa of Lisieux,Story of A Soul, Chpt. IX

Roaming Herds of Cats

Neeka put some great photos of her recent trip to Istanbul on her fotopage, highlighting for me how different that part of the world looks from Canada. This one just wouldn't happen in Canada without news headlines, "humane" society intervention (read: putting them all down), and probably a municipal inquiry...maybe even a national one. Over there, hey it's a different culture. Pigeons, cats, whatever, I guess. Wonder what it would look like to see them all scatter...heh.

Art and Science

We believe what we choose to believe in life for many different reasons. Mr. Anchovy has a posted a pithy yet profound insight into paradoxes of belief in art and science.

Good Morning

I hope you have a peaceful day. It's almost the weekend.

One! Singular Sensation!

Did any one else see that completely over-the-top, absolutely hilarious down-the-corridor stroll Julianna Margulies took on Scrubs tonight? I nearly laughed myself out of my seat.

And John...that one wasn't sexually exploitive, not even of the men ; ) Heh.

Birds

Life, Love, and Henchmen

"Rather than be discouraged, always remember that rejection and resistance are almost guaranteed when you are doing something very important and very special."
- Bradley Trevor Greive [Link]

Somebody who really loves me bought me this book yesterday and kept encouraging me to read it. It's short, but I had a really long day and just didn't want to read anything.

This morning, I was laying in bed trying to wrestle covers away from the dogs, when I thought of the book and decided to look at it. I started reading it and ended up reading it straight through from beginning to end. It is very short, but I couldn't put it down.

The book fits so well with my way of seeing the world. It's pro "each other," pro love, pro celebrating life, and so much more. On top of all that, it's filled with amazing photographs of animals -- some beautiful, some hysterical -- that poignantly drive the author's points home.

I recommend you read it.

Oh, and one final point. To the former colleague of mine who keeps trying to convince me that he cares about me while simultaneously acting like a henchman for the evil advisors to the king...this book is especially for you. You may think you've conquered my career, but you'll never conquer my spirit. Remember that, when you think about those horrid and inexcusable things you said to me last night. Even still, I forgive you. Eventually, you will understand. In the mean time, read this book, and heal your fractured existence.

Liar

Lie to me, if you want to.
I can see through your words
Straight into you.
Lie to me, if you want to,
But, when the time comes,
Don't expect me
To lie for you.

What Did You Say?

I was talking with hubby, and, while discussing the various comings and goings of life, I made the following comment:

Boy-George-is-going-to-be-pissed.

Hubby gave me a strange look, and said "Why, what happened?"

You see, he thought I meant this guy:

Source

Because we don't use punctuation in verbal utterances, we sometimes have to rely on intonation to convey certain kinds of meanings in our conversations. I had said, "Boy, George is going to be pissed," which he interpreted to be a statement about an 80s pop star. It made for a very funny moment.

/grammargeek

The Change

one of them might have been just walking that day
strolling
while another one rushed to work
shouldering through crowds like you do
in New York City
others went sight-seeing
never expecting such a sight

that day
we must never forget
they can never remember
that day

we will never see it as they did
and we pray
never
again
will
any
one
to do and see
what they did
and saw
that day

Nek Chand's Garden

"After his normal working day Chand worked at night, in total secrecy for fear of being discovered by the authorities.When they did discover Chand's garden, local government officials were thrown into turmoil. The creation was completely illegal - a development in a forbidden area which by rights should be demolished. The outcome, however, was the enlightened decision to give Nek Chand a salary so that he could concentrate full-time on his work, plus a workforce of fifty labourers. Nek Chand's great work received immediate recognition and was inaugurated as The Rock Garden of Chandigarh." Link

The work of a former Indian transport official, Nek Chand's garden is described as a modern wonder. You can view pictures of it at the gallery here.

Do you think if I work on my blog really hard, someone will pay me a salary to concentrate on it full time? Wouldn't that be nice....

Math Hysteria

A friend forwarded this funny to me today:

Teacher Arrested

At Phoenix Sky Harbor airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator. At a morning press conference, Attorney General John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction. Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'there are 3 sides to every triangle'." When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us more fingers and toes."

Night Blogging

After the storm cleared tonight, I had the occasion to go night driving (when you have a teen, you do a lot of that). On a warm summer night, cruising slowly around with Pink Floyd's album Wish You Were Here floating gently on the cool breeze makes for a moment that touches on perfection.

Remember when you were young,
You shone like the sun.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Now there's a look in your eyes,
Like black holes in the sky.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
You were caught on the crossfire
Of childhood and stardom,
Blown on the steel breeze.
Come on you target for faraway laughter,
Come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!

I have a theory about the universe that I think of every time I look up in to the sky at night. The theory is that the universe is a grand illusion, and that what we see is not really there, at least not any more. The starlight that took billions upon billions of light years to reach us represents the last vestiges of a great void, a grand illusion playing out before us each and every evening. When we look up, we're looking into the past, a great show of light before ultimate darkness. Time subsumes all matter and exists as intersecting dimensions. We are entities of time passing through space, which is why we shoudn't look to space for answers when they can only be accessed via our metaphysical selves.

Heavy.

See what happens when you listen to Pink Floyd in the dark?

There is no pain, you are receding.
A distant ship’s smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re sayin’.
When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.

And, if you've read this whole post, then you might as well follow these directions:

Click here, then click the center album, choose your connection, then click the picture that looks like two cocoons, then click the top left hand square, and you'll be more than adequately rewarded for reading through this weirdo blog post.

Pink Floyd lyrics from here and here, or check out their official site.

With Love, Always

My grandmother passed away yesterday. She loved carnations, so, with this small tribute, I honour her memory.

I'll be travelling soon to be with my family. Blogging will be, well, I don't really know. We'll see how things are going.

I hope you all have a good week.

Home Away from Home

It felt like New York on the prairies tonight.
The air, warm and moist,
Pressed softly against my skin,
Inviting me into its humid embrace.
As I wound my way up White Swan in the dark
The hills rose on the left like the Appalachians,
While distant lights and muted sounds of traffic
Trifled with my imagination and memory:
The Magic City, ever with me, ever bright.

Help Me God, I'm Nietzsche

Via The Monger, I came across this quiz. Every blogger seems to be doing it now, so I might as well too. Which ethical philosopher do you think I am?

Last year, I would have been Aquinas, hands down:
Aquinas (1225 or '27-1274)

- All life has a purpose
- Meeting this purpose allows one to be happy.
- Happiness is to be found in the love of God.
- God's grace providing entrance into heaven creates the highest form of human happiness.
- Short of heaven, a person can achieve a more limited form of happiness through a life of virtue and friendship.
- Morality is not determined by the arbitrary will of God.
- Morality is derived from human nature and the activities that are objectively suited to it.
- The difference between right and wrong can be appreciated through the use of reason and reflection.
- Religious reflection may supplement the use of reason and reflection to determine right from wrong.
- Societies must enact laws to ensure the correct application of moral reasoning.
- Human nature is good because God made it good.

Now, I'm:

Nietzsche

- We have free will
- There is no God
- Social conformity should not hold us back
- The interests of others should not restrain us
- We should be passionate beings
- Masculinity, strength and passion are the highest qualities in a person
- Conventional morality is a crutch to man

Wow. I thought folks like us couldn't join the Conservative party. Heh.

The result likely is a response to events having happened to me over the past year. I do believe there is a God. I guess. I just don't believe priests necessarily know anything about where God is, but they make really good liturgical technicians.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
- Freidrich Nietzsche [Link]

About the masculinity thing...I'd be okay with that in terms of the stereotype, but not if it's specifically gender-linked. Androgyny is probably the best, in terms of a reasonable balance between being individual versus community oriented, whatever you interpret that to mean. Strength is good either way, but so is connectedness. There is a place for gentleness in life. I natter....

"Can an ass be tragic? To perish under a burden one can neither bear nor throw off? The case of the philosopher."
- also Freidrich Nietzsche [Link]

I think the modern philosophical equivalent to all this is, "Life's a bitch, now so am I." I believe Catwoman said that.

I guess I'll go read this now.

Winston Review, No. 1

Nicholas Packwood, over at Ghost of a Flea, has his first edition of the Winston Review up today, which is a new feature at his blog offering links to "spirited" and "uplifting" writing on the net. [Link]

I was pleasantly surprised to see one of my personal favourites listed there today, Kate's "The Werewolf Extinction," plus one by yours truly ; )

Check it out. Makes perfect weekend reading.

West Side Story: Grief Unresolved

I saw West Side Story last night at Castle Theatre. For me, the experience provoked a whole range of emotions, from goosebumps to tears, in part because of the outstanding performance of the lead performers and the rest of the cast. However, the performance also was nostalgic for me, bringing back amazing memories of working with a number of those same cast members -- Gavin, Ashley, Matt, and Sheena -- during Jesus Christ Superstar!, performed last season at the Broadway. If you can go see this show, I suggest getting your tickets now. It was packed last night, and surely it will become sold out for the remainder of the run. I started writing out specific highlights and memories for me, like Gavin and Ashley's balcony duet, but, honestly, there were too many good moments to list them all. Just go.

While most people in the audience watched the play, they likely were not aware of the play-within-the-play that was going on during the main event. People close to me know that I have filed a lawsuit against my former employer. Last night, during intermission, I stood up to stretch my legs, and I noticed three people at the play together who are positively central to events relating to my lawsuit. There we were, me and my family on one side of the theatre -- the other group on the other side of the theatre. At first I thought -- like the Sharks and the Jets. Then I realized, no, not like that.

While I listened to the melodies and themes sung so beautifully during the second half of the show, the lyrics and events struck me with double meaning. Two sides, yes, but what's being torn apart is love, in our case, as Catholic academics, Christ's love for us and my love for academia and my career. I thought about that as Tony was carried out -- there goes my career -- but there also goes any chance at love, friendship, collegiality, even hope and forgiveness -- killed, for what reason?

Then, Maria's words of rage and deep, inconsolable grief, so powerfully delivered by Ashley:

"How do you fire this gun, Chino? Just by pulling this little trigger? How many bullets are left, Chino? Enough for you? And you? All of you? WE ALL KILLED HIM; and my brother and Riff. I, too. I CAN KILL NOW BECAUSE I HATE NOW. How many can I kill, Chino? How many - and still have one bullet left for me?" [Link]

The refusal to love and to see the humanity in others -- this is what kills life, love, and happiness in West Side Story and planted hate in Maria's heart. Maria says she contributed to Tony's death -- perhaps because she ordered him to stop the fight, throwing him into the midst of others' rage, perhaps just because she was there at all, one of the PRs. Riff and Bernardo's deaths resulted from acts of rage -- including that of Tony, who slipped so easily back into violence. Conversely, what Maria wanted was love and understanding, but she became the unwitting focus of others' politics and plots -- their turf war, and it was her love and her dreams that, in the end, were crushed, victim to others' hatred and defiance.

In West Side Story, Christians stood on both sides. What in this world stops Christ-loving people from being able to speak with each other? What stops them from seeing the humanity in each other -- or the divinity? As Director of Earthcare, Duane Guina, was recently quoted as saying (in the Saskatoon Roman Catholic Diocesan Spring 2004 Newsletter), "We have to start to think of the human dimension of all of our actions." The title of the article in that newsletter? Faith cannot be separated from life choices. How very true.

What stops Christ-loving people from seeing each other's humanity, from being able to speak to each other? My answer: nothing but themselves. However, if you're told not to speak to a person without a lawyer, you're not left with much choice, are you, even if you, yourself, prefer to talk? Turning the other cheek isn't easy when you've got a mortgage and your entire career on the line. Firing guns isn't the answer either.

I am not a perfect apostle, but I do know love is greater than administration and should, in every instance, form the foundation of every Christian relationship, whether in joy or conflict. When we deny each other's humanity, we do a kind of violence to each other, not pointing guns like in the play, which is never a solution to anything in relationships, but we do a kind of emotional, interpersonal harm that lasts.

However, as much as I would like love to be at the heart of all intentions, it is not. Where I want love, others want procedure. So we proceed instead of talking to each other. Yet, I cannot forget these words of Maria:

"I have a love, and it's all that I have. Right or wrong, what else can I do?...When love comes so strong, there is no right or wrong, your love is your life!" [Link]

Christ said there is no greater love than to lay down your life for another (John 15:13). It's hard to do that, put aside everything in order to stand for something true, but this is what I feel I must do, even if it means making the entire, unimaginable grief I have experienced open to the world.

From Sea to Me

I listened to the sound of the sea on someone's cell this morning. What a beautiful way to start the day.

It sounded a lot like this. If you bookmark the post, you can come back and listen to the sea any time you like.

That's me, I guess

You are: KETCHUP! A good loyal friend with a
sense of humor.
---What fast food condiment are you?---
brought to you by Quizilla (Via Beancounter Daydreams)

Clearly, I'm taking way too many coffee breaks today....

Still Friends

That was nice. Too bad about the foosball table.

TV Friends

The last sit-com I watched faithfully was Happy Days. Honestly. I didn't even care that Fonzie jumped the shark. I just loved that show.

The Fonz. There's something I don't think of everyday. I had this great lime-green Fonzie t-shirt. It was cool.

I've dropped in and out of other sitcoms, notably Seinfeld, Frasier, Mash (which I don't find funny anymore), Roseanne (which now annoys me), Gary Shandling, Cosby, The Simpsons, Home Improvement and Drew Carey. I can still watch Seinfeld, Frasier, Friends and (whispers...Three's Company). I used to watch This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Air Farce, but they've really taken a dive.

The only other series shows I actually watch on a regular basis are Law and Order (plus spin-offs) and CSI (plus spin-offs). Ok, I used to watch Star Trek & TNG a lot, too, but not now.

Then there are all the other shows I watch, namely "THE NEWS" -- any and all news, Question Period, Peter Mansbridge One-on-One, and CPAC/Legislative Debates when I can. I LOVE movies. I liked Prey, V and X-Files (until it got too boring).

The reality, for me, however, is that most of my electronically plugged-in time is spent online or listening to the radio (or listening to the radio online). I'm a radio junkie -- I'll admit that. I have several radios at home, a radio in my office and several portable radios. I even have teeny-weeny radios and radios that no longer work. I used to have a CB radio!

So, will I watch the Friends finale tonight? Yes. Just out of interest, maybe a little closure. When Friends first came on, I was really worried about it because, as a parent, I was concerned about the message it might send to my child who was in the early grade-school years at the time. All the kids at school were talking about the show, and I wouldn't let any child of mine watch it. In fact, in those years, we didn't even have cable tv, and only just recently got it again within the past year or two.

Of course, I won't forget about The Friendly Giant and Mr. Dress-Up. And Gilligan's Island. And Get Smart.

So, I guess, with the exception of news, I have a kind of ambivalent relationship with tv entertainment.

Strip Search: ZZZZZZZZ

I watched the short film Strip Search tonight on tv. The film juxtaposes the experiences of an American student in China, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, with the experiences of an Arab student in the USA, played by Bruno Lastra. Both students are detained, interrogated, and strip searched by authorities of the countries in which they have been studying. Lastra's character is interrogated by Glenn Close; Gyllenhaal, by Ken Leung. For the most part, the experiences -- even the dialogue -- are parallel between their respective settings, but some differences between the two do exist.

The film really should have been called Strip Snore. It was incredibly boring, and the acting was quite uneven, Close and Lastra doing a far superior job to Gyllengaal and Leung. Close was insidiously frightening, while Leung's attempts at empathy came off as improbable, and he really wasn't very scary at all. Gyllengaal's reactions were unbelievable, at times, and she caved in quickly -- more quickly than Lastra, which made me wonder if someone was trying to make a point here about gender. Would we have believed Demi Moore or Sharon Stone caving so easily? Linda Hamilton? Fred Rogers? Woody Allen? The portrayal of women's and men's reactions in this film lends itself to easy criticism.

Also problematic was the treatment of sexual victimization. While Close's character threatens to sexually touch Lastra's, Leung's character follows through on the threat. The lack of parallelism in this part also made me wonder about gender bias and stereotyping. For example, the Chinese interrogator keeps touching the American woman's breasts, but the American interrogator only threatens to touch the Arab man's genitals, instead, repeatedly slapping him on the head. If the man's character had received exactly the same treatment as the woman's, it would have seemed equally humiliating to him as it was to her; yet, for some reason, the writer and/or director decided to have only the woman sexually assaulted.

I was left wondering what the point was. Were the film makers trying to say that women are inherently more vulnerable to sexual victimization during interrogations? Men can be victims of sexually assaultive acts and humiliation, just as women, especially in this kind of totalitarian setting. Maybe the very worst aspect of this film was how poorly it portrayed actual interrogation methods by cruel regimes. Here's an excerpt from Anne Applebaum's Gulag to consider, regarding interrogations held under Stalin's rule:

"Certainly it is true that during this period many, many prisoners record being beaten and kicked, their faces smashed in and their organs ruptured. Evgeny Gnedin describes being hit on the head simultaneously by two men, one on the left, one on the right, and then being beaten with a rubber club. This took place in Beria's private office, in Beria's presence, in the Sukhanovka prison. The NKVD also practiced methods of torture known to other secret police forces in other eras, such as hitting their victims in the stomach with sandbags, breaking their hands or feet, or tying their arms and legs behind their backs and hoisting them in the air."

Strip Search, as a result, comes off as irresponsibly idealistic and naïve in its presentation of what interrogation can actually become in the hands of totalitarian regimes. For this reason and more, the film was, in every sense of the word, trite. On the one hand, the film portrayed interrogation -- Chinese and American. It could have been any two countries, really. Interrogation is interrogation, and it's never positive. It's not much of a story to say "interrogation is humiliating and frightening": of course it is, but it can be much worse than just humiliating; it can become deadly. As a result, these film makers come off as treating a very grave subject with the barest level of appreciation for its seriousness.

On top of all this, the film presented information that created thoughts in my head contradictory to what the film's message seemed to be. Hey, maybe it was a sophisticated attempt at reverse psychology! While the film seemed to be an overt criticism of the American government's detaining of terrorist suspects without procedural due process, I found myself actually wondering about the guilt or innocence of the suspects in this film. For example, at one point we find out that both detainees have rented cars for other people to drive. I caught myself thinking, hmmm, studying in a foreign country and signing your name to a car rental for some person whom you don't know very well to use for some purpose you're not sure about -- probably not a smart move. You see? The film actually worked against the very idea it seemed to be supporting.

Now, the entire film wasn't like that, and I certainly did feel empathy for the detainees, especially when they were questioned about their beliefs, denied legal representation, and asked to remove their clothing. On the other hand, did the producers really think they could tackle such a complex issue as procedural due process and the rights of the people in this one-hour, very superficial film? The experience left me thinking, well, what should a government do when it suspects someone has become involved in a terrorist organization? I would like to see everyone entitled to due process (fundamental justice). However, we don't need a one-hour, eye-lid drooper to convince us of that.

Maybe the only way this film would have worked is if it succeeded in drawing upon stereotypes that some viewers might already harbour. For example, if a viewer, coming into the film, already held negatively stereotyped beliefs about Arab men, then maybe the film might have moved such a viewer to empathy for Lastra's character -- maybe. On the other hand, if I was left wondering about whether the detainees were guilty or, at least, ignorant, then some other viewer more prone to racial stereotyping or profiling might be moved even less than me. All in all, this film was a flop.

Happy Sunday

So far, I'm having kind of a relaxing, quiet day...unlike my dog, fangface, here. He's a little cranky!

He's normally so sweet. I guess we all have our moments. He'll get over it.

Huxley on Education

This captured my attention last night:

"A good education may be defined as one which helps the boys and girls subjected to it to make the best of all the worlds in which, as human beings, they are compelled, willy-nilly, to live. An education that prepares them to make the best of only one of their worlds, or of only a few of them, is inadequate. This is a point on which, in principle, all educators have always agreed. Mens sana in corpore sano is an ancient educational ideal and a very good one. Unfortunately, good ideals are never enough. Unless they are accompanied by full instructions regarding the methods by which they may be realized, they are almost useless. Hell is paved with good intentions, and whole periods of history have been made hideous or grotesque by enthusiastic idealists who failed to elaborate the means whereby their lofty aspirations might be effectively, and above all harmlessly, implemented."

Mens sana in corpore sano is Latin for "sound mind in a sound body," some people's definition of a well or happy state.

This passage was written by Aldous Huxley and published in an essay entitled "Education on the nonverbal level," in Chiang and Maslow's The Healthy Personality (1969).

Age-Awareness

I saw a commercial on television tonight which was proof-positive of a generation gap. The commercial was for Turtles chocolates. I don't think I remember when the last time was that I had a Turtles chocolate, although they are one of my favourites.

Anyway, the ad was for these new little packages of Turtles, with three chocolates in a pack. The angle of the commercial hinged on this guy saying "you can't eat Turtles when it's not a holiday," making reference to the large boxes of Turtles that are available during holiday seasons. Then this gal says something like, "Oh, THAT's not true because, look, now they come in these nifty little packets of three Turtles."

My eyebrows went up on that one. You see, when I was a kid, Turtles were sold TWO to a package, in these little orange-and-white striped wrappers. Two Turtles were a lot, being quite a rich chocolate, and often you ended up sharing one with a friend or a grabby brother anyway. I can still hear the jingle: "Turtles, Turtles, yeah, yeah, yeah. Turtles, Turtles, Ha! Ha! Ha! Mmmmm! I love Turtles." Gah.

So here I was, tonight, child of the sixties, watching this commercial about eating THREE Turtles in a pack, and recalling that, when those big boxes of Turtles first came out, my reaction had been -- woah...a whole box of Turtles...that's amazing. Now, it was the opposite -- three Turtles to a pack. For me, that's not so amazing, and two Turtles is more than enough anyway.

The marketing for the new little packages says, "Go on – enjoy the whole bar. This time it’s OK to eat the whole package." I say, isn't sharing a lot more fun?

Quite obviously, I'm not in the target group for the Turtles marketing team over at Nestlé Corporation.

Sheesh. I feel so old-fashioned. Where are my bifocals?

Actions Speak Louder than Words

"...do not make your longing for prayer a pretext for turning away from anyone who asks for your help; for love is greater than prayer."

- St. Symeon the New Theologian, excerpted from "One Hundred and Fifty-Three Practical and Theological Texts," The Philokalia (Volume 4), G. Palmer, P. Sherard, and K. Ware (Editors).

Sunday Reading

Warning: Philosophical ramblings about the nature of faith and suffering ahead. Escape now, if you're not interested in this topic....

Excerpted from:
Peter Kreeft, Making sense out of suffering, pp. 14-16, 18.

"Chesterton said once that there is only one unanswerable argument against Christianity: Christians. And he showed who he was thinking of first of all when he wrote the following letter to the London Times. The Times had asked a number of writers for essays on the topic "What's Wrong with the World?" Chesterton's reply is the shortest and most to the point in history:

Dear Sirs:
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton

How does all this confession address the problem of suffering?... No one after repeated shocks turns easily to God and smiles. Even Job--whose response to his first great load of tragedy was, "The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord"--even Job only barely endured the second load. God brought him to the brink, to his breaking point. God's brinkmanship is terrifying. Our brink, our breaking point, is usually far sooner than Job's, but God brings us to it just as he brought Job, so that we too, like Job, though with less reason than he, can curse the day of our birth.

Even Teresa of Avila, when thrown off her carriage, slammed rudely to the ground, and deposited in a mud puddle, questioned God. He answered her, "This is how I treat all my friends." Her tart reply was, "Then, Lord, it is not surprising that you have so few." Even saints do not smile sweetly when God throws them into mud puddles. Only pigs do that.

What good to us, then, is a book written on a level of truth and theology and the ideal rather than simply on the level of feeling and psychology and the actual? Here we sit in our mud puddles. Am I about to prattle about trusting God, like Job's three friends? They came to Job on his dung heap with nothing but correct theology. Job could not fault their logic a single time. His only criticism of them was that their words were empty and dead, "words of ashes, maxims of clay." Is that what I offer you?

No. I speak not from the heights but from our shared mud puddle. But from here we can both see the heights. I have just confessed some of my mud to you so that you would get our relationship right straight off. I address you, dear reader, not as a lecturuer addresses an audience but as a friend addresses a friend--in fact, as a starving bum who has found some food addresses his fellow bum. Our only qualification for God's grace is our emptiness, not our fullness; our undeservingness, not our deservingness. "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners" (Mk 2:17). Similarly, on an infinitely lower level, this book is for empty hearts, not full ones. Read it if you are, like me, hungry.

This book is for everyone who has ever wept and wondered. That includes everyone who has ever been born....No computer, or artificial intelligence, either weeps or wonders. Computers do not weep because computers do not hurt. They have no feelings, physical or spiritual. And computers do not wonder, do not question, either. They do only what you program them to do. They do not question their programming, unless you program them to do that, and then they do not question that programming. We too have been programmed by our heredity and our environment, but we question our programming. We doubt. Doubt is glorious. Only one who can doubt can believe, just as only one who can despair can hope, and only one who can hate can love....

Like Job, I have wrestled with God about suffering, as most people have, though I have not experienced unusual suffering as Job did. This book is the account of the process as well as the results of that wrestling match. I will tell you at the beginning what the result were: I lost. Like Job. And that is the only possible way to win."

_____________________

I was thinking about all this, and a couple of insights came to mind. First, untested faith might not have the same intended commitment as faith that has been tested and remained strong in the end. But, then you might wonder, well, why would God want to test a person's faith? Then I thought, well, it's like having children, perhaps. I might give my child everything and all the love I can, and I know my child loves me; yet, will that child love me if I can't give the child everything he or she wants? Maybe God wants an answer to this question, although I, of course, have no idea what God thinks. What I do believe is that Kreeft wasn't talking about "losing in life"; he was talking about turning your life over to God through repentance and faith, as Job eventually did, recognizing that we're all in our own mud puddles and looking to God for mercy. What I also know is that none of this makes any sense unless we also believe in the free will of the person. Chesterton said this:

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." From Broadcast Talk 6-11-35.

If we have free will, then we choose faith, paradoxically, through God's grace and spirit, which enable us to make a choice in the first place. Through our own faith and repentance, we experience God's love and mercy:

"Indeed, before you the whole universe is as a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth. But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook the sins of men that they may repent. For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned. And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? But you spare all things, because they are yours, O Lord and lover of souls, for your imperishable spirit is in all things!" (Wisdom 11:22-26, 12:1)

Sopranos

The Sopranos is coming back for a fifth season. I'm one of the few geeks in North America who doesn't watch this show. The fact that I don't watch it is especially appalling because an old friend of ours (with whom we just barely keep in touch) is a key member of the crew.

Here's part of a day in the life of a Sopranos crew member as they try to "assassinate" each other. It'll take about 3 minutes on high speed to download, and you need QuickTime, but it's pretty funny to watch (right-click the link and choose "save target as"). I really need to watch Sopranos, just so I can appreciate more of our friend's very good work. I think I'll buy the series on dvd one day.

Addendum:
Okay, so after posting this...I decided to call our friend, since we hadn't talked in a while. We had the best chat, and, in reflecting on things, he told me the greatest re-frame on life: "Forty is the new thirty." That made my day. I think I'm going to post it to a wall around here and look at it every morning. Forty is the new thirty. It's like a new lease on life. Thanks!

Pavlov Would Be Proud

I've inadvertently conditioned one of my dogs. Or maybe he's conditioned himself. You see, my dogs are constantly around me. One of them likes to sit under my desk at my feet while I work on the computer. I started noticing that my dog seemed kind of psychic because he always seemed to know when I was finishing up my work.

What was happening was that, just as I was wrapping up whatever work on the computer I was doing, my dog would get up, walk over to my study door and then turn around to wait for me. Not believing in things psychic, I started paying closer attention to what he was doing.

It turns out that whenever I shut my computer down, the floppy drive makes a kind of grinding sound. When the dog hears that sound, he knows that we'll be leaving the study soon after. So, he gets up and goes to the door to wait for me.

What a funny, intelligent little guy. Patient, too. Sometimes he waits for hours just to hear that sound, probably thinking, "Is it bedtime, yet?"

Thank God for Smart-Asses

NBC's Conan O'Brien Issues 'Apology' to Quebec
Tue February 17, 2004 09:37 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Late-night comedian Conan O'Brien sought to defuse a flap over a recent segment poking fun at the French-Canadian province of Quebec by issuing a self-deprecating "apology" on Tuesday in French.

"People of Quebec, I'm sorry," the host of NBC's "Late Night" show said in English, as a translator recited in French, with English subtitles, "People of Quebec, I'm an albino jackass."
______________________________________________________________

ROFLMAO....

If you've become the target of a satirist, you probably shouldn't annoy that person any further because you're just asking for it.

When you live in a society that expects ubiquitously instituted standards of political correctness ad infinitum and without exception, somebody's not going to comply. When political correctness turns into over-controlled politeness, people can begin to feel like they are not allowed to have an opinion about anything anymore. Satirists capitalize on that feeling, focusing on popular thoughts or discontent and doing what few dare to do...mention the unmentionable.

Nowadays, people are often afraid to speak out, criticize or make the wrong kind of joke because real repercussions, such as job loss, can occur. When people feel stifled by decorum, rollicking satire can provoke a welcome guffaw or even tears of laughter in people who otherwise feel powerless to voice their views. Humour is emotionally releasing and can disarm feelings of frustration or irritation. Humour can make people feel like they're not the only ones who see something odd on the horizon. It's also distracting. For example, earlier today, when I called in to the John Gormley show, I nearly lost it completely just before going on the air because I was listening to him read Triumph the Insult Comic Dog jokes. Savvy humour, including satire, can have a big effect on us (by the way, you know John Gormley has a great show when PMPM, on his national tour, makes it his only media stop in SK-- this Friday morning at 8:30 -- maybe John Gormley Live should become Canada's nationally syndicated show).

Satire has august roots in Horace, Voltaire, Swift and Hogarth, some of the brightest gems amongst our literary treasures, and it serves a purpose in society as an agent of change:

"Satire rose out of necessity; writers and artists needed a way to ambiguously criticize their governments, their churches, and their aristocrats. By the 18th century, satire was hugely popular. Satire as an art form has its roots in the classics, especially in the Roman Horace's Satires. Satire as it was originally proposed was a form of literature using sarcasm, irony, and wit, to bring about a change in society, but in the eighteenth century Voltaire, Jonathan Swift and William Hogarth expanded satire to include politics, as well as art. The political climate of the time was one of tension. Any criticism of government would bring harsh punishments, sometimes exile or death. In order to voice opinions without fear of punishment, malcontented writers turned to Satire." [Link]

Famous for even darker and more controversial humour was the French poet, Baudelaire, as exemplified in his piece Assommons les Pauvres! In that work, Baudelaire proposes beating up poor people in order to demonstrate to them that they are worthy of receiving help, not recommended by me but considered a form of humour by many nonetheless.

Rapier-sharp satire is both witty and sarcastic, lending credence to the adage "the pen is mightier than the sword." Satire requires keen intellect as well as perfect timing, and it usually distorts or extends some kind of known fact. Satire also requires a wonderful sense of decorum because only a person who has a strong sense of decorum can know how to disrupt it so exquisitely. A satirist achieves balance along a fine line -- fisking without pummeling; poking fun without abusing cruelly or promoting hate.

Satire can go horribly wrong if delivered by a person who has "ultimate power" in a situation. It's one thing for an underdog, comic or writer to deliver satire, but it's quite another for the CEO of an organization to make sardonic comments about the company's new hire. That's just not funny.

Horace, Voltaire, Swift, Hogarth and Baudelaire are revered by many. Will Conan and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog be too?

Just to keep the whole satire theme going, here's a satire of myself. It's My Southpark Character:

There's nothing like being able to laugh at yourself!

Contact

Joss: Did you love your father?

Arroway: Huh?

Joss: Your Dad, did you love him?

Arroway: Yes, very much.

Joss: Prove it.

I stayed up ridiculously late last night watching the movie Contact with Jodie Foster, my favourite actor (my 1960's upbringing wants me to say "actress"). I've seen the movie before, several times, actually, but something compelled me to watch it again. After watching the movie, I realized that its theme fit in with my recent thinking about the power of the individual person. If you haven't seen the movie, this post might not make much sense to you, and it might contain spoilers. If you've seen the movie, I wonder if your experience of it fits with my own.

Contact captures my attention probably because, like the main character, Arroway, I spend a considerable amount of time looking for observable, verifiable (positivistic) evidence of information that otherwise is uncertain -- people's feelings, attitudes, mental health, risk, beliefs. In the movie, Arroway is doing this too, but her particular quest is with SETI -- the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence -- a laughable quest, by most of her colleagues' standards, especially Drumlin's. In the movie, clearly Arroway's searching for something much more precious than extraterristrials (and perhaps much more laughable for some people) -- she's searching not for life in the universe but for the meaning of life in the universe. Drumlin's arrogance leads him to believe he has the answer; Arroway's humility leads her to find it. A testament to the power of the human experience, the movie renders a brief glimmer into the last testament of a brilliant star: life is greater than positivism can prove.

What I got out of the movie was not the meaning of life, but the meaning of that search and the realization that ultimately the answer exists not "out there" but "in here," right in the heart of every person -- well, metaphorically speaking, right in the palm of your hand. Arroway realizes this as she gazes at grains of sand in her hand, which reflect back to her what she saw in the alien's hand while standing on the beach in her imaginary "Pensacola."

After being grilled by the US Senate investigative committee, who challenge her to admit she has no postivistic evidence that she didn't hallucinate the entire experience, Arroway says,

"I had... an experience. I can't prove it. I can't even explain it. All I can tell you is that everything I know as a human being, everything I am -- tells me that it was real. I was given something wonderful. Something that changed me. A vision of the universe that made it overwhelmingly clear just how tiny and insignificant -- and at the same time how rare and precious we all are. A vision... that tells us we belong to something greater than ourselves... that we're not -- that none of us -- is alone. I wish I could share it. I wish everyone, if only for a moment -- could feel that sense of awe, and humility... and hope. That continues to be my wish."

We continually are caught in life between what we know to be true and what others' think is true about us relative to their particular vision of the world. After her alien encounter, Arroway kept searching for evidence of life in the universe. You see, she had empirical evidence already: She had observed it for herself. What she didn't have was positivistic evidence that other people could see. Searching for this kind of evidence became her job after the alien encounter because she had already found an empirical answer to the other, larger question about meaning:

"After all the suffering, after all the desolation of the void -- the one thing that makes the vastness tolerable is each other. The one thing that makes it bearable is love." [that last sentence is in the original script but not in the movie]

When, at the end of the movie, some children ask Arroway about whether life exists in the universe, she tells them what she has learned: "The most important thing is that you all keep searching for your own answers." By then, she understands her place in the universe and holds the key to that place -- love -- within herself. We are here for each other. As for other living beings out there, whether they are on Earth or elsewhere, she knows they all have to do the same; that is, they all have to find their own place in the universe, comforted and guided by the one force that binds us all together, and that force is the love experienced between beings.

Arroway remains informed by her own experience regardless of others' judgments or her ability to verify her empirical experience. Her personal life experience and the power of love guide her future, set the path of the arrow ("arrow-way") for the remainder of her existence. Nobody else can share in her knowledge; they must take her testimony on faith and then find meaning for themselves -- empirically, but not positivistically. Each person, in his or her own lifetime, must come to this knowledge on their own. The evidence discovered might not stand up in court, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Meaning isn't contained in what others observe about you. In the words of Arroway to cruel, shallow Drumlin, "The world is what we make of it," and that might be both the worst and the best message of all.

The Power of the Person

How powerful do you feel as a person?

In an era of globalization, multinational corporations and *big* government, the power of the individual person might seem to be lost or at least severely compromised. Faced with daily news stories about national issues and international conflicts, the individual person's thoughts or feelings might seem to pale and shrink in comparison. However, never, in history, was this further from the truth.

Individual people have three major sources of energy that they can harness in order to affect events in the world around them in a positive way: courage, conviction, and coordination. If people allow these three forces to work in their lives, then remarkable, world-shaping events can occur, regardless of a person's particular citizenship. Of course, used in a way that abuses power, courage, conviction, and coordination are machiavellian. The concept of machiavellian intelligence, as described in the link, doesn't necessarily imply that the person is abusing power for political gain, but the implication remains simply because of connotations surrounding the term "machiavellian."

Used for the greater good, however, courage, conviction and coordination can make a powerfully positive impact locally, nationally and internationally. You might not feel powerful in your life, but that does not mean that you have no power -- you're probably just not using it well. Some people who use their power well have conquered seemingly unassailable walls and reached unparalleled heights in their achievements.

Consider Martin Luther King Jr. Go over to Stanford Unversity's site and make sure to have your computer speakers turned on when you do this. Just listen. Did you hear the passion -- the courage, conviction and coordination? I'm always awed when I hear that man speak. He's positively inspirational, and he actually changed the world.

How about other individuals who have made their mark on society and the world? How about Ralph Nader? Now dubbed as the "founder of modern consumerism," Ralph Nader has changed the way governments, corporations and consumers think about a lot of issues. As some have said, he has raised our expectations:

"You know that clause on plane tickets that says that if you're bumped, the airline has to reimburse you and put you up for the night? Nader got bumped from an overbooked flight and got angry, and that's why you get treated fairly now." (link)

Ralph lives in a boardinghouse. In his 1960's office, Ralph Nader had two phones, some newspapers, good writing skills and the willingness to speak out with courage and conviction. Plus, he coordinated others.

People like Ralph Nader and Martin Luther King Jr. are heroes, but they're everyday heros. They weren't born to power or conceived in blue blood. Each was a regular person with an idea. I wasn't born to power or conceived in blue blood either, but my parents always spoke with courage and conviction, and, boy, could they coordinate. They still do to this today, and I'm positively busting with pride for them.

If you had given 1960's social activists what we have at our disposal now -- cell phones, satellite-uplink news services, the internet, digital cameras -- can you imagine what they would have done with such resources? The question becomes why there aren't more Ralph Naders popping up all over the place. My analysis of this is simple. One of the three crucial elements is missing: courage. No, it's not time or fatigue or apathy or a lack of resources. People who have conviction find ways to get around those kinds of barriers.

A lack of courage keeps people frozen and silent. What are people afraid of? Losing their jobs, mostly, but other fears exist too, like losing political or social backing, being sued, being seen with the wrong in-group or just being seen at all. At one of my former workplaces, if you were caught giving your opinion to the press about any issue not related to your immediate area of expertise, you risked being fired. Fear is real, and sometimes a person can't tolerate the risks involved in taking an active stance in favour of change.

Courage fuels conviction and motivates coordination. When courage falters, fear can hold great ideas hostage with guantanamesque authority; paycheques can buy conviction and halt coordination every day of the week. In order to gather courage to act, a person has to, in some ways, stop caring about certain things, lest fear of losing them stifles will to action. In that regard, I found this passage about Ralph Nader fascinating:

"Nader really is like a priest. He is little affected by the world he affects. He has never been married, never had children. No one knows for sure if he has a love life. He has never owned a car and has lived in the same inexpensive Washington boardinghouse for many years. "Fashion" is not a word he could define: He has the look of a man who cuts his hair with kitchen scissors and his idea of great bedtime reading is the Congressional Record. His hero is baseball legend Lou Gehrig because Gehrig was a modest man who just kept going, playing in 2,130 consecutive games." (link)

A man who just kept going. That takes courage. Ask any person who has conquered depression or physical disease. You just have to keep going. Maybe we should add something to courage, conviction and coordination: fortitude, although conviction probably covers that off. Courage more than all three (or four) enables action.

Finally, if you're a parent, teacher or caregiver for young people, you have the power to influence and shape the life experiences, skills and worldview of the adults who form the next generation. What could possibly be more powerful than that? Which reminds me, with great power comes great responsibility. People who power-up in order to enact change need to do so responsibly. Nothing can hurt people more or cause more rancour than irresponsible leadership or irresponsible parenting.

Some Canadian individuals have struck out on their own, stood firm for a cause or spoken out despite the withering glare of Canadian Manners Monitors. Think of Terry Fox or Richard Klassen or any member of the free press brave enough to report on a story honestly despite government or corporate pressu