It never ceases to amaze me how Canadians feel entitled to their personal space. Many times I've ridden the bus, and people don't have common sense when it comes to making room for others. Yes, people, this means YOU move to the back of the bus when there's room. It doesn't mean you stand there like a dumb shit while the front of the bus fills up and no one's behind you. Grab a fucking clue and move back - yes, all the way back. Stairs aren't some insurmountable barrier preventing you from moving. A couple of steps isn't a big deal. Failure to get out of your comfort zone for common courtesy means several people can't get on the bus when they otherwise could.
Worst of all, there are more people that are clueless than are aware and courteous. And the most baffling part, if I said something about it, I'm the rude one.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The REAL Christmas
So despite my little rant yesterday, I managed to hold on to some glimmer of hope. See, whatever else happens, I look forward to waking up Christmas morning and, even if it's over the phone, watch listen to my family open their presents. It has never been much of a bother to me that I'm the one who has the least number of presents under the tree (year after year). I really only care about whether or not those who have gotten me presents have thought about the gift and what it means. So this year, with one present to open (from my roommate, no less), it still didn't bother me a whole lot as long as I could share Christmas morning with the family (that I don't care for too much). And this morning was a painful remininder of exactly why I would completely disown them if my conscience would let me. You see, they had already opened their presents last night. They didn't even call me when they were doing it; I had to find out by calling them this morning. This was the one thing that would have made Christmas bearable, the one thing of substance. That thing is now gone, and there is nothing left. Christmas has literally become for me what formal logic calls "an empty set". On top of this, the money that I sent to my mom with specific instructions to spend it at a particular place was spent somewhere else; my instructions were ignored.
And yet, somehow, I can't help but feel like I'm whining over all of this. I'm not going to take away my right to feel this way. I believe people are entitled to a meaningful Christmas, and in the end, I suppose all I want for Christmas is for it to have some kind of meaning. Maybe that's why I'm feeling this way, that I can't find any meaning in it. Call me Charlie Brown, or call me Scrooge, or even call me the Grinch. I just want Christmas to mean something, and it doesn't. The biggest problem is that life is not paralleled by the movies. Movies have happy endings, and everything works out - especially Christmas ones. Life doesn't have the same fairytale settings and fantastical endings. Movies are like religion: they build high and unrealistic expectations, and when those expectations aren't met, there is nothing but disappointment and disillusionment. It's nothing that can't be remedied by lowering expectations or not getting one's hopes up.
And yet, somehow, I can't help but feel like I'm whining over all of this. I'm not going to take away my right to feel this way. I believe people are entitled to a meaningful Christmas, and in the end, I suppose all I want for Christmas is for it to have some kind of meaning. Maybe that's why I'm feeling this way, that I can't find any meaning in it. Call me Charlie Brown, or call me Scrooge, or even call me the Grinch. I just want Christmas to mean something, and it doesn't. The biggest problem is that life is not paralleled by the movies. Movies have happy endings, and everything works out - especially Christmas ones. Life doesn't have the same fairytale settings and fantastical endings. Movies are like religion: they build high and unrealistic expectations, and when those expectations aren't met, there is nothing but disappointment and disillusionment. It's nothing that can't be remedied by lowering expectations or not getting one's hopes up.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Christmas
This year is a special Christmas for me: it's my first Christmas as an atheist. No inner contemplation, no reflection on what it means to have a saviour come into the world, no sense of fulfillment. It is an empty shell of a holiday, and I would just rather sleep through the day and buy stuff on Boxing Day. Lots of people have asked me what I'm doing for Christmas, and the only answer they got was "I don't know", which was as often as not followed by an invitation to a dinner. One person in particular pushed the issue beyond normal pleasantries. He wasn't overbearing, and was really motivated by wanting to see me enjoy the holidays, but to be honest his actions kind of backfired. See, by not giving too much thought to Christmas, I was able to enjoy it at some superficial level. Now that I'm thinking about it, that superficial enjoyment has left the building with Elvis.
What remains is a form of bitterness coupled with a sense of self-sabotage and a touch of spite. I'm reminded of how much religion fucking stole from me, of the perpetual lies and deluded thinking that people maintain. God, I wish I could be more susceptible to the delusions that provide a higher sense of meaning an purpose, but for some reason I cannot. Reflecting on the "true" meaning of Christmas used to be my way of combating the inevitable observation that Christmas is nothing more than a giant commercialized holiday, but now that that sense, that reflection is gone, I can't help but see it as anything but. So why would I want to celebrate? What is there to gain from sitting down with friends and family to celebrate something that I don't sahre a belief in? And realistically, I have nothing else to fall back on.
If Christmas is a time to spend with family, I can't say I'm too fond of mine right now. Half the time Christmas meant surviving the warzone of family conflict. I can't say I'm too fond of conflict at any time, let alone at a time when peace is supposed to be cherished. So, there's this sense of not wanting to expose myself to an environment that could be potentially difficult. And it's not just the environment either. I can honestly say I don't like who my family members are.
My niece is a lippy, arrogant, know-it-all who swears, yells, and continually disrespects my mom - and she's only 13. I can't say that this is someone I respect, like, or want anything to do with. My mom puts up with it, compains about it, but doesn't do anything about it and wonders why it continues. It never ceases to frustrate me just being around that, and I simply don't want to be. My sister, well, she gave her daughter up about six or seven years ago because she felt like she didn't have enough opportunity to party, like she had missed out on her chidlhood. Nevermind that she planned to get pregant at fifteen. Now, she has a second due date in March, and even though my mom has had custody of my niece for several years now, my sister is actually considering keeping this kid. She barely speaks to her current daughter for fucks sake! And to top it all off, this pregnancy may have been planned as well. There are no words that can express the exasperation I feel over it all. This is the family I don't want to spend Christmas with. I just want to sleep through it.
What remains is a form of bitterness coupled with a sense of self-sabotage and a touch of spite. I'm reminded of how much religion fucking stole from me, of the perpetual lies and deluded thinking that people maintain. God, I wish I could be more susceptible to the delusions that provide a higher sense of meaning an purpose, but for some reason I cannot. Reflecting on the "true" meaning of Christmas used to be my way of combating the inevitable observation that Christmas is nothing more than a giant commercialized holiday, but now that that sense, that reflection is gone, I can't help but see it as anything but. So why would I want to celebrate? What is there to gain from sitting down with friends and family to celebrate something that I don't sahre a belief in? And realistically, I have nothing else to fall back on.
If Christmas is a time to spend with family, I can't say I'm too fond of mine right now. Half the time Christmas meant surviving the warzone of family conflict. I can't say I'm too fond of conflict at any time, let alone at a time when peace is supposed to be cherished. So, there's this sense of not wanting to expose myself to an environment that could be potentially difficult. And it's not just the environment either. I can honestly say I don't like who my family members are.
My niece is a lippy, arrogant, know-it-all who swears, yells, and continually disrespects my mom - and she's only 13. I can't say that this is someone I respect, like, or want anything to do with. My mom puts up with it, compains about it, but doesn't do anything about it and wonders why it continues. It never ceases to frustrate me just being around that, and I simply don't want to be. My sister, well, she gave her daughter up about six or seven years ago because she felt like she didn't have enough opportunity to party, like she had missed out on her chidlhood. Nevermind that she planned to get pregant at fifteen. Now, she has a second due date in March, and even though my mom has had custody of my niece for several years now, my sister is actually considering keeping this kid. She barely speaks to her current daughter for fucks sake! And to top it all off, this pregnancy may have been planned as well. There are no words that can express the exasperation I feel over it all. This is the family I don't want to spend Christmas with. I just want to sleep through it.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Hope
What a queer thing, hope. Hope is the quintessential element required for survival, the one fuel necessary to be propelled forward. Yet this hope is the very thing that permits suffering. We move forward because we hope for something better, believe that whatever we hope for is attainable. And if the thing we chase is unattainable, and we are deluding ourselves the entire time we chase it, then that hope that once acted as motivational fuel now reeks like the gasoline that now blankets us - and all it takes is someone with a match...
So where exactly is the line drawn? What separates hope being that optimistic feeling from being the thing that tortures? God, I wish I knew. Kind of hard to not feel like something's plaything, like it's some kind of hubris to want to rise above one's station in life and be continually disappointed, when one hopes and is not fortunate enough to attain its object. Such is the path of the deluded or the masochistic; such are the comments of the cynic. But hey, the cynic is only someone who stopped chasing the carrot, and now has enough time to point out the folly of those who have not. Can life really be nothing more than deciding between embracing truth and being lonely or having hope as a companion but forfeiting truth? What a terrible decision to make... oh cruel fate.
So where exactly is the line drawn? What separates hope being that optimistic feeling from being the thing that tortures? God, I wish I knew. Kind of hard to not feel like something's plaything, like it's some kind of hubris to want to rise above one's station in life and be continually disappointed, when one hopes and is not fortunate enough to attain its object. Such is the path of the deluded or the masochistic; such are the comments of the cynic. But hey, the cynic is only someone who stopped chasing the carrot, and now has enough time to point out the folly of those who have not. Can life really be nothing more than deciding between embracing truth and being lonely or having hope as a companion but forfeiting truth? What a terrible decision to make... oh cruel fate.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Proposed Coalition Government
First of all, allow me to iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. I don’t feel the need to conjecture about whether or not this will be a good thing or bad thing for Canadians. I don’t consider myself to be nearly informed enough on politics and the issues at hand to make such an interpretation. I would encourage all who read this to consider the same point. I further refuse to be suaded by emotional arguments, that this is a bad thing because I don’t like it. My purpose is to clarify exactly what this situation is and what it isn’t, so people can understand it better before they make a decision about it or try to argue a particular position
Perhaps the most fallacious argument in this whole debate is the democratic nature of it. Those who are opposed to the idea of a coalition government claim that it is not democratic because the elected government is being sidestepped. I want to clarify that there is absolutely nothing un-democratic about this process. The only way such a coalition is possible is because the coalition would represent more Canadians. In Canada, the government is able to pass bills into laws because they have enough members of parliament vote in favour of it. When Canada has a majority government, this means that they have sufficient members within their own party to vote something in. When Canada has a minority government, they need to cooperate with other members of parliament – other parties – to pass bills into law. Thus, when a ruling minority government cannot find a way to cooperate with other members of parliament, they do not have sufficient governing power. When this happens consistently enough, this is what’s called a “Vote of No Confidence”: the rest of the house – the majority of parliament – no longer feel that the governing party can effectively do anything. The bottom line is that anything that the majority of the members of parliament do IS DEMOCRATIC.
The nature of Canada’s government allows such actions to take place. However underhanded or shady you feel such a proposal is, you have to understand that the system of Canadian government allows this very thing. It is the nature of a Westminster system. If you don’t know what this is or how it works, I would encourage you to look into it more. I would further encourage you to refrain from forming an opinion until after such information is gleaned from your research. It is also a mistake to think that we elect our Prime Minster – we do not. We elect area representatives who belong to a particular party. This party chooses who their leader is. We do not get a say. Thus, one of the major faults of the Canadian system is that the Prime Minister could lose in his or her own riding but still be the Prime Minister. Nowhere in this process is there any kind or democratic electing of our Prime Minister. Thus, side-stepping his or her authority can in no way be considered undemocratic. In fact, I would accuse the process by which our Prime Minister comes to power to be undemocratic – but then again, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a true democracy. We elect those into power (our area representatives), but for the duration of their stay, they make decisions on our behalf without having to receive input from those whom they represent. Many do anyways because they feel a responsibility to their area, and because many seek re-election. Rest assured, though, they have the power to exercise their position whatever way they see fit, and barring extreme circumstances, we are powerless to do much about it. Just ask any Canadian who is represented by an MP they did not elect.
Let’s analyze some numbers to put this all into context. National voter turnout was a whopping 59.1%. This means that of all of Canada’s eligible voters, less than two-thirds turned out to have their say. Of this 59.1%, 37.6% voted Conservative, 26.2% voted Liberal, 18.2% NDP, 10% BQ, 6.8% Green, and 1.2% other. This voter percentage is grossly misrepresented by the number of seats each party holds. This is one of the major problems I have with this “first-past-the-post” election system. It is archaic, and truly undemocratic in its very nature – but that’s another story. This means that the Conservative vote actually represents ~22% of the Canadian population. This also means that ~26% of Canadians are represented by the Liberal and NDP parties alone. Call me crazy, but that seems to me that they have more support of Canadians. When you add the BQ and Green percentages (both of whom have voiced their support), you actually have Canadian support of 36.2%. Now, there are some who would argue that 78% of Canadians didn’t vote for a Conservative government and thus make up the majority, but I consider that to be as silly of an argument as saying that a coalition is undemocratic. It is, however, fair to say that a coalition really does represent more Canadians – however distasteful you may find it. As a side note, did you know that almost twice as many Canadians didn’t vote than those who elected a Conservative government? Let’s put proportional representation into context here.
I think one of the most ironic and humorous aspects to this is the ones who are complaining – the majority of which are Conservative supporters – fail to understand that the government that would be ousted by this was the same government who put together this proposal in 2004 to fight against the Liberals. That’s right, Harper is being injured by his own weapon. This is one of those areas where I would encourage anyone who is critical of this proposed coalition to oppose it in principle, not because your favoured government is the target. Would you still criticize this and call it undemocratic if the party you supported was behind it? Think about it. If a Conservative-NDP-Green-BQ coalition government meant ousting the Liberals immediately after the Sponsorship scandal (something that I have yet to forgive the Liberals for), would you still be critical of it? Would you still consider it to be undemocratic?
Another thing that I find incredibly amusing about this is the level of, for lack of better terms, sheer stupidity of Harper and his decision to remove party funding when he had a minority government. I say nothing about the merits of such a decision, only that to question what Harper thought would happen. This reeks of a decision that you would need a majority government to pull off. When you need to cooperate with at least one other party to pass bills, do you really think you can get that cooperation if you want to handicap all other parties? Am I the only one who sees the idiocy – nay, the hubris of such an act?
I think my final criticisms rest on some more minor issues. I shake my head at Harper’s campaign promises of not needing to go into debt, but then hearing a month or so later that we need to go into debt. Couple this with the coalition’s justified claims of inaction in the face of global economic crisis, and contextualize it with this campaign promise being broken and inaction coming from someone whose career is based on economics... I trust the point is self-evident.
Claims of usurpation, undemocratic process, and many other claims are essentially unfounded. Again, I iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. If I had to find criticism for the coalition it would be that I can’t help but see politics being played at an epically sad level. I can’t help but see this coalition as a pathetic grab for power; however, I am not closed-minded to the idea that such a power grab might be necessary. If inaction in the face of global economic crisis is as dangerous as many claim it is, this coalition may be necessary. But, this is one of those area that I consider hindsight to be the only true way of knowing. Therein rests my justification for fence-sitting. I am not supportive of a Conservative government, but I’m not so sure if such extreme measures are warranted. What I will argue, however, is that such extreme measures aren’t unfounded, that and our parliamentary system is established in such a way that a coalition government is allowed. If you want to criticize this coalition, perhaps it would be more correct to criticize a system that allows such a coalition to occur in the first place. The bottom line is if more Canadians really understood the infrastructure and workings of our government, I think they might not use the particular arguments they are using. They reek of misunderstanding the system, and display only their ignorance. It is only to their benefit – and everyone else’s – to further educate themselves on Canadian parliament.
Perhaps the most fallacious argument in this whole debate is the democratic nature of it. Those who are opposed to the idea of a coalition government claim that it is not democratic because the elected government is being sidestepped. I want to clarify that there is absolutely nothing un-democratic about this process. The only way such a coalition is possible is because the coalition would represent more Canadians. In Canada, the government is able to pass bills into laws because they have enough members of parliament vote in favour of it. When Canada has a majority government, this means that they have sufficient members within their own party to vote something in. When Canada has a minority government, they need to cooperate with other members of parliament – other parties – to pass bills into law. Thus, when a ruling minority government cannot find a way to cooperate with other members of parliament, they do not have sufficient governing power. When this happens consistently enough, this is what’s called a “Vote of No Confidence”: the rest of the house – the majority of parliament – no longer feel that the governing party can effectively do anything. The bottom line is that anything that the majority of the members of parliament do IS DEMOCRATIC.
The nature of Canada’s government allows such actions to take place. However underhanded or shady you feel such a proposal is, you have to understand that the system of Canadian government allows this very thing. It is the nature of a Westminster system. If you don’t know what this is or how it works, I would encourage you to look into it more. I would further encourage you to refrain from forming an opinion until after such information is gleaned from your research. It is also a mistake to think that we elect our Prime Minster – we do not. We elect area representatives who belong to a particular party. This party chooses who their leader is. We do not get a say. Thus, one of the major faults of the Canadian system is that the Prime Minister could lose in his or her own riding but still be the Prime Minister. Nowhere in this process is there any kind or democratic electing of our Prime Minister. Thus, side-stepping his or her authority can in no way be considered undemocratic. In fact, I would accuse the process by which our Prime Minister comes to power to be undemocratic – but then again, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a true democracy. We elect those into power (our area representatives), but for the duration of their stay, they make decisions on our behalf without having to receive input from those whom they represent. Many do anyways because they feel a responsibility to their area, and because many seek re-election. Rest assured, though, they have the power to exercise their position whatever way they see fit, and barring extreme circumstances, we are powerless to do much about it. Just ask any Canadian who is represented by an MP they did not elect.
Let’s analyze some numbers to put this all into context. National voter turnout was a whopping 59.1%. This means that of all of Canada’s eligible voters, less than two-thirds turned out to have their say. Of this 59.1%, 37.6% voted Conservative, 26.2% voted Liberal, 18.2% NDP, 10% BQ, 6.8% Green, and 1.2% other. This voter percentage is grossly misrepresented by the number of seats each party holds. This is one of the major problems I have with this “first-past-the-post” election system. It is archaic, and truly undemocratic in its very nature – but that’s another story. This means that the Conservative vote actually represents ~22% of the Canadian population. This also means that ~26% of Canadians are represented by the Liberal and NDP parties alone. Call me crazy, but that seems to me that they have more support of Canadians. When you add the BQ and Green percentages (both of whom have voiced their support), you actually have Canadian support of 36.2%. Now, there are some who would argue that 78% of Canadians didn’t vote for a Conservative government and thus make up the majority, but I consider that to be as silly of an argument as saying that a coalition is undemocratic. It is, however, fair to say that a coalition really does represent more Canadians – however distasteful you may find it. As a side note, did you know that almost twice as many Canadians didn’t vote than those who elected a Conservative government? Let’s put proportional representation into context here.
I think one of the most ironic and humorous aspects to this is the ones who are complaining – the majority of which are Conservative supporters – fail to understand that the government that would be ousted by this was the same government who put together this proposal in 2004 to fight against the Liberals. That’s right, Harper is being injured by his own weapon. This is one of those areas where I would encourage anyone who is critical of this proposed coalition to oppose it in principle, not because your favoured government is the target. Would you still criticize this and call it undemocratic if the party you supported was behind it? Think about it. If a Conservative-NDP-Green-BQ coalition government meant ousting the Liberals immediately after the Sponsorship scandal (something that I have yet to forgive the Liberals for), would you still be critical of it? Would you still consider it to be undemocratic?
Another thing that I find incredibly amusing about this is the level of, for lack of better terms, sheer stupidity of Harper and his decision to remove party funding when he had a minority government. I say nothing about the merits of such a decision, only that to question what Harper thought would happen. This reeks of a decision that you would need a majority government to pull off. When you need to cooperate with at least one other party to pass bills, do you really think you can get that cooperation if you want to handicap all other parties? Am I the only one who sees the idiocy – nay, the hubris of such an act?
I think my final criticisms rest on some more minor issues. I shake my head at Harper’s campaign promises of not needing to go into debt, but then hearing a month or so later that we need to go into debt. Couple this with the coalition’s justified claims of inaction in the face of global economic crisis, and contextualize it with this campaign promise being broken and inaction coming from someone whose career is based on economics... I trust the point is self-evident.
Claims of usurpation, undemocratic process, and many other claims are essentially unfounded. Again, I iterate that I am neither for nor against this coalition. If I had to find criticism for the coalition it would be that I can’t help but see politics being played at an epically sad level. I can’t help but see this coalition as a pathetic grab for power; however, I am not closed-minded to the idea that such a power grab might be necessary. If inaction in the face of global economic crisis is as dangerous as many claim it is, this coalition may be necessary. But, this is one of those area that I consider hindsight to be the only true way of knowing. Therein rests my justification for fence-sitting. I am not supportive of a Conservative government, but I’m not so sure if such extreme measures are warranted. What I will argue, however, is that such extreme measures aren’t unfounded, that and our parliamentary system is established in such a way that a coalition government is allowed. If you want to criticize this coalition, perhaps it would be more correct to criticize a system that allows such a coalition to occur in the first place. The bottom line is if more Canadians really understood the infrastructure and workings of our government, I think they might not use the particular arguments they are using. They reek of misunderstanding the system, and display only their ignorance. It is only to their benefit – and everyone else’s – to further educate themselves on Canadian parliament.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
So after a week and a bit of some pretty bad anxiety, I finally got myself out of the rut and managed to get some work done. Part of this "work" was finishing my Biopsychology essay, but the other, less traditional, part involved making some life changes. These life changes started with what I eat, and how often I eat it. But I'm not going to talk about my diet. I want to talk about hope and how sometimes life can throw you curve balls at inappropriate times.
A few months ago I let a friend stay with me for a little while. He had no money, no job, and his dad had just kicked him out on the street. So, I let him stay with me for a bit. We agreed to a price and few conditions up front, which he agreed to. One of the conditions involved his getting a job. I told him not to worry about paying me right away, that he could get his feet on the ground first. I also let him eat my food. Another expectation was that he kept cleaned up after himself - nothing unreasonable.
After a bit of time watching him procrastinate his job search, and getting after him a few times to clean up, I realized it wasn't going to work and so I gave him 10 days notice for him to find somewhere else to stay. I also told him to not worry about paying me right away the money he owed me for the time he had already stayed with me, as I would wait until he was financially stable. At that point he started telling me how he felt like I never accepted him or treated him like a friend. You can imagine why this wouldn't sit very well with me, and I calmly told him to pack up his stuff and get out. After everything that I had done for him, I felt like he had just slapped me in the face. After some minor arguing, I knew I wouldn't see the money he owed me, and that our friendship had just gone out the window. With that, I figured he would move on with his life and I with mine.
A little while later I learned that he was staying at a street shelter, feeling pretty bitter about the situation. I soon got a text message from him apologizing and what not. It was a pleasant surprise. That was the last I heard from him until today. Today pretty much stunned me.
Friend:
by the way, i just needed to remind you of your absolute pussy nature, you have no balls. you will never get a girlfriend cuz you are too afraid to aproach one. you shook in your fucking boots when i talked to girls. youre a coward. so i just wanted to say my goodbyes right to a man like you, fuck you and have a good life of well calculated ballless risks, and enjoy a life of loneliness with your obsessive compulsive idiotic fat lazy boring self.
Friend:
i still will keep u unblocked for a bit so i can see ur pathetic retort
Me:
Well, _____. I can honestly say I never expected this from you. I guess I thought you were better than this. I really hope you find some kind of inner peace in your life.
Friend:
I hope you eat a dick like I know you want to. You are really gay I know it
At that point I reported him for harassment because I was not willing to play that kind of game. Normally I would laugh this kind of thing off, but I can't think of a worse time for him to send such a message. Going through the amount of anxiety and stress that I am right now, and with finally seeing a ray of hope, this message was quite the side blow, an unexpected haymaker.
On the one hand this only confirms to me the end of this friendship. On the other hand, I can't help but pity the guy. I don't feel pity for too many people - I prefer empathy - but in this case pity is exactly how I feel. I would like to see him become a better person, but I doubt he will.
So, I think this will probably end up being not much more than an unexpected push that makes me take a couple of sidesteps to regain my balance before I move forward. I really hope that's all this is. I feel like I've taken the high road in every situation of this circumstance, and I don't know if I can keep it up. I really hope I don't see him in public, and if I do, that he won't come up to me and talk. I fear if he doesn't let up I might lose it on him. I might have to prepare myself for walking away if I see him.
A few months ago I let a friend stay with me for a little while. He had no money, no job, and his dad had just kicked him out on the street. So, I let him stay with me for a bit. We agreed to a price and few conditions up front, which he agreed to. One of the conditions involved his getting a job. I told him not to worry about paying me right away, that he could get his feet on the ground first. I also let him eat my food. Another expectation was that he kept cleaned up after himself - nothing unreasonable.
After a bit of time watching him procrastinate his job search, and getting after him a few times to clean up, I realized it wasn't going to work and so I gave him 10 days notice for him to find somewhere else to stay. I also told him to not worry about paying me right away the money he owed me for the time he had already stayed with me, as I would wait until he was financially stable. At that point he started telling me how he felt like I never accepted him or treated him like a friend. You can imagine why this wouldn't sit very well with me, and I calmly told him to pack up his stuff and get out. After everything that I had done for him, I felt like he had just slapped me in the face. After some minor arguing, I knew I wouldn't see the money he owed me, and that our friendship had just gone out the window. With that, I figured he would move on with his life and I with mine.
A little while later I learned that he was staying at a street shelter, feeling pretty bitter about the situation. I soon got a text message from him apologizing and what not. It was a pleasant surprise. That was the last I heard from him until today. Today pretty much stunned me.
Friend:
by the way, i just needed to remind you of your absolute pussy nature, you have no balls. you will never get a girlfriend cuz you are too afraid to aproach one. you shook in your fucking boots when i talked to girls. youre a coward. so i just wanted to say my goodbyes right to a man like you, fuck you and have a good life of well calculated ballless risks, and enjoy a life of loneliness with your obsessive compulsive idiotic fat lazy boring self.
Friend:
i still will keep u unblocked for a bit so i can see ur pathetic retort
Me:
Well, _____. I can honestly say I never expected this from you. I guess I thought you were better than this. I really hope you find some kind of inner peace in your life.
Friend:
I hope you eat a dick like I know you want to. You are really gay I know it
At that point I reported him for harassment because I was not willing to play that kind of game. Normally I would laugh this kind of thing off, but I can't think of a worse time for him to send such a message. Going through the amount of anxiety and stress that I am right now, and with finally seeing a ray of hope, this message was quite the side blow, an unexpected haymaker.
On the one hand this only confirms to me the end of this friendship. On the other hand, I can't help but pity the guy. I don't feel pity for too many people - I prefer empathy - but in this case pity is exactly how I feel. I would like to see him become a better person, but I doubt he will.
So, I think this will probably end up being not much more than an unexpected push that makes me take a couple of sidesteps to regain my balance before I move forward. I really hope that's all this is. I feel like I've taken the high road in every situation of this circumstance, and I don't know if I can keep it up. I really hope I don't see him in public, and if I do, that he won't come up to me and talk. I fear if he doesn't let up I might lose it on him. I might have to prepare myself for walking away if I see him.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
It is interesting to see the apparent dichotomy between things we consider events and things we consider journeys. Last night I experienced an event that was - that is - part of a long journey: I delivered a letter to the bishop of my old Ward declaring my resignation as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's right, it means I'm officially no longer a Mormon.
I've been doing some research on the subject for some months now. Apparently the moment that letter is received it is considered legally and immediately effective. This means that if church officials try to drag it out any longer than is necessary or try to persuade you otherwise or even try to subject you to church discipline (i.e. excommunicate you), they are out of order. In Canada and the U.S. there are laws that protect against this sort of thing from institutions who might otherwise be less than scrupulous. My understanding is that many church members in the States have experienced a lot of grief and problems with getting their names removed from church membership record. I also understand that Canadian members don't have nearly these kinds of problems. Is this indicative of Canadians as a whole, or is it indicative of how distance from church headquarters can influence the process? Hard to say I suppose. Regardless, I guess this is one of those small perks of being Canadian.
So less than 24 hours later, I don't really feel any different. I guess that's the difference between an event and a journey. This journey away from Mormonism and into something else - for now it's atheism, and could very easily stay there - has been filled with events like this. I don't know if actually becoming an atheist was an event, or more of a journey in itself - probably the latter. Once I got there, though, that's when it became a true journey. I suppose one can't truly begin such a journey without first feeling the need to search; if you believe you have all the answers, what's the point in searching?
So with events like having my bishop stop by and my telling him I no longer believe, like taking off my garments and cutting them up, like packing up my church books and getting them ready to ship, I suppose this is another in the series. I think I prefer to look at my journey out of Mormonism and my journey into atheism as parallel process rather than one preceding the other. Truth be told I'm not entirely done my journey out of Mormonism, and I'm still looking at atheism and other, more spiritual, avenues to see if there is any merit in it/them. I don't feel like I'll have total closure until I have these books shipped off. I suppose I need to get a letter of confirmation from the church stating that my name has been removed before it's really final, but in my mind it's already done; the confirmation letter is merely a formality.
I've been doing some research on the subject for some months now. Apparently the moment that letter is received it is considered legally and immediately effective. This means that if church officials try to drag it out any longer than is necessary or try to persuade you otherwise or even try to subject you to church discipline (i.e. excommunicate you), they are out of order. In Canada and the U.S. there are laws that protect against this sort of thing from institutions who might otherwise be less than scrupulous. My understanding is that many church members in the States have experienced a lot of grief and problems with getting their names removed from church membership record. I also understand that Canadian members don't have nearly these kinds of problems. Is this indicative of Canadians as a whole, or is it indicative of how distance from church headquarters can influence the process? Hard to say I suppose. Regardless, I guess this is one of those small perks of being Canadian.
So less than 24 hours later, I don't really feel any different. I guess that's the difference between an event and a journey. This journey away from Mormonism and into something else - for now it's atheism, and could very easily stay there - has been filled with events like this. I don't know if actually becoming an atheist was an event, or more of a journey in itself - probably the latter. Once I got there, though, that's when it became a true journey. I suppose one can't truly begin such a journey without first feeling the need to search; if you believe you have all the answers, what's the point in searching?
So with events like having my bishop stop by and my telling him I no longer believe, like taking off my garments and cutting them up, like packing up my church books and getting them ready to ship, I suppose this is another in the series. I think I prefer to look at my journey out of Mormonism and my journey into atheism as parallel process rather than one preceding the other. Truth be told I'm not entirely done my journey out of Mormonism, and I'm still looking at atheism and other, more spiritual, avenues to see if there is any merit in it/them. I don't feel like I'll have total closure until I have these books shipped off. I suppose I need to get a letter of confirmation from the church stating that my name has been removed before it's really final, but in my mind it's already done; the confirmation letter is merely a formality.
Friday, November 7, 2008
I got a letter today. It had a cheque inside. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed to see a cheque for $100 with my name on it. This means my application to become a Freemason has been declined.
I remained open to the idea that this would happen. It's kind of hard for an atheist to be accepted into a fraternal organization that requires a belief in a supreme being. But I suppose I would rather be turned down for being honest than accepted under false terms. I struggled with this one a great deal, almost considering trying to find a way to justify a belief in God, but to no avail. I don't believe in God, or anything that could be considered such, and I will not subject myself to denial-type thinking or cognitive dissonance. I just don't work that way. The entire reason I became an atheist is because I searched exhaustively for answers and reasons to believe, and I ended up empty-handed. If my identity, value- and belief-system, sense of purpose, and spirituality was abandoned for sufficient reasons, why would I want to go back on that just to join a particular organization?
So, here I sit, disappointed and feeling let down. I don't know why. I should probably have expected this. Perhaps it's for the best. I mean, how comfortable would I feel around a bunch of other people who all advocate something that I consider to be irrational and illogical? I don't know if I'm saying that just to make myself feel better, or if it's a valid consideration.
It's kind of difficult to describe how I'm feeling right now. When I was in the middle of my application, I was open to certain ideas, like the oneness of the universe and a universal mathematical harmony. Now I just feel slightly bitter, and I want to embrace my atheism even more even though I feel like I've lost something because of it. But I'll never be one of those people who views loss as a valid reason to not believe something. Realistically, I gave up a lot of things when I was a Mormon, and I would give up a lot of things if I became any other religion. Hell, I give up a lot of things just being a student, and I would be giving up a lot of things if I weren't a student. It's just the nature of things I suppose.
Truth be told I don't blame them one bit. I knew full well what was expected when I applied. It's just that things changed for me from the time I first applied until the time when I was visited by the committee. It sucks that it turned out this way, but I don't feel the need to apologize for anything, least of all for who I am and for what I believe or don't believe. My ultimate loyalty is to the truth, and even if I am way off-base, I am pursuing it to the best of my ability.
I remained open to the idea that this would happen. It's kind of hard for an atheist to be accepted into a fraternal organization that requires a belief in a supreme being. But I suppose I would rather be turned down for being honest than accepted under false terms. I struggled with this one a great deal, almost considering trying to find a way to justify a belief in God, but to no avail. I don't believe in God, or anything that could be considered such, and I will not subject myself to denial-type thinking or cognitive dissonance. I just don't work that way. The entire reason I became an atheist is because I searched exhaustively for answers and reasons to believe, and I ended up empty-handed. If my identity, value- and belief-system, sense of purpose, and spirituality was abandoned for sufficient reasons, why would I want to go back on that just to join a particular organization?
So, here I sit, disappointed and feeling let down. I don't know why. I should probably have expected this. Perhaps it's for the best. I mean, how comfortable would I feel around a bunch of other people who all advocate something that I consider to be irrational and illogical? I don't know if I'm saying that just to make myself feel better, or if it's a valid consideration.
It's kind of difficult to describe how I'm feeling right now. When I was in the middle of my application, I was open to certain ideas, like the oneness of the universe and a universal mathematical harmony. Now I just feel slightly bitter, and I want to embrace my atheism even more even though I feel like I've lost something because of it. But I'll never be one of those people who views loss as a valid reason to not believe something. Realistically, I gave up a lot of things when I was a Mormon, and I would give up a lot of things if I became any other religion. Hell, I give up a lot of things just being a student, and I would be giving up a lot of things if I weren't a student. It's just the nature of things I suppose.
Truth be told I don't blame them one bit. I knew full well what was expected when I applied. It's just that things changed for me from the time I first applied until the time when I was visited by the committee. It sucks that it turned out this way, but I don't feel the need to apologize for anything, least of all for who I am and for what I believe or don't believe. My ultimate loyalty is to the truth, and even if I am way off-base, I am pursuing it to the best of my ability.
So, California’s decided to re-ban gay marriage. And rightfully so, people protest it. Things even went as far as the LA Police, in their usual way of handling things, deciding to beat a protester. But this isn’t about the civil rights and liberties of homosexual couples in California (or anywhere else for that matter) or even about the police brutality. This is about self-examination.
From what I understand, this protest began outside an LDS temple in Los Angeles. I’m not sure where it ended up, but again, that’s not the point here. The point is how I would have viewed this entire situation a year ago and how I view it now.
Having recently become an atheist, I’m still trying to weigh and measure many different points of view, paradigms, and philosophies of life. Now that I no longer have this dogmatic lens that tints my paradigmatic glasses, I am free to choose what I value, what I see, and what I consider right or wrong - even if it disagrees with “doctrine”. I am now free to be able to look at things objectively, to analyze them, look at them from all different sides, and figure out what I feel good and right and proper. It wasn’t always this way.
Many times in life I’ve been often confused because, for the life of me, I could never figure out how some people could see the world the way they did. I could never understand seeing someone as inferior simply because they had a different skin colour. I could never understand why people would subject themselves to addictive drugs. I could never understand why people would choose to be gay. Then I would tell racist jokes and laugh (I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with racists jokes if we laugh at all races, including our own, and if they’re not overly hurtful). Then I would smoke my first joint at 15 and experience several years of chaos and misery because of my drug habit. Then I would learn that homosexuality was as much a choice as my heterosexuality - no one chooses who they’re attracted to.
So over time I slowly learned tolerance and acceptance. Part of this learning came with being open-minded to the fact that I didn’t have all the answers to life, part of it came with dealing with the issues that lead me to escape in drugs, and part of it came with simply growing older and learning more about life. Ah, the cock-sured nature of youth!
I remember considering myself to be fairly liberal and tolerant of many things. When I accepted that homosexuality wasn’t really a choice, I felt like I was being understanding and tolerant – even though I recognized that attraction wasn’t a choice, I believed that practicing a homosexual lifestyle was. It was this kind of justification that allowed me to feel tolerant and accepting while still supporting the suppression of gay marriage. How could I do otherwise when I submitted myself to the authority of an all-encompassing institution that dictated my beliefs (I’ll address the issue of social coercion in a later post)?
After experiencing some time away from Big Brother, I now look at things like these protests and suppression of gay rights, and I can’t help but shake my head. I shake my head at the fact that there is still this kind of intolerance in the world, but mostly I just shake my head at the fact that mere months ago, I probably would have voted in favour of rebanning gay marriage. And that thought horrifies me.
Now that I wear a more objective lens (at least according to my best judgment), the ethical problems surrounding these issues become self-evident. The only reasons why people are against gay marriage are either because the church tells them so, or because it disgusts them – and somehow I feel like those two aren’t entirely disconnected. So, if I eliminate the institution of the church, and I begin to exercise more tolerance, there’s no reason I should ever consider why the civil rights and liberties that I now enjoy should not be extended to everyone. But again, this isn’t about that (although somehow I fear my point is getting lost in it).
The bottom line, the entire point of this post, is that I look at the kinds of things I support now, and the kinds of things I supported when I was religious, and some of them are vastly different. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I am humbled to a very deep level that I could ever be capable of such intolerance – especially when it was disguised as its opposite. I don’t beat myself up over it, however. I may look back on it with regret, but more importantly I am beginning to recognize some of the things I learned in Social Psychology – how the power of the situation is often more powerful than the individual; how social persuasion and coercion can influence people to do things they might not otherwise do. It saddens me that I was ever capable of such thinking, but I try not to be too hard on myself. In recognizing this, it helps me to be less judgmental of those same people who now exercise that same intolerance, and to not judge them for it. I was once like them.
This doesn’t excuse intolerance or prejudice behaviour, but we can combat these without hating those we combat. You never know when fighting for what’s right, with compassion and understanding for those you fight against, may cause a soldier to cross over. And that, I think, makes it worth it in itself.
From what I understand, this protest began outside an LDS temple in Los Angeles. I’m not sure where it ended up, but again, that’s not the point here. The point is how I would have viewed this entire situation a year ago and how I view it now.
Having recently become an atheist, I’m still trying to weigh and measure many different points of view, paradigms, and philosophies of life. Now that I no longer have this dogmatic lens that tints my paradigmatic glasses, I am free to choose what I value, what I see, and what I consider right or wrong - even if it disagrees with “doctrine”. I am now free to be able to look at things objectively, to analyze them, look at them from all different sides, and figure out what I feel good and right and proper. It wasn’t always this way.
Many times in life I’ve been often confused because, for the life of me, I could never figure out how some people could see the world the way they did. I could never understand seeing someone as inferior simply because they had a different skin colour. I could never understand why people would subject themselves to addictive drugs. I could never understand why people would choose to be gay. Then I would tell racist jokes and laugh (I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with racists jokes if we laugh at all races, including our own, and if they’re not overly hurtful). Then I would smoke my first joint at 15 and experience several years of chaos and misery because of my drug habit. Then I would learn that homosexuality was as much a choice as my heterosexuality - no one chooses who they’re attracted to.
So over time I slowly learned tolerance and acceptance. Part of this learning came with being open-minded to the fact that I didn’t have all the answers to life, part of it came with dealing with the issues that lead me to escape in drugs, and part of it came with simply growing older and learning more about life. Ah, the cock-sured nature of youth!
I remember considering myself to be fairly liberal and tolerant of many things. When I accepted that homosexuality wasn’t really a choice, I felt like I was being understanding and tolerant – even though I recognized that attraction wasn’t a choice, I believed that practicing a homosexual lifestyle was. It was this kind of justification that allowed me to feel tolerant and accepting while still supporting the suppression of gay marriage. How could I do otherwise when I submitted myself to the authority of an all-encompassing institution that dictated my beliefs (I’ll address the issue of social coercion in a later post)?
After experiencing some time away from Big Brother, I now look at things like these protests and suppression of gay rights, and I can’t help but shake my head. I shake my head at the fact that there is still this kind of intolerance in the world, but mostly I just shake my head at the fact that mere months ago, I probably would have voted in favour of rebanning gay marriage. And that thought horrifies me.
Now that I wear a more objective lens (at least according to my best judgment), the ethical problems surrounding these issues become self-evident. The only reasons why people are against gay marriage are either because the church tells them so, or because it disgusts them – and somehow I feel like those two aren’t entirely disconnected. So, if I eliminate the institution of the church, and I begin to exercise more tolerance, there’s no reason I should ever consider why the civil rights and liberties that I now enjoy should not be extended to everyone. But again, this isn’t about that (although somehow I fear my point is getting lost in it).
The bottom line, the entire point of this post, is that I look at the kinds of things I support now, and the kinds of things I supported when I was religious, and some of them are vastly different. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I am humbled to a very deep level that I could ever be capable of such intolerance – especially when it was disguised as its opposite. I don’t beat myself up over it, however. I may look back on it with regret, but more importantly I am beginning to recognize some of the things I learned in Social Psychology – how the power of the situation is often more powerful than the individual; how social persuasion and coercion can influence people to do things they might not otherwise do. It saddens me that I was ever capable of such thinking, but I try not to be too hard on myself. In recognizing this, it helps me to be less judgmental of those same people who now exercise that same intolerance, and to not judge them for it. I was once like them.
This doesn’t excuse intolerance or prejudice behaviour, but we can combat these without hating those we combat. You never know when fighting for what’s right, with compassion and understanding for those you fight against, may cause a soldier to cross over. And that, I think, makes it worth it in itself.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Courted Wit
In true blogger fashion (does that even mean anything?), I'm going to share a poem I wrote. Hopefully that one reader who stumbles across this blog years later will enjoy it.
Courted Wit
A chap addressed his lady muse,
“Oh joy that I should bear such news.
Thy father bid me late last night,
That we should wed at dawn’s first light.”
The dame looked in the young chap’s eyes,
“Good sir, I will not hear your lies!
My father, he died yesterday.
I bid you do the same today.”
The chap replied, “It pains me so,”
That you think me a man so low.”
To take advantage of a maid,
And think it right to serenade.”
“Good sir,” said she, “it’s obvious,
That you don’t take me serious.
Your serenade is plain as day.
I beg you now, please go away.”
“But lady, please, I beg you so,
To listen to my tale of woe.
My love for you, it knows no bounds.
Please join me now in wedding vows.”
“Oh sir! I feel I must protest.
Your lofty goals of wedding bliss.
You dream of souls who ache apart.
I dream that you will just depart.
Most men, they lack a certain sense.
Tis no small stretch to call them dense.
Dear sir, you are a man apart:
An ass who’s put before cart.”
“Oh miss, your words, they strike my cœur.
I cannot bear, please say no more.
Tis plain as day, I fear I see.
My love shall not return to me.
But gentle miss, one last request,
Before you reach inside my chest.
I only ask that you be kind,
And keep my heart til end of time.”
The lady pondered with great care.
“I fear I’ve judged in haste and err.
Good sir, tis true your love’s concrete?
Am I the fool to be discrete?
Then truly let us be away,
And marry at the light of day.
Oh sir, that we would happy wed,
And live in love until we’re dead.”
“My lady makes me truly glad
To lift a heart that once was sad.
Oh hark! Is that another maid?
Good dame, I must bid you good day.”
Courted Wit
A chap addressed his lady muse,
“Oh joy that I should bear such news.
Thy father bid me late last night,
That we should wed at dawn’s first light.”
The dame looked in the young chap’s eyes,
“Good sir, I will not hear your lies!
My father, he died yesterday.
I bid you do the same today.”
The chap replied, “It pains me so,”
That you think me a man so low.”
To take advantage of a maid,
And think it right to serenade.”
“Good sir,” said she, “it’s obvious,
That you don’t take me serious.
Your serenade is plain as day.
I beg you now, please go away.”
“But lady, please, I beg you so,
To listen to my tale of woe.
My love for you, it knows no bounds.
Please join me now in wedding vows.”
“Oh sir! I feel I must protest.
Your lofty goals of wedding bliss.
You dream of souls who ache apart.
I dream that you will just depart.
Most men, they lack a certain sense.
Tis no small stretch to call them dense.
Dear sir, you are a man apart:
An ass who’s put before cart.”
“Oh miss, your words, they strike my cœur.
I cannot bear, please say no more.
Tis plain as day, I fear I see.
My love shall not return to me.
But gentle miss, one last request,
Before you reach inside my chest.
I only ask that you be kind,
And keep my heart til end of time.”
The lady pondered with great care.
“I fear I’ve judged in haste and err.
Good sir, tis true your love’s concrete?
Am I the fool to be discrete?
Then truly let us be away,
And marry at the light of day.
Oh sir, that we would happy wed,
And live in love until we’re dead.”
“My lady makes me truly glad
To lift a heart that once was sad.
Oh hark! Is that another maid?
Good dame, I must bid you good day.”
First Post
So, yet another blog. Seems like I start these and then abandon them. Hell, I only keep my LJ because of the communities. Who knows, maybe if this one is less socially connected than my other ones I may keep it. Who knows, maybe if no one reads it, I might write more and write more personal things in it. I suppose we'll see. Regardless of anything else, this is my first post (duh!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)