My Little Spot In Cyber Space To Kick Back And Comtemplate Life, Politics, Raising Kids while Raising Parents And What It Means To Be A Canadian In A Topsy Turvy World
Reposted from Lex's in honour of April Fools - in my mind, this is one of (if not) the best April Fools jokes I have seen (let alone been subjected to).
But in many ways, the best part is found in the comments - just how long can it take some people to figure this out?
It's. A. Joke. Folks. :D
Bad news By lex, on April 1st, 2007
I’m sorry to have to share this with you, but it looks like we may have to amend the terms of our relationship: I guess I finally crossed the line. Something I wrote earlier in the week offended some Very Important People who made official representation of their objections through political channels and finally down through my chain of command. I got the call yesterday – it’s never good news to get called by your boss on a Saturday. Had to happen eventually I suppose, but I kind of hoped my tattered veil of anonymity could outlast my active service.
Now, many of you know that I have been blogging under a pseudonym in order to protect those I work for from having to officially recognize the source of these my musings, thereby lending them even the patina of official endorsement from the USG, DoD or DoN. The problem – as I very well knew from the beginning – is that there really isn’t any such thing as anonymity on the net. The world is full of people looking for a reason to take offense, and if you hang out on the web long enough, eventually you’ll make somebody angry, a complaint will get lodged and, well: Here we are.
You see, the calendar (and my darling daughter, herself) tells me, in no uncertain terms, that my oldest is
twenty years old today.
Twenty? Seriously? You've GOT to be kidding me ...
I didn't really mind when she turned nineteen - sure, it seemed a little hard to believe but not that big of a deal. At least, not as big of a deal as her turning twenty.
Yeah, yeah, I am well aware that in the eyes of the law, she became an adult last year.
Meaning right at the moment I am up to my eyeballs in posters, buttons, wallet cards, Purple Daisies, brochures, pamphlets, bookmarks, pens, stickers ... the list goes on.
And cupcakes, of course ... right, never forget the cupcakes!
So while we here at Free Falling prepare to do our small part in the grand endeavour to paint the world Purple ...
Once upon a time, I asked Lex if he would ever fly again. The question was asked while he was still actively serving, but a few years after he had strapped on a Hornet for the last time. It was beyond clear how much he loved and missed flying so I asked if he would ever consider flying a bugsmasher.
No, he replied, he wouldn't. Something to the effect that having once partaken of government-sponsored crack cocaine, there was no going back to mere commercial flight. I remember thinking that the only cure for that kind of drug must be complete withdrawal.
And it seemed like a reasonable enough response at the time - even though not in my frame of reference (I would jump at the chance to fly any aircraft, bugsmasher or not), I could accept that from his point of view, there simply was no going back.
There was a time and place Not far from here and now Maybe a brighter day Maybe they had it made somehow Living for there and then Under a psychadelic spell No one was listening Still they had so much to tell
But isn't it how funny how time changes things?
Whatever happened to the dreamers They always look beyond the sky Saw a world they could believe in But only when they close their eyes
A mere few years later, Lex took on a weekend job flying tourists and other assorted types in dog-fights, with the occasional learn to fly jaunt thrown in for good measure. And it wasn't long after that, when he took on the challenge of learning to pilot taildraggers.
Next thing I knew, he was back in the fighter pilot game.
There were the politcians Men of the cloth, painters and poets Starting a revolution Without even knowing Making the world around us Making heaven and hell Saying so much about us Still they had so much to tell
You left us much, much too soon, sir.
But you left us living your dream. And for that, I will be forever grateful.
Whatever happened to the dreamers They always looked beyond the sky Saw a world they could believe only when they close their eyes Where are they nowThey've all left town Bringing the clouds
Why are we on our own, why are we on our own
Nothing's ever been this way before A dream is just a dream and nothing more Nothing's ever been this way before A dream is just a dream and nothing more
But that I can follow your example and, no matter what, never give up on my dreams.
You might recall that I was very pleased when the move was made to remove sec. 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act last year.
Well, I was even more pleased when I learned today that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has now weighed in on the wording of a similar provision in Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code.
The facts of the case are notorious. After William Whatcott distributed flyers condemning homosexuality using very strong language, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal found that that his actions breached sec. 14(1)(b) of the Code, which prohibits the publication of printed matter that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons” because of sexual orientation.
Although the SCC upheld part of that provision as constitutional and not a violation of Whatcott's freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it found that the prohibition against ridicule, belittlement or affronts to dignity did not meet constitutional muster.
The Court held that those words are not synonymous with hatred, which was defined as “whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination”. Thus, the Court made clear that it is unconstitutional to prohibit speech that is something less than detestation and vilification.
Finally, the SCC held that although freedom of religion (Whatcott argued that his flyers were motivated by his sincere religious beliefs) and religious speech have broad protection like the freedom of expression, at the same time, that speech cannot expose vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification, even if it is sincerely-held.
Although it will fall to the politicians to ultimately (hopefully) remove remaining "hate speech" provisions from Canadian human rights legislation, the SCC decision at least clarifies that
the test of hatred must be applied objectively (i.e., the reasonable person aware of the relevant context and circumstances), not based on the subjective views of the publisher or the victim; and
“hatred” involves two concepts—detestation and vilification, which enforce the legislative objectives of anti-discrimination laws.
I guess all we can do now is await the political process. Bill C-304, which would repeal the hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act (and which provision the Federal Court found largely constitutional in October, 2012), has passed the House of Commons and is currently being debated in the Senate.
In Alberta, Premier Redford promised during her leadership campaign to repeal the equivalent Alberta provision.
Any other Province care to step forward and be heard?
~ ~ ~ ~
By the by, writing this post got me to thinking about our good friend (term used loosely), Rev. Stephen Boissoin, whose case (last we checked) was winding its way through the courts.
I am pleased to say that the good Reverend (again, using the term loosely) was successful, both in Alberta's Court of Queen Bench and the Court of Appeal, where the Court held that “matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum,” and “freedom of speech does not just protect polite speech.”
JEFF FRIESEN has jumped the rails with his version of taking the train across Canada.
Instead of getting aboard a Via Rail locomotive, he carries a miniature replica of a train with him, sets it down on a miniature track in a landscape and takes a picture for his series, The Canadian: Ghost Train Crossing Canada.
. . .
The train, five centimetres tall and not quite three metres long, is a replica of the 1959 Canadian, the first train to “almost cross Canada.” It went from Montreal to Vancouver. As a vintage train, it is “a ghost from another age.”
And he's photographed that same train streaking by the turquoise water of Lake Louise, crossing the canola fields of the Prairies, disappearing into a rock tunnel in Ontario and crossing a moss-covered log bridge in Quebec.
Apparently the photos have went viral in Europe and the US, which begs the question of why that hasn't yet occurred in Canada.
You have to admit, pretty cool, right?
And not bad for a Canadian, let alone a Nova Scotian, eh?
Having a particular interest in special education (gee, I wonder why), I subscribe to a couple of Education newsletters. They're both US-based, of course, but something is better than nothing, says I.
So it was that today I came across a synopsis in Education Week stating that a Tennessee Senator wants to pass a law requiring counselors and other school officials who learn that a student has engaged in homosexual activity to report this information to the parents. Thinking that this sounded interesting in a warped sort of way (and admitting that the thought that some right-wing politician strikes again did cross my mind), I clicked on the story.
The only thing is that (in my reading, at least) the story doesn't quite work as advertised - what the synopsis and article purport to say and what the proposed Bill actually says simply do. not. mesh.
The proposed Bill, you see, would provide that
classroom instruction, course materials and other informational resources that are "inconsistent with natural human reproduction" will be classified as" inappropriate" for students from pre-K - Gr 8;
any counseling by a school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal of a student who is "engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious" to their or another's "physical or mental health and wellbeing" must be done, if possible, in consultation with the student's parents and the parents must be notified that such counseling has occurred; and
the parents must be notified of a student "whose circumstances present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality".
And that, right there, is the problem, you see. Or, at least, the problem I see.
Because, for me at least, a requirement that the parents be notified in the case of a student whose "circumstances present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality" is very different from requiring notification in the case of homosexual activity. This despite the fact that it would appear that the good Senator, himself, might believe otherwise.
Admitting that, if perhaps you are a total homophobic, you might consider any and all homosexual activity to present immediate and urgent safety issues involving human sexuality, might I suggest that just because you say it or think it does not make it so?
Don't get me wrong, I am not making a comment on the "rightness", "wrongness" or "morality" of homosexuality; what I am saying is I find it very hard (read: impossible) to make the stretch that would equate homosexuality with "urgent safety issues".
The Senator, apparently, considers homosexuality to constitute an urgent safety issue because of the possibility of contracting HIV and AIDS. Putting aside the rather awkward fact that you can also contract HIV through heterosexual contact, doesn't any form of sexual activity open you up to the possibility of contracting various sexually-transmitted diseases (some of them pretty nasty, by the way)?
And, by the by, doesn't heterosexuality by a female open her up to the possibility of pregnancy, which some might see as potentially dangerous (be it physically, emotionally or mentally) depending on the age of said female? We are, after all, talking about students here.
But. Back to my original point (yes, of course, I had one; why do you ask?).
Much along the lines of 'Humpty Dumpty Strikes Again', just because you say it doesn't make it so. And, just as an aside, when you attempt to legislate, you might just want to choose your words carefully. Or else you may just run the risk of legislating "human reproduction" right out of existence, which I'm thinking might have some might nasty consequences, in and of itself.
The Law of Unintended Consequences being what it is.
an immediate unthinking emotional reaction produced by an event or statement to which the reacting person is highly sensitive; - in persons with strong feelings on a topic, it may be very predictable.
Synonyms (or perhaps more accurately, symptoms) include:
pavlovian response, absence of thought, automatic reaction,gut reaction,
involuntary impulse
So what do you think? Generally speaking ... a good or bad thing?
Now tell me what you think of this.
A 17-year-old high school student has been suspended (and might face expulsion) for writing a dark poem that mentioned the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Her "crime" was, perhaps, one line in the poem; namely a statement that she understood what drove Adam Lanza to do what he did.
But since I'm a big fan of context, let's see how the poem actually read.
They wanna hold me back.
I run, but they still attack.
My innocence, I won't get back.
I use to smile.
They took my kindness for weakness.
The silence the world will never get.
I understand the killings in Connecticut.
I know why he pulled the trigger.
The government is a shame.
Society never wants to take the blame.
Society puts these thoughts in our head.
Misery loves company.
Her poem actually reminds me of something I read in a high school English class. An assigned reading. I can't quite recall now whether it was meant to be a suicide note or something written and handed in by the young man as part of a class assignment, shortly before he hung himself but I believe the latter.
At any rate, that poem has stuck with me my whole life. Not the exact words, of course, but the ideas, the pictures and thoughts remain bright in my mind.
Written in the the third person, the poem told the story of a little boy who started school so full of energy, curiosity and a desire to learn. So full of life. It goes on to tell what the school experience was like from his perspective and although my memory falters in some places, the ending remains crystal clear. Essentially, from his perspective, school had sucked all the colour out of life (starting with things as simple as being repeatedly told to "colour within the lines" in the primary grades), emphasizing demanding conformity in writing, dress and actions. It the end, it sucked the very life out of him.
That was assigned reading in a high school English class and despite the subject matter, it was a very good poem. Both from the perspective of how it was written and because it accomplished what I believe literature, at its best, is meant to accomplish: it made you stop and think. To this day, that little boy still comes back to haunt me.
Now, you might quite rightly point out that poem was assigned in a different time - a time when "school shootings" were unheard of, at any level. In a more innocent time, a time when parents felt safe sending their children to school. When horrors such as Sandy Hook were unimaginable, even in the movies. So it was.
But one of my immediate reactions when I first read that poem (which has stuck with me to this day and makes me think that it was something the young man handed in at school before he took his own life) was to wonder why ... why no one had paid attention to what he had to say, why no one could hear his scream for help, why he was simply given a grade and handed the poem back.
Much like reading the article about Courtni Webb and her poem makes me wonder why.
Why, if the school took this matter so seriously, did they simply suspend her? Did anyone sit down and actually talk to her before this decision was made? Was the first question that crossed administration's mind really "Should we suspend her"? Really? Seriously?
Did it occur to anyone to actually express some concern about the girl, herself? If the poem is to be interpreted as the school so obviously has, shouldn't there have some concern for the state of her mental health? Did we learn nothing from Sandy Hook? Other than that lesson pounded into granite for so many years? Cover. Your. Ass.
But you know what?
I really doubt whether anyone talked too much to Courtni about what she may or may have been thinking when she wrote this poem. But realizing that I am only basing this on the short interview I've watched where Courtni explained the poem, how about if you tell me what you think.
Sociopathic killer? Potential mass murderer? Possibly, I suppose. We are all well aware that we live in a world where anything, indeed, is possible.
Or, perhaps, merely (an apparently bright) high school student using her writing to work through her feelings?
I didn't hear a threat of violence in her words. Which has to make me wonder if the blunt mechanism of suspension was not used because she supposedly somehow violated a zero-tolerance policy or because of a perceived threat of violence, as alleged but simply to "punish" the young woman for her lack of good taste in writing such things so soon after all those little children were so senselessly murdered.
Either way, whether Courtni was actually contemplating violence or simply writing a poem, threatening and intending to threaten no one, if that poem caused concern for those who knew her, the first priority should have been (and should continue to be) her mental health.
That's right - your dreams have been answered. Year in a Blog is back.
You know the drill ... the first sentence (or paragraph, depending on my mood) of the first post for each month of 2012. Drum roll please ...
January 2012- Come on. I double dog dare you.
Try it. Forget twenty times.
Just once. As fast as you can.
February 2012- Wow, check this out - a man who was upset that a Tennessee couple unfriended his adult daughter has been charged with killing the couple.
March 2012- I really shouldn't be here. The hour is late ... very late ... and I have to work tomorrow. But that is what happens when you spend a couple of hours floating around the internets, reading and responding to tributes to a man you've never even "met". But that you knew so well. Oh well, something tells me sleep will be a might bit difficult tonight this morning anyway.
April 2012- Time goes on. As does life, doesn't it?
And although time doesn't really heal all wounds, it does tend to provide a protective coating, a scab, if you will. Which, I suppose, is why it hurts so bad if and when that scab, for whatever reason, gets ripped off.
May 2012- Today's the day. It's here. It. Has. Arrived. Most definitely. I think.
June 2012- I've always suspected it. And now I have proof! All Some good things do come to those who wait.
July 2012 - So, here we go again ... what's up with some people's apparent need to define words however they think they should be defined, either because it suits their own immediate purposes or ... it gets them in the news, perhaps? Hell, if I know.
Reposted from Lex's in honour of April Fools - in my mind, this is one of (if not) the best April Fools jokes I have seen (let alone been subjected to).
.jpg)
