It's not what you think.
Pervert.
So I spent a chunk of yesterday preparing my previously-mentioned stick. It's a long, involved process that involves some 600-grit sandpaper, a bottle of mineral oil, a blowtorch and some clear-coat varnish.
Start by sanding down the stick, and soaking it in mineral oil. Once the oil is soaked up, you take it out back and burn in a pattern with the blowtorch, then you go though another series of soakings, followed by a sealing with varnish. I'm currently at the second-soaking stage.
So far, we're working on a principle of mutual loathing. The stick hates me, and I hate it right back. But I've got the blowtorch, so it stays in line.
My instructor suggested that I name this thing. No luck on that front so far. On my list of eliminated names:
Bob
Rodney
Thumper
Thunder Donkey
Thunder Snake
Elephant's Tusk
Hrunting
Roaring Mouse
Screaming Hawk
Bill
Max
Bellowing Driveshaft
Monkey's tail
Flying Crane
Osgood
Matt
Fred
Bob
Adam
Tom
Dick
Harry
Lightning tooth
Water Spear
Quicksilver
Note that I do not have a list of possible names for this thing, so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Monday, April 11, 2005
Buying Sticks.
I strolled down to Chinatown yesterday to buy a big stick, largely at one of my Kung Fu instructor's suggestions.
I don't like staff forms, as a general rule. Actually, at the moment, I'm not a huge fan of weapon forms in general. They feel cumbersome and unwieldly in my hands, or maybe it's just that I'm clumsy. I'm not sure which. At any rate, it's somewhat beside the point. The senior student advised me to purchase a staff, and when the senior student advises you to do something, you do it.
Part of my dislike for the staff comes from the fact that I invariably whack myself with it; and it hurts. A lot. The human body, it turns out, does not react well to having a large hunk of wood hitting it.
Nevertheless, he assured me that this would pass. I'm somewhat skeptical, since I'm the quintessential klutz, but we'll see.
I don't like staff forms, as a general rule. Actually, at the moment, I'm not a huge fan of weapon forms in general. They feel cumbersome and unwieldly in my hands, or maybe it's just that I'm clumsy. I'm not sure which. At any rate, it's somewhat beside the point. The senior student advised me to purchase a staff, and when the senior student advises you to do something, you do it.
Part of my dislike for the staff comes from the fact that I invariably whack myself with it; and it hurts. A lot. The human body, it turns out, does not react well to having a large hunk of wood hitting it.
Nevertheless, he assured me that this would pass. I'm somewhat skeptical, since I'm the quintessential klutz, but we'll see.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I PASSED!
I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed.
(*deep breath*)
I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed.
I passed.
Oh, good lord I am so happy to have this over and done with. I have had this fricking candidacy exam hanging over me for almost a year, and now for the first time it's done. Oh, I cannot tell you how good that feels.
Lemme put it this way: I have not slept as soundly in months as I did last night.
Dr. Droo draws one step closer.
Okay, on to more pleasant things: like my thesis defense.
I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed.
(*deep breath*)
I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed, I passed.
I passed.
Oh, good lord I am so happy to have this over and done with. I have had this fricking candidacy exam hanging over me for almost a year, and now for the first time it's done. Oh, I cannot tell you how good that feels.
Lemme put it this way: I have not slept as soundly in months as I did last night.
Dr. Droo draws one step closer.
Okay, on to more pleasant things: like my thesis defense.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Supreme court to hear case on Ten Commandments
(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)
I have said this before, and I will say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against religion in any form. I have no issue with people of strong faith. I have no issue with faith in general, provided that faith isn't blind.
At the same time, I firmly believe that faith and government should be separate entities. No one faith has any right to force their beliefs on those who do not believe in that faith, and likewise, the government should not demonstrate any form of favortism towards one faith in particular.
In short, faith should be a private thing, not a public one.
Right now, the US supreme court is hearing a case wherein the question is whether a state courthouse should be permitted to display stone tablets listing the ten commandments.
I find it very depresing that this is even being debated.
The argument being made in favor of keeping the tablets in place is that "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law."
Let's consider this for a moment:
The ten commandments, translated from the original Hebrew:
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Let's start here, shall we? This is a direct contradiction to the first amendment to the bill of rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not a good start for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
Graven image is not terribly well defined. It could be argued that a monument displaying the ten commandments would directly contradict this commandment.
At any rate, there is no law in the US which prohibits this.
Zero for two.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
No law exists in the United States which prohibits this. In fact, prohibition of such speech could be construed (within reason) as a violation of free speech; in direct contradiction to the bill of rights.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
First off, we don't know when the Sabbath day is, exactly. Ask the seventh day adventists, and you'll get a different answer than when you ask the Catholics.
Second, no law exists which prohibits working seven days a week.
Zero for four.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
No law exists which states that you have to honour your father and mother. No law exists which states that you have to even like them. In fact, you can legally divorce your parents and declare your independence from them.
Zero for five.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Okay, we now officially have one commandment which is actually supported by US law. Of course, the commandment not to kill is not original from the Ten Commandments. Actually, it's been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws.
One for six.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultry.
Generally frowned upon, but not illegal in any juristiction.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
two for eight.
Of course, not stealing has also been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws, so it's hardly original with the ten commandments.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
May or may not be illegal, depending upon the context.
False witness, when placed upon the witness stand is perjury; when printed (only in public, and only if it serves to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is libel; when spoken (only in public, and again, only if it can be shown to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is slander.
Otherwise, false witness is pretty much legal within the US.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
As of this date, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted for coveting.
So, as of today, recapping, a total of three of the ten commandments are actually endorsed by American law. One of those is only supported in very specific cases (9th) and the other two (6th and 8th) are not exactly original with the ten commandments.
Not exactly a stellar argument.
--Drew
I have said this before, and I will say it again. I have nothing whatsoever against religion in any form. I have no issue with people of strong faith. I have no issue with faith in general, provided that faith isn't blind.
At the same time, I firmly believe that faith and government should be separate entities. No one faith has any right to force their beliefs on those who do not believe in that faith, and likewise, the government should not demonstrate any form of favortism towards one faith in particular.
In short, faith should be a private thing, not a public one.
Right now, the US supreme court is hearing a case wherein the question is whether a state courthouse should be permitted to display stone tablets listing the ten commandments.
I find it very depresing that this is even being debated.
The argument being made in favor of keeping the tablets in place is that "the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation for American law."
Let's consider this for a moment:
The ten commandments, translated from the original Hebrew:
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Let's start here, shall we? This is a direct contradiction to the first amendment to the bill of rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Not a good start for the argument that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
Graven image is not terribly well defined. It could be argued that a monument displaying the ten commandments would directly contradict this commandment.
At any rate, there is no law in the US which prohibits this.
Zero for two.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
No law exists in the United States which prohibits this. In fact, prohibition of such speech could be construed (within reason) as a violation of free speech; in direct contradiction to the bill of rights.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
First off, we don't know when the Sabbath day is, exactly. Ask the seventh day adventists, and you'll get a different answer than when you ask the Catholics.
Second, no law exists which prohibits working seven days a week.
Zero for four.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
No law exists which states that you have to honour your father and mother. No law exists which states that you have to even like them. In fact, you can legally divorce your parents and declare your independence from them.
Zero for five.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Okay, we now officially have one commandment which is actually supported by US law. Of course, the commandment not to kill is not original from the Ten Commandments. Actually, it's been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws.
One for six.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultry.
Generally frowned upon, but not illegal in any juristiction.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
two for eight.
Of course, not stealing has also been a law pretty much as long as human beings have had laws, so it's hardly original with the ten commandments.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
May or may not be illegal, depending upon the context.
False witness, when placed upon the witness stand is perjury; when printed (only in public, and only if it serves to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is libel; when spoken (only in public, and again, only if it can be shown to defame the character of an identifiable individual), is slander.
Otherwise, false witness is pretty much legal within the US.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
As of this date, no person has ever been successfully prosecuted for coveting.
So, as of today, recapping, a total of three of the ten commandments are actually endorsed by American law. One of those is only supported in very specific cases (9th) and the other two (6th and 8th) are not exactly original with the ten commandments.
Not exactly a stellar argument.
--Drew
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Sometimes, truth really is stranger than fiction.
Oh, my God.
It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.
Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?
And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.
I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.
It rather shocks me that someone went to the trouble of making a website like this. It's a website specifically put together to send out a mass Email when the rapture comes, to explain to your friends and relatives where you've gone; assuming that you're Christian.
How is this accomplished, you might ask. It's a dead man switch that will automatically send the emails when it is not reset.
Huh. Raises the obvious questions: a) how does the guy who's running the site know that he's not gonna be left behind when the rapture shows up, and b) what if the guy running the site gets run over by a runaway steamroller?
And, of course, prominently displayed on the website's page is a link to make a donation.
I have no issue with religion; but using religion to make a cash grab, or to exert influence over those who have no association with that particular religion is something I find to be somewhat, well, evil.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Ouch.
I'll say this for Lion Dancing, it has a way of making you rather brutally aware of every single muscle in your body.
We probably put in a total of about thirteen hours of lion dancing this weekend. Thirteen hours. That's a long time to be dancing under what amounts to a gigantic blanket. Actually, it went very well. I enjoyed it enormously, and I have a really good partner for the dance. We've got a solid level of communication going on between us.
She was a huge livesaver yesterday, and I'm not at all certain that I mean that figuratively. We were dancing around a mall. Lots of fun, stopping at stores all over; doin' a little dance, grabbin' a hunk of lettuce, taking our paycheck; etc, etc. etc.
My partner and I had just completed five consecutive dances (which doesn't sound like much, but trust me, it takes a lot out of you); three of which required me to lift her onto my shoulders. Suffice it to say, we were both rather tired. Nobody was coming in to spell us off, and it was getting to the point where I thought my back was going to be permanently fixed at a 90 degree angle from my legs. So, someone comes in to replace my partner, and at this point, I'm dying. We do two more stores; my partner's replacement is all fresh and energetic, and here I am just trying to keep myself upright. We do another store during which I'm pretty sure I heard my lower back screaming in protest.
So, my Lion Dance partner (God bless her) shows up after only the briefest of breaks to let me out of the tail, while I'm wondering if she's gonna have to physically pull me out of the lion tail and roll me out of the way. It very nearly got to that point.
She managed to get her butt out of the lion a little farther down, but I cannot emphasize how much I needed that one break.
All in all, this weekend went well. About eight hours of lion Dancing on Saturday, another five-ish on Sunday. I think I lost about 30 lbs in the last 48 hours, and it ain't even over yet.
We have another dance on the 18th, which includes some rather nicely-done Kung Fu demos.... well, hopefully nicely done. The first demo we did turned out quite nicely, so I can't complain there.
If all goes well, we'll give a hell of a show on Friday.
We probably put in a total of about thirteen hours of lion dancing this weekend. Thirteen hours. That's a long time to be dancing under what amounts to a gigantic blanket. Actually, it went very well. I enjoyed it enormously, and I have a really good partner for the dance. We've got a solid level of communication going on between us.
She was a huge livesaver yesterday, and I'm not at all certain that I mean that figuratively. We were dancing around a mall. Lots of fun, stopping at stores all over; doin' a little dance, grabbin' a hunk of lettuce, taking our paycheck; etc, etc. etc.
My partner and I had just completed five consecutive dances (which doesn't sound like much, but trust me, it takes a lot out of you); three of which required me to lift her onto my shoulders. Suffice it to say, we were both rather tired. Nobody was coming in to spell us off, and it was getting to the point where I thought my back was going to be permanently fixed at a 90 degree angle from my legs. So, someone comes in to replace my partner, and at this point, I'm dying. We do two more stores; my partner's replacement is all fresh and energetic, and here I am just trying to keep myself upright. We do another store during which I'm pretty sure I heard my lower back screaming in protest.
So, my Lion Dance partner (God bless her) shows up after only the briefest of breaks to let me out of the tail, while I'm wondering if she's gonna have to physically pull me out of the lion tail and roll me out of the way. It very nearly got to that point.
She managed to get her butt out of the lion a little farther down, but I cannot emphasize how much I needed that one break.
All in all, this weekend went well. About eight hours of lion Dancing on Saturday, another five-ish on Sunday. I think I lost about 30 lbs in the last 48 hours, and it ain't even over yet.
We have another dance on the 18th, which includes some rather nicely-done Kung Fu demos.... well, hopefully nicely done. The first demo we did turned out quite nicely, so I can't complain there.
If all goes well, we'll give a hell of a show on Friday.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
On the Role of the Catholic Church in my Life
I got into a discussion with my significant other's family over the Gay Marriage issue. They're strongly Catholic, but they are also very strongly in favor of Gay marriage, so to some degree it wasn't so much a discussion as an agreement; but we did cover some very interesting ground in that chat.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
The Supreme Court of Canada specifically stated that the only way in which Gay Marriage will be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is if Religious officials are not required to perform any marriage ceremony that is not in accord with their beliefs. I see this as a perfectly reasonable limitation to place upon Gay marriage. If the Church doesn't want to perform a same-sex ceremony, they're not required to do so.
In other words, regardless of whether this law passes (and it should do so fairly easily), the Catholic church will have exactly the same level of autonomy where marriage is concerned that it did before the law was passed. They will still be able to define marriage in whatever manner they wish: one man, one woman; two men; two women, and any combination of two consenting adults that you can imagine within their specific religious framework, limited only in such a way that close family members may not wed. All that this one law means is that no one religion is defining marriage for those citizens who do not share their beliefs.
I see this as perfectly reasonable. I'm neither Catholic, nor Christian; which means that I do not acknowledge that the Catholic church has any power whatsoever over my life, or their authority to determine what is best for me. What right does the Catholic church have to say to me "We will define marriage this way, and so should you?" Likewise, what right do I have to say to the Catholic Church "this is the way I define marriage, and the Catholic Church will simply have to step in line?" The answer to both questions is "none."
Religion and government: in a country where we have freedom both of and from religion, the two are necessarily sepaparate entities. No one faith should be allowed to write the laws of the country, and the laws of the country should ensure that no person shall be obligated to reject their faith. No law exists which states that a person may not pray in a public classroom. However, no law exists which forces students who do not wish to pray in a public classroom to do so. No law exists which forces a pregnant woman to abort her child; likewise, no law exists which prohibits it either. Should this law pass, no law will exist which allows any religious institution to perform a same-sex marriage; but no secular prohibition of same-sex marriage will exist.
In essence, this law, should it pass, is an eloquent demonstration of the separation between religion and government. Government will not force any religion to act outside their beliefs, and no religious institution will be able to force the government to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Lions and Kung Fu and Swords (oh my!)
So, we survived our first show, managed to keep ourselves breathing, keep ourselves together, and the show went without any real hitch. All in all, no complaints.
We started with the Lion Dance (and that's L-I-O-N, not L-I-N-E), which was probably the single most solid lion dance we've ever done. Everything just came together. Linda and I walked through our corners and did our routines without a hitch; something which pleased me to no end, since there was a time when we weren't sure if she'd even be in the dance tonight. She was, which made all of us very happy. It would've been kinda a bummer for her to be put on the bench 24 hours before the show.
My solo form went very well. Not perfect, mind you, but it was solid. I messed up in a couple of spots, but I don't think that anyone in the audience noticed.
Rock breaking, wire breaking, chopstick breaking... Kung Fu folks in general like to break stuff.
We then jaunted over to the local Chinese restaurant, loaded up on more food than I thought I could fit in my li'l stomach, and more cognac than I knew I could afford, and generally had a good time.
All in all, last night goes in the books as a success; for SiFu, for the school, for me personally, and for all of the students.
Yay.
We started with the Lion Dance (and that's L-I-O-N, not L-I-N-E), which was probably the single most solid lion dance we've ever done. Everything just came together. Linda and I walked through our corners and did our routines without a hitch; something which pleased me to no end, since there was a time when we weren't sure if she'd even be in the dance tonight. She was, which made all of us very happy. It would've been kinda a bummer for her to be put on the bench 24 hours before the show.
My solo form went very well. Not perfect, mind you, but it was solid. I messed up in a couple of spots, but I don't think that anyone in the audience noticed.
Rock breaking, wire breaking, chopstick breaking... Kung Fu folks in general like to break stuff.
We then jaunted over to the local Chinese restaurant, loaded up on more food than I thought I could fit in my li'l stomach, and more cognac than I knew I could afford, and generally had a good time.
All in all, last night goes in the books as a success; for SiFu, for the school, for me personally, and for all of the students.
Yay.
Monday, January 31, 2005
And theyyyyyyy're off!
So, the religious groups in Canada are at arms about same-sex marriage, which comes as a surprise to absolutely nobody.
(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)
So my much, much, much, much, much better half informed me that in mass the other day, the priest (for, apparently, the fourth time in as many weeks) got into a tirade about same-sex marriage; at the end of which, apparently, someone stood up and cheered.
Now, I want it understood that this comes as second-hand information, and therefore should be given the grain of salt you feel it deserves; but from the description I got, there are a lot of arguments that were used which really, really scare me.
I will ignore the religious arguments he used, since I don't believe that any one religion should be writing our laws, he was basically singing to the choir there. The religious arguments have no meaning outside the Catholic faith, and as such have no influence upon the making, interpretation or enforcement of new laws. So, I'll ignore them.
One argument he did use which I've heard a lot is that the ruling was handed down by the supreme court, not by a democratic vote. He went on to claim that the majority does not want gay marriage, and therefore it should be prohibited.
Apparently, he fails to understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic system is that when majority rules, the rights of the minorities are at risk; and even the most ardently homophobic would not claim that homosexuals are not a minority. In a way, that's really why the Supreme Court of Canada (and the US) exists. Their entire purpose for being is to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, in the US, the Bill of Rights) applies to all citizens. Minority, majority, whatever. Their role is to ensure that the rights assured to all citizens by the constitution are not abridged by the democratic process.
Case in point: when the Supreme Court of the US overturned the laws which prohibited interracial marriage, they had approval of over 90% of citizens in the states where such laws were in effect. Now, you would be hard-pressed to find someone today who agrees that these laws were right and just. That's the whole reason why the supreme court is appointed, not elected. Their job is to do the right thing, as dictated by the constitution; not the popular thing.
There was also a suggestion which truly scared me. He suggested that this was an attempt to take power away from the Catholic church.
One question: what power?
The Catholic church has no role in the writing of laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the enforcement of the law. The Catholic church, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, does not exist; and this is the arena in which gay marriage is being decided.
Second question: what power is being taken away?
The finding of the supreme court is very specific: namely that allowing gay marriage is legal provided (and the supreme court was very specific on this one) that no religious institution is required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if they choose not to do so.
So, what power is being taken away from the Catholic church? The short answer is "none." The Catholic church is not required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, should they choose not to do so. Within the framework of the Catholic church, they still have full autonomy where marriage is concerned; but they have no influence upon marriages performed outside that framework. It could be pointed out that they never did.
What does this mean? Well, when you come down to it, I suspect that this isn't really about Gay marriage at all. My suspicion is that they want an acknowledgement by the government that the Catholic faith is the "correct" faith.
And that, frankly, is a very, very scary place to go.
(insert sound of Drew's head smacking his desk here)
So my much, much, much, much, much better half informed me that in mass the other day, the priest (for, apparently, the fourth time in as many weeks) got into a tirade about same-sex marriage; at the end of which, apparently, someone stood up and cheered.
Now, I want it understood that this comes as second-hand information, and therefore should be given the grain of salt you feel it deserves; but from the description I got, there are a lot of arguments that were used which really, really scare me.
I will ignore the religious arguments he used, since I don't believe that any one religion should be writing our laws, he was basically singing to the choir there. The religious arguments have no meaning outside the Catholic faith, and as such have no influence upon the making, interpretation or enforcement of new laws. So, I'll ignore them.
One argument he did use which I've heard a lot is that the ruling was handed down by the supreme court, not by a democratic vote. He went on to claim that the majority does not want gay marriage, and therefore it should be prohibited.
Apparently, he fails to understand the concept of tyrrany of the majority. One of the fundamental flaws of a democratic system is that when majority rules, the rights of the minorities are at risk; and even the most ardently homophobic would not claim that homosexuals are not a minority. In a way, that's really why the Supreme Court of Canada (and the US) exists. Their entire purpose for being is to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or, in the US, the Bill of Rights) applies to all citizens. Minority, majority, whatever. Their role is to ensure that the rights assured to all citizens by the constitution are not abridged by the democratic process.
Case in point: when the Supreme Court of the US overturned the laws which prohibited interracial marriage, they had approval of over 90% of citizens in the states where such laws were in effect. Now, you would be hard-pressed to find someone today who agrees that these laws were right and just. That's the whole reason why the supreme court is appointed, not elected. Their job is to do the right thing, as dictated by the constitution; not the popular thing.
There was also a suggestion which truly scared me. He suggested that this was an attempt to take power away from the Catholic church.
One question: what power?
The Catholic church has no role in the writing of laws, the interpretation of those laws, or the enforcement of the law. The Catholic church, as far as the laws of the land are concerned, does not exist; and this is the arena in which gay marriage is being decided.
Second question: what power is being taken away?
The finding of the supreme court is very specific: namely that allowing gay marriage is legal provided (and the supreme court was very specific on this one) that no religious institution is required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if they choose not to do so.
So, what power is being taken away from the Catholic church? The short answer is "none." The Catholic church is not required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, should they choose not to do so. Within the framework of the Catholic church, they still have full autonomy where marriage is concerned; but they have no influence upon marriages performed outside that framework. It could be pointed out that they never did.
What does this mean? Well, when you come down to it, I suspect that this isn't really about Gay marriage at all. My suspicion is that they want an acknowledgement by the government that the Catholic faith is the "correct" faith.
And that, frankly, is a very, very scary place to go.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The absurdity of politics
So, I'm seriously considering running for office.
No, I'm not joking.
Okay, this may seem hypocritical, considering that I didn't even vote in the last federal election in Canada; largely for two reasons: 1) There really wasn't anyone in my riding worth voting for, and I take my vote very seriously and 2) Canada's policy of giving $1.75 per vote to parties which earn more than 2% of the popular vote really rubbed me the wrong way. It struck me as undemocratic, and frankly, I just didn't like it.
So, I'm thinking of running as an independent. If nobody'll put up someone worth voting for, I'll try to be someone worth voting for. As an independent, I'm ineligible for the $1.75, so I see no hypocrisy in this course of action.
The real issue I have with politics is that there are too damn many politicians. There are too many people who either blindly follow the party line so that they don't have to think for themselves or have made a life out of pissing off the smallest possible number of people. Just once, I'd like to see someone who has no party line standing at center stage. Someone who knows, realistically, that they're not going to win the election, someone who has nothing to lose going into it, but at the very least has one golden opportunity to make the candidates who just may win address the issues. If nothing else, it'll get people talking; and maybe that's enough.
Seriously, am I the only one who wishes that once, just once, someone would stand in the spotlight and just cut through all the bull? You object to same sex marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. You want to pray in school? Do so, but don't expect anyone else to do it. You want to have government-sponsored Daycare? Perfect, it will be made available to those who have or are actively seeking steady jobs; 'cause I ain't paying to take your kids off your hands so that you can sit at home and watch Dr. Phil. Your church opposes same-sex marriage? Great, you'll be thrilled to know that nobody's requiring them to perform such a ceremony. You object to abortion? Fine, nobody's forcing you to have one. You object to stem-cell research? Great, when they cure Alzheimer's, you can deny yourself treatment. You want secede from the rest of the country? Swell; here's a boat and a paddle, France is thattaway. You want land when you separate? Okay, how does Ellesmere Island strike your fancy? You say that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy? Probably true; so what?
Just once, I'd like to see someone running for office speak in a way that isn't calculated to keep from pissing off too many people. I'd like to see someone speak in a way which isn't designed to keep the majority happy. I'd like to see someone running for office not just speak, but actually say something.
Sadly, those kinds of people don't get elected; and realistically, I won't either. But it'll make people talk, and maybe that's enough.
Okay, rant over. I just had to get that off my chest.
No, I'm not joking.
Okay, this may seem hypocritical, considering that I didn't even vote in the last federal election in Canada; largely for two reasons: 1) There really wasn't anyone in my riding worth voting for, and I take my vote very seriously and 2) Canada's policy of giving $1.75 per vote to parties which earn more than 2% of the popular vote really rubbed me the wrong way. It struck me as undemocratic, and frankly, I just didn't like it.
So, I'm thinking of running as an independent. If nobody'll put up someone worth voting for, I'll try to be someone worth voting for. As an independent, I'm ineligible for the $1.75, so I see no hypocrisy in this course of action.
The real issue I have with politics is that there are too damn many politicians. There are too many people who either blindly follow the party line so that they don't have to think for themselves or have made a life out of pissing off the smallest possible number of people. Just once, I'd like to see someone who has no party line standing at center stage. Someone who knows, realistically, that they're not going to win the election, someone who has nothing to lose going into it, but at the very least has one golden opportunity to make the candidates who just may win address the issues. If nothing else, it'll get people talking; and maybe that's enough.
Seriously, am I the only one who wishes that once, just once, someone would stand in the spotlight and just cut through all the bull? You object to same sex marriage? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. You want to pray in school? Do so, but don't expect anyone else to do it. You want to have government-sponsored Daycare? Perfect, it will be made available to those who have or are actively seeking steady jobs; 'cause I ain't paying to take your kids off your hands so that you can sit at home and watch Dr. Phil. Your church opposes same-sex marriage? Great, you'll be thrilled to know that nobody's requiring them to perform such a ceremony. You object to abortion? Fine, nobody's forcing you to have one. You object to stem-cell research? Great, when they cure Alzheimer's, you can deny yourself treatment. You want secede from the rest of the country? Swell; here's a boat and a paddle, France is thattaway. You want land when you separate? Okay, how does Ellesmere Island strike your fancy? You say that allowing gay marriage will open the door to polygamy? Probably true; so what?
Just once, I'd like to see someone running for office speak in a way that isn't calculated to keep from pissing off too many people. I'd like to see someone speak in a way which isn't designed to keep the majority happy. I'd like to see someone running for office not just speak, but actually say something.
Sadly, those kinds of people don't get elected; and realistically, I won't either. But it'll make people talk, and maybe that's enough.
Okay, rant over. I just had to get that off my chest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
