why it's not just talk.

It's hard enough to believe that a candidate for President Of the United States can make remarks suggesting that it is somehow alright to perpetrate sexual assault on women on the basis of some form of elitism,either of me over women,or the one percent over the rest of the peons or both.What's even harder to stomach is the number of people on social media that,if they have not bought into the idea of this being"just locker room talk",suggest that it's time for the rest of  us to "forgive" Mr.Trump for his indiscretions.Presumably these people,or at least some of them are Evangelicals,citing forgiveness as a Christian value.The problem is that there is a certain model of forgiveness that IS Christian.But I'm not seeing this model here,just  something vaguely similar to it.So lets give this some thought.

To Donald Trumps credit,he has stated he is not proud of having made the comments he has.very good,that's a start.It also acknowledges the need for forgiveness in his particular case.moreover,the many comments on social media likewise note that forgiveness is called for,because there is something that needs to be forgiven.The problem is,forgiveness is to be based on repentance.Forgiveness without repentance cheapens the whole concept.

One person commenting on my Facebook page in the past few days made a no doubt well meaning quote from Psalm 51,Davids Psalm of repentance.Therefor,the author of this comment said,we should all forgive Donald Trump.Well,that's a nice sentiment,but I simply note one key difference between King David and Donald Trump.King David was broken over his wrongdoing.And the day I hear anything like that from Donald Trump,i'll believe that he is similarly broken.

In the meantime,and since some choose to bring this issue into the realm of faith,where it does in fact belong,lets consider why Trumps comments are not simply locker room  talk,unseemly,but rather harmless.

The problem with talk is that it represents ideas.It expresses a certain mindset.In the case of Mr. Trump,those are ugly and erroneous ideas.The video in question was ugly to hear and can not simply be dismissed,because long after you forget,of wrongly forgive the talk,the idea will still be there,unless there is genuine repentance.Now have we heard that? Think back to the early days of this dog and pony show.It's been one thing after another since Trump's campaign began.This latest talk is just flavor of the week ignorance,and no matter how much one wishes it away,it keeps rearing it's head.

What specifically is wrong with Mr.Trump's "locker room talk",from a faith perspective? First,where do women come from? from the rib of a man,from the DNA of the first created man,a being created in God's image.Woman was not simply a subset of man,but rather,both are subsets of Our Father,who encompasses both.Therefor,to demean women is to demean man as well.But,the biggest problem is that in so doing,Mr.Trump is really presenting an affront to God.And that is something Evangelicals need to come to terms with before election day.

If it seems fit to forgive Mr.Trump for those actions that he says he's not proud of,then do that.But I haven't heard anything that convinces me that he is at all sorry for what he's said.I'm also not convinced that even if a person were truly sorry for such things,that the thought processes that give rise to that sort of speech can be overcome in a matter of weeks,if ever.Speaking from experience,and even with the help of The Holy Spirit,dealing with my own sin is an ongoing process,as it is for every one of us.And I don't presume to know the state of Mr.Trumps soul.But,if he is not ready for The Office Of President,and by virtue of observable behavior he would seem not to be,then he should stand down. That's not going to happen,so it's up to all of the electorate,including Evangelicals to search their souls before casting their votes.So,if you're going to forgive,reread your scripture and make sure it's really warranted.Make certain that offense to God is not an ongoing thing.And remember,even if it's not,accountability might still entail that Mr.Trump not be elected.

                                                                                                            blyndpapaya

Americas First Scary Clown

So do you really still want to vote for Trump? It's been months now and this whole thing has been nothing more than a freak show that grows worse with each passing moment.Do any of you get this? It's not going to get any better.

So is this all just locker room talk? Well,not in any locker room I've ever been in.It's not even as common on construction sites as it once was.This is not simply harmless talk,not just meaningless trash talk.It's vile and inconsiderate,an insult to any person who claims even the smallest amount of civility.Just a civilized people do not use Mark Furman's infamous "N" word,so should they never refer to a woman,ANY woman as a collection of a few of her body parts,namely those in which the basest of men find immature gratification.This is usually a stage in human development.Then again,many well brought up boys outgrow it.And some "men" never do.

This is not just more whining from the Liberal,PC crowd.Yes,I'm a liberal,and the fact that so many people find Trumps comments offensive,and can explain why they are offensive,so even an eight year old can understand it,is in part proof of the value of Liberalism.The world can be improved with thoughtful debate.We can "get there from here",and we are obligated to do so.

Let me tell you why I'm offended by Mr.Trump.First,and most obviously,his comments are offensive to women,to our wives,nieces,sisters and daughters. Misogyny is nothing new,especially among the knuckle dragging wannabe elites,but it has never been morally right.It never will be.Now,I may be a man,but when you suggest that privilege gives you the right to defile women whom I love and admire,I have an issue with you.Further,His comments are insulting to MEN.Mr.Trump,you portray men,something like one half of your electorate as being sex crazed,vulgar morons dying of testosterone poisoning and feeling perfectly justified in doing so,never having a care for the hurt caused to the other half of humanity.Well,Mr.Trump,let me make this as clear as I can-YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!

Unfortunately,if my Facebook page is anywhere near average,in terms of posted comments,there is a sizable portion of the American electorate that is more than willing to just brush off your vulgarity,either because partisan politics,especially that brand of political response that has been conditioned since childhood Trumps any moral consideration,or because they are so taken up in hating Clinton,that they will accept any alternative as being better.Really? One thing is for certain,your preaching of hate seems to be working.But you are badly mistaken if you think it's the only alternative.I'm guessing a lot of voters have you figured out.

I for one,am not afraid of Mexicans.I do not fear Muslims because they practice Islam,or Blacks because they are black,and feel they deserve a better life.But let me tell you what really does concern me.Assuming that something like half of voting Americans condone you speech and it's content,either overtly or by moral omission,I am very concerned.Because you see,Mr.Trump that purifying rot doesn't come out of your mouth for no reason.It proceeds from your thoughts.And again,assuming half the people still find you acceptable,that means there are a lot of people in any given neighborhood,on any given street who think similar thoughts.And that makes me very uneasy when it comes to the actual safety of women I love.How dare you imply,under any circumstances that they only exist for the pleasure of yourself and your knuckle dragging comrades.The really disturbing thing-if only ten percent of your supporters are as virulent in their views as you are,there are still a lot more of you and your ilk than there are registered sex offenders.So,I might see the actual legal and moral merit of "Hiliary For Prison" if you also volunteered to be put on a sex registry.Yes,I know,you are not convicted of any sexual offense,but neither is Clinton convicted of any wrong doing.But you have convinced me that your thoughts are dark and depraved,in a seemingly unending manner.

Let's take a look at some of the things you build your politics on in the light brought to bear by your current statements.First,you suggest that Mexicans are rapists and criminals.Your words! Mr.Trump,after last week's revelations,you hold no moral high ground in such a statement,not that you ever did.

You suggest that we should turn away Muslim refugees.They are terrorists and you don't want to encourage Islamic values.Like misogyny,for instance? Well ,there certainly is no need to import that is there? It seems to grow here in abundance,along with hypocrisy.To that end,let me note that I just met a family of Syrian refugees this past week-in church.Turns out they are not Muslims,but persecuted Christians.But thankfully an America under Donald Trump will fully vet immigrants.Better,hopefully when you are deporting them than when they were let in.But I'm betting that the process turns away many of the honest hard working immigrants that any country should be happy to have as citizens.Oh,and did I just say the "T" word? Because terror is exactly what many women experience when your special brand hatred and entitlement are prevalent in society.And,because I love women,feel concern for them,I feel terrorized too.Once again,you seem to have no moral standing.

I really thought seeing a disabled man being mocked by by you told me all I needed to know.Well,it did tell me that I didn't have to step in it to know that it's not mud.But your latest comments are even lower than that.It seems to me that you have no moral center,that you are not grounded in right and wrong except as it involves your entitlement to walk all over the rest of humanity just to justify you own entitlement.You scare me Mr.Trump.Moreover,you are an utter mockery of any sort of political process,and of The Office Of President.America does not need a First Scary Clown,and I'm guessing that even given a lack of ideal alternatives,Americans are beginning to realize that.

                                                                                                                blyndpapaya

downloading human responsibility on animals.

The city of Montreal is banning pit bulls.This is not the first time a jurisdiction has done this,but,just as in the past,it's a misdirected effort.It simply misses the point in a way humans are all to prone to do.You see,the responsibility here belongs to humans,not animals that are limited in their ability to think,and respond acceptably to a world centered around humans.In this case,the banning of a specific breed is a knee jerk reaction to the tragic death of a woman by a pit bull earlier this year.In fact,the same could tragedy could have involved any of numerous other breeds,it just happened to have involved a pit bull.Really,that's a lot like saying that because a particular person was murdered by a black person,we should ban black people.Wait a minute,the cynical part of me wonders if that's not already happening.But that's a rambling for another day.

Human prejudice being what it is filters down to the animal world.What a shame.Dogs,when we really think about it are subjects of human stereotyping.Can you really deny that breeds like Golden Retrievers or Dalmatians or Irish Setters or Great Pyrenees are more highly valued than breeds like Pit bulls or Rottweilers? Moreover,the value placed on certain breeds like Pit Bulls seems in some cases to be placed there for the wrong reason.Clearly you can go to certain areas here in Toronto that are frequented by drug dealers who have Pit Bulls or some similar breed.Clearly they are being presented as a means of maintaining a persona which is intimidating.But that is not the dogs fault.And that's the whole point.The problem is irresponsible dog owners and misinformed attitudes.

I happen to love dogs.Some breeds more than others,admittedly.While I've become somewhat adept at figuring out canine non verbal language,I have been bitten by a dog.Once!In my entire life.I was making a delivery to a house at the time,a house that I'd delivered to several times without there ever being a sign of a dog within their fenced yard.There was no beware of dog sign.The breed in Question?An Australian Shepherd,a breed I'm especially fond of.In fact,if you ever advocate eliminating Aussies,you'll have a problem with me,and I can be a Pit Bull.My minor injury was the result of some irresponsible dog owners  oversight.Not the fault of the dog.Dogs are territorial,that's in large part the whole point in having one.They tend to protect their own.But discerning friend from foe is something they don't always do perfectly.

Somehow we've gotten the idea that it's okay to download human responsibility on animals.This is not just a problem with dogs.It effects the whole animal world,because we encroach upon their territory thinking that they can simply be eliminated if they become a problem.People leave pet food out,then find themselves trying to find ways to annihilate skunks.Posters for lost pets seem to be especially prevalent in areas most frequented by coyotes,so coyotes get to be the villains.And I wonder,does anyone really think that the bears in our Mountain Parks enjoy being in your selfie? On my last trip by bus to Vancouver I saw eight selfie taking tourists,with accompanying bears along the highway.When the tragedy happens,and it will,it's a death sentence for another bear.

Meanwhile in Montreal,banning Pit Bull just misses the mark completely.The irresponsible training of dogs for nefarious purposes will continue unabated,only perhaps with different breeds.But perhaps not.Those who weaponize their dogs are not usually upstanding citizens,so the ban will not be much of a concern to them.Yet the responsibility in Montreal falls on dogs,not on negligent dog owners.In fact,bad dog owners have been allowed to avoid responsibility.That needs to change.

We need,among other things more stringent controls on dog owners in general.People who raise dogs using abusive techniques need to be banned from owning dogs.So do any other persons who commit criminal activity in which dogs are a part.In fact,if you deal drugs,maintain chop shops or receive,store or sell stolen goods and a dog is found anywhere within sight of your operation,you should forfeit the right to own a dog.Forever.We need fines,in the tens of thousands of dollars for allowing a dog to be out of control.Perhaps severe fines are also in order for those ignoring beware of dog signs.But my whole point is that humans need to be held to account for human negligence.Because it's not the fault of animals.

                                                                                                   blyndpapaya

is overweight the new Hispanic?

Donald Trump loves beauty contests.He loves hanging around them.Or so Hiliary Clinton revealed near the end of last Monday's debate.He was asked about things he may have said to a former Miss Universe contestant,like that he may have called her "Miss Piggy" or that "she gained quite a bit of weight and it became a real problem." So far this has been sort of a sideshow being brought to light rather recently,as it has.But the incident needs a bit more consideration.

Ask yourself:Is Donald Trump simply manufacturing enemies? Because to me,he seems to be mass producing them.To that end,are his alleged Miss Piggy comments,along with his referring to Rosie O'Donnell as a "fat pig" further confirmation of his misogyny,ridicule for disabled people,racism(the Miss Universe in question is Hispanic) and just plain disrespect for anyone who does not conform to his ideals?Or is overweight the new Hispanic?

I'll have to admit,at nearly sixty years of age I've put on a few pounds.A close friend of mine calls it "well endowed."I remind her that that is the wrong choice of words,and point out that I'm generously proportioned.When my friend asked me to explain the difference I replied"I'm so generously proportioned that I can't tell if I'm well endowed.But all kidding aside,has Mr. Trump just included me in the category of enemy other? Not that I mind.I'm sure he needs to find reasons to discount 50 something white males as well.After all,it's a long way to get down to that one percent.Moreover,I am a Trump enemy,for many of my own reasons.

I must admit certain prejudices.I along with Mr.Trump enjoy looking at beautiful women,despite being,perhaps,past my prime,and committed.What I do not enjoy,and do not define as beauty is the standard typically held out in The Miss Universe Pageant,and in beauty contests generally: women who are slim,sometime in an unhealthy way,not too intelligent or self assured,and deferential to men.In fact,I like bigger,big boned women.I find feminine confidence and self assurance attractive.More importantly I find beauty contests that don't really measure beauty at all passe and distasteful.



But my question is this:can I now expect to be discriminated against if Donald Trump were elected? well,luckily I live in Canada,so it's not my biggest concern,but what about overweight Americans? Discrimination can range from simple ridicule to actual sanctions being taken against those being discriminated against.Ridicule may be the most benign form of discrimination,but it's hardly harmless.Words of ridicule can scar people for a lifetime.The best that can be said is that they are heartless and thoughtless.Discriminatory actions can limit or curtail the ability of a person,or whole categories of persons to participate fully in society,thus marginalizing them.As this might concern an overweight person,it already has occurred in the form of airlines asking larger persons to pay for an additional seat.So,in a Trump world,would such thing become the norm? Would it cost overweight persons more to purchase life insurance? Health insurance? Would it be acceptable to discriminate in the area of employment?

Here is the real bottom line on all of this.You can't really discriminate specifically.Prejudice is a kind of shotgun activity.If you hate it's because you are hateful.And,if you discriminate against anyone who is significantly unlike you,no matter how carefully you disguise the fact,what you are really doing is holding that persons non existence as an ideal.On this count,"Miss Piggy" has three strikes against her.She's a woman,she's Hispanic and she's deemed to be overweight,whether she is in fact or not.And all of these categories have been devalued by a current Presidential candidate.His rhetoric says so,no matter how hard he tries to spin it.

                                                                                               blyndpapaya    

Donald Trump-time to put on your politicians pants.

Well,it's time for the first Presidential Debate.For Donald Trump it's time to step up and show that you belong.I'm guessing that it's not going to happen.I'm guessing that Clinton wins by default,simply because she is a politician,and has been for decades.She knows how to play the game,and that's what will win the debate,and the Presidency.Unless we see a lot more from the Trump camp than we've seen to this point.

I may be missing the point here,but I've yet to see a single thing from Trump that points the way to any clear policy. I've yet to hear any ideas that are not a reaction to some perceived enemy."Lets Make America Great Again." That is a wide and rather vague slogan,and it will draw in some of those who have complaints about their current existence.It's fine,as slogans go,but what does it really mean? We will only come to know what it means in the fullness of time.Slogans don't mean a lot,in terms of management and legislation.I tend to mistrust slogans that are cast larger than life.

To listen to Trump,the slogan might just as well read"Lets Hate Someone." Making America Great seems to mean turning it into a gated community.Build a wall,and make Mexico pay for it.Keep out Muslims.These are just grossly overstated ideas,all based on the mistrust of others.But what else has Trump really said?

Where are the ideas that can turn into clear cut policy?How does Trump plan to deal with ISIS,for instance?It's debate night,so lets be specific.Because keeping Muslims out is not going to work.So how are you going to encourage liberalization of Radical Islam? What actual steps do you intend to employ to bring a popular enlightenment to the Islamic world? Because I don't see casting Muslims,in general as an enemy other to be very helpful in that regard.I'm guessing that mistrust will be returned many times over.So how about telling me what You're going to do to make America accountable in the world.Specific points.And again,Actual threats need to be addressed.How are you going to do that?Again,Specific points.

How are you going to restore American jobs? How are you going to make the economy viable for everyone? Because the elite ten percent,or one percent,or whatever is no measure of how great America is.It's a measure of how far America has fallen.And by the way,Mr.Trump,why not release your tax returns so that we can all see for certain what percentile you belong in.Otherwise I'm inclined to believe what my eyes tell me and believe that you will represent your own interests.And as a billionaire isn't it in your interests to either ship manufacturing to some choice third world country,or to turn America into a card carrying member of that same third world?

Mr.Trump,it's time to put on your politicians pants and show America that you really belong,that your not just a businessman imitating a leader.Show me that you don't hate the majority of Americans,liberals,women,blacks homosexuals,Hispanics,or,in short any one who is not exactly like you-white,right wing,filthy rich and ideologically intolerant.Tell me you really didn't mean it when you mocked a disabled reporter,and say it like you mean it.And while your up there tonight,why don't you apologize for the comment you made about Hiliary not being able to satisfy her own husband.Because that says a lot about who you are,and what you believe the issues to be.By the way,in that regard,the same might be said about you.But some of us get that that is not the issue.

Tell us,in short what you are going to do to represent the average American,in the average American town.Because all of heard thus far is about who you hate,who you want to exclude from meaningful consideration.Because if you can't tell me how you intend to represent Americans in Washington,then I'll believe that what you are really doing is representing Washington,complete with it's business as usual attitudes,to Americans.All that you've really said so far is "Let Them Eat Cake." You have a ton of actual work to do,and unless you do it flawlessly from here on out,Clinton will win for one clear reason.She is a politician and you're not.

                                                                                             blyndpapaya

random acts of racism

There are a lot of big things going on in America in terms of race relations,and it seems that very few of them are good.Even when it is a good news story,there is usually some form of push back on social media,so racism in thought and in practice is hardy dead.

Today another American city is in a state of turmoil,because of the shooting of another black man.It's an all to frequent occurrence in what would seem to be the Neo-Jim Crow Era. Every time such an event takes place,there is the predictable,and to some extent justified anger coming from black Americans.And every time there is monumental push back from the law enforcement agencies involved,and law and order junkies nation wide.While I don't want to slight the obvious problem as being less significant than it is,today I want to take a more micro approach to race relations.I want to look at some seemingly smaller issues.

Some of the specific news articles I've been seeing lately are disturbing.Perhaps it's because a lot of people I've talked to seem to consider them trivial in the grand scheme of things.But they are not really trivial at all.Rather,they are an indication of how all embracing,how penetrating racial discrimination must seem in the eyes of people of color.But the real point here is that they are a call to practice empathy for white Americans.

Consider the case of Butler Traditional High School in Louisville,Kentucky.This school used to have a policy of "no natural hairstyles." In ordinary language that forbid such things as braids,dreadlocks and cornrows,styles favored by and culturally appropriate to African Americans.It's unclear to me what would constitute a "natural hairstyle if the person in question was white,Hispanic or Native American.The reason it's unclear is that there seems to be a particular leaning here,a particular targeting of  some trait deemed to be undesirable.Recently the ban has been lifted,but certainly the damage has already been done,the discrimination has already been received.You can't unslap the face.And it's all a controversy that need never have taken place,if the state had only stayed out of an area of personal choice,that needs no such menial and restrictive legislation.

Speaking of hair-hair,for heavens sake-The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals recently ruled that an employer can require an employee to cut her dreadlocks,and not be guilty of racial discrimination.Race,and racial discrimination,in this case seems to be defined by skin color,not points of identity that are culturally meaningful to many persons of African heritage.How far we've come from the days when color was less the determinate than was a single drop of black blood.And what high minded,holier than thou hypocrisy.

Meanwhile,in Portland Oregon,a local school district is rethinking a recent ban of Rap Music,as well as Religious Music on it's buses.The policy,it seems was geared toward limiting access to violent and profane lyrics.That's all very noble,but such things are hardly exclusive of other forms of music.Consequently,the assault on a predominantly black form of music tends to reinforce already existing stereotypes about violence being more indigenous to African culture than to Portland's dominant culture ,which is overwhelmingly white and significantly Mormon.We can all hope,from this rethinking,that the Portland School District will address the issue of appropriate music content with far less regard to race.By all means,be intolerant of violence and profanity under an all embracing,zero tolerance policy.Also,be inclusive of all music that does not violate such a policy.

Even when the story is a good one,reflective of more progressive attitudes,there is often push back.Yesterday,on my Facebook page someone had posted a picture of a man wearing a turban,in an American Army uniform.The caption indicated the man pictured was a "Muslim",though he appeared to me to be a Sikh.Not that that is ,or should be the basis of differential treatment,but it seems to have some currency today in inciting negative responses to the policy of permitting such attire in the military.Not surprisingly,the picture was accompanied by a lot of comments,mostly negative,some violently so.Never being shy in matters of social justice I fired off my own reply.To paraphrase:This man wishes to serve his country.That is admirable.If he is,in fact a Muslim,he may well be doing so in spite of the disapproval of family members.Some may disown him.Some may even wish to kill him.Still he stands and does the right thing.PLEASE SUPPORT ALL OF OUR SOLDIERS!

Then,of course there is the issue of Colin Kaepernick. The San Francisco Quarterback who refuses to stand for the American National Anthem,in protest of  the way America treats people of color.As I've said,I would have chosen to take a stand in a different manner,but I still applaud Colin Kaepernick for being a role model,for taking a stand.But it seems that since it's a black person we are talking about here,the only interpretation of his actions is that he is disrespecting his country.But,it's equally reasonable to think the,in reality that he loves his country,acknowledges it's deficiencies,and is trying to urge America to be the best that it can be.And that seems to be so lacking in American society,either black or white.

There's a reason I'm pointing to these small things.Small,but nevertheless culturally important to many Americans,especially minorities of many different stripes.Racism can penetrate to the least of things,like choice of music or hairstyle.These issues my not appear important,but they illustrate how all pervasive discrimination is.They show the picture of a society where even menial things,and I only mean menial in comparison to bigger,life and death concerns,are subject to racial attitudes that are less that progressive.

So,if there is no respect of culture in small things,is it any surprise that America is so racially fractured? Is it so shocking to find a striking lack of empathy among many Americans? It may not stop the shootings or the degradation of families and communities,but empathy,and a better orientation to race relations begins at home,in you community,with the people that you meet every day.So let's ease up on the small things.

                                                                                              blyndpapaya      

A total waste of a good Liberal.

By now,if you read this column on a regular basis,you've no doubt detected a certain political bias.That's perfectly all right with me,it's even intended.So let me thank you for your patronage.

A long time ago you were not really allowed to think for yourself.The masses of us were told by The Church of the day what was orthodox ,and therefor required of every creature that lived within it's long shadow.The Church also held great sway over the otherwise legitimate civil rulers of the day too,such that they were often hamstrung in administering their realms.The only real authority of the day was The Church,and you couldn't challenge them. You see,most laymen could not read,while most clergy could and therefor "Scripture" could not be questioned.It was what The Church said it was.Not to say that religion was all bad,but there was a great monolithic entity,a malevolent deity if you will, deceiving us and inventing it's own reality.All because of the absence of liberals and liberalism.

But then we discovered that the world was not flat because nobody dropped off of it's edge,that it revolved around the sun and that neither priest nor king was infallible,and that men had certain inherent freedoms.This all happened because men invented a thing called the light switch.Well,actually that was a bit later,but,in this sense I'm referring to light as being the ability to reason,challenge and endeavor to improve upon the world as we find it.

Zoe Slusar,the former Vice President of Student Life at Mount Royal University and I disagree. I've never met Zoe,but I'd venture we disagree on a lot of things.Most fundamentally we disagree about what it means to be a liberal,which is what I'm assuming Zoe Slusar calls herself,based on behavior from a video that can be viewed either on Facebook or Youtube.

In the above mentioned video,Ms.Slusar is seen asking,really more like demanding,that a man,Matt Linder remove a cap he is wearing.The cap in question says "Let's Make America Great Again." A Donald Trump Campaign hat.Ms.Slusar insists that the hat is offensive because the only thing "Making America Great Again." can mean is making it all white,with no room for different races or sexual orientations.For her,there can be no other meaning,thus,she feels unsafe and insists that others feel unsafe as well. Mr.Linder must therefor be forced to remove his cap.

I will grant that Donald Trump seems to stand for some outlandish things.In fact,I'd rather vote for a horse than accept what he is bent on trying to sell the American public.Over the past few months I've been one of his harshest critics.A world which offers the potential to make him the most powerful man in the world disturbs me.But there is a missing link here so far as Zoe Slusar is concerned.That would be reason,and it's fundamental to a liberal world view.

Reason is also,or should be what going to university is all about.I'm fairly certain that's escaped Zoe Slusar though,as she reaches for the switch in a misguided effort to extinguish enlightenment.There was a time,not that long ago when a high quality of debate was what moved the political world.What happened? What happened,in part was the emergence of people like Zoe Slugar,and,ironically enough Donald Trump,who seem dedicated far more than anything else to their own dogma and entitlement.

So the rule of the day here seems to be stifling dissent,whether for Trump,or Slusar. If you disagree with someones ideology,shut him up.Don't bother debating him.Force the utter removal of the offending opinion.

Again,and I stress,I find Trumps views intolerant on a number of levels and thus intolerable.But the way to deal with the intolerable is to debate it fully and continually without ceasing,Fight the good fight and realize that that battle goes on and on,requiring the greatest intellectual rectitude possible.People like Bernie Sanders get that.People like Slusar do not.That is simply because they lack the ability or the inclination to debate,seeking instead to outlaw thought that they find disagreeable.Well,that's not how liberalism was intended to work.Intellect and inquiry is central to liberal thought.Trump seems to find that offensive,and that concerns me.But the attitudes of someone like Slusar I find vastly more disturbing.In fact,I wonder if  her thoughts proceed directly out of having lived in a repressive culture and being innately conditioned to proceed to the most dramatic and drastic means possible to address grievances and disagreement.Clearly this makes her a waste of a potentially perfectly good liberal.

                                                                                      blyndpapaya

Banks and marijuana.

Lately,here in Canada,the banks,at least two of them are trying to distance themselves from the marijuana business,That business is currently legal with respect to the production and sale of marijuana for medical use.And we are told that legislation will be introduced within a year to legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use.The present cancellation of accounts by Scotia Bank and Royal Bank though,apply not only to those producing and handling the plants,but to those selling secondary products,such as pipes and bongs,and other,fully legal products associated with marijuana.

A lot is being left to the imagination as to why major banks would take such a stand in regards to an industry which is in some sense legal,and which is being further legalized as a statement of public policy under our current government.One possible reason,and it seems a good one, involves banking south of our borders,where it is still illegal to hold funds taken from the sale of marijuana.Obviously banking in Canada,as in the rest of the world, is highly interconnected with American banking and thus,I can see how this might pose a problem for Canadian banks.Banks,as a rule and wherever they are located tend to be among the most conservative,cautious institutions in the world.They are intensely concerned with reputation and,so far as we know given to taking great pains to comply with the law.So then,is this simply a matter of the banks in question having done their due diligence in terms of identifying and avoiding possible legal exposure?Or is there something more afoot here?

We really need to take a look at the presence of banking in our lives.Normally it's something we don't give a lot of thought to.We are conditioned to taking banks, with all of their attendant conveniences and evils,for granted.Being able to undertake banking is a fundamental necessity,especially for those operating their own businesses.But the current position of some Canadian banks with respect to marijuana production and distribution raises some important questions as to just how much intrusion a bank can or should have into the lives of it's customers.

First,let me say that it's wholly reasonable for a bank to undertake,as a matter of policy and practice to avoid breaking specific laws,including those that apply to the marijuana trade.But we have to wonder why the banks are waiting until now to take a very strait laced moral high road in a debate which is ongoing and controversial.It makes me wonder what other activities,including legal activities might be frowned upon in the towers of Bay Street,and what potential consequences they might hold to bank customers.

The thing is though,banks are not government,and they are certainly not police.Accordingly,they do not,or at least should not have unbridled power over the lives of people who seek the privilege of engaging in the economy in a more or less legal way.We all have privacy rights,allegedly.So does the bank have the right to ask that I disclose detailed descriptions of  what my business does,who it does business with and who I as a bank customer choose associate with? They may have some limited rights in this area if they hold a note on a particular business,but what if they do not? Will I be faced with the possibility of having a routine savings account canceled because I indulged in legal marijuana ten minutes before entering the bank? Will mortgages or loans be called in if a bank knows a customer indulges in marijuana use? Will the day come that I will have to prove that I'm drug free to partake of ordinary banking transactions?

Banks have a lot of power over businesses and individuals.Apparently they have the power to exclude some customers from ordinary,legal participation in the economy.And I would like to know what limits are placed on these powers.Are they totally arbitrary,completely at the discretion of the bank.That would mean,in theory,though perhaps not in practice that banks could dictate outright the ability of a person,persons or organization to participate in the economy.So then,with that in mind,who else,aside from marijuana dealers are they policing? The KKK,perhaps?How about the John Birch Society,or the local abortion clinic? I don't recall this being an issue in years past when abortion was the burning issue,but maybe times and morals have changed.And they will continue to change.So will banks continue to have their current latitude when it comes to deciding what is sufficiently controversial to warrant limiting or curtailing banking privileges?

It should be noted,in this current controversy that banks,in the effort to keep their hands scrupulously clean,are in fact contributing to some social problems that could otherwise be mitigated.By excluding persons involved in the marijuana trade from banking,I suspect much of that trade is cash only in nature.Moreover,at least here in Toronto,pot shops tend to be located in relatively busy,and in many cases high crime neighborhoods.The presence of large sums of cash in such places poses a risk to the public,and requires additional policing and security,with the additional expense that involves.Further,it tends to extend the current stigmatization of those businesses,even though the trend is towards greater legalization of marijuana and it's  complimentary products and services.

We are told,or at least left to speculate that increased legitimacy of the marijuana industry will eventually result in banks accepting marijuana producers as customers.Once banks can draw sufficient profit from the enterprise that is.Well.does anyone really think banks don't currently participate in questionable industries.Such as tobacco companies,for instance,or companies that produce and sell weapons? Or maybe the producers of dirty oil,genetically modified organisms,or mining companies that remove whole mountains,destroying eco systems in the process In that event,we must wonder why the moral opinions of banks are taken to out weigh those of the rest of society.Especially in a debate far less consequential than many.

                                                                                                     blyndpapaya

Silent sky

The day looked undecided and hardly aware of itself.Sky trying to be gold,defused with grey and streaked with darker colors.Wind.Warm?Or Cold? The creaking sound of hinges on a bashed in dumpster,an arm rising above it's rim,tossing out some of it's contents,a white mass of something.Squirrel passing along the wire above.First one of the day maybe,moving west,looking desperate to hold his footing.Yellow,blushing crab apples lying on the cracked alley pavement,so sour even the squirrels ignore them,treaded underfoot turning to mash and reeking,an accent to the mash from the distillery carried on wind with the dust from the mill that always fouls the air.

It happened slowly at first.Gathering up the breakfast dishes and listening to the radio.Not listening really,but it's on.Always.Traffic,commercials,I can't remember them now.And a plane has fallen,out of the sky where no plane should be.They always fly out over Harlem,don't they? Well,it must have been a small plane hopelessly lost.Rinse off grease spots from a plate.Toss a grapefruit rind into the trash.Do I need to take it to the dumpster?No,not yet.Open up the window a bit.Wind is cool.It could rain.But by evening the apartment will be a hellbox because my window faced south.Bottle pickers shuffling down the alley.Nasty blue shirt with half the collar torn away.The day looked undecided.

And then another,and we knew.The first though:it's my nephews birthday today.There's a fly on the wall.Make the bed?No,stay and listen instead.Save the few minutes and hear the radio.Magpies squabbling outside.Is the window cracked too far.They will fly up onto it's sill,then inside to shit on the floor.Radio is in chaos now,no more commercials,nobody cares about traffic.Announcer takes us to New York.But details are still sketchy.Out the door and off to work.The day seems different,though not enough minutes have passed.Quiet.Stony silent inside the train as it moves out southbound.The day looked undecided,and all the people knew it.Sunshine or storm?And what would it be like if today was your birthday?

Working in the dim heat of a depot,sorting bottles.There's a television in the lunchroom and I catch a quick glimpse in the minute or two before my shift begins,pulling on thick rubber gloves,so as to not injure my hands and have them covered in blood.No need to linger.These images will take up forever,and the world is different now.Boss is a Sikh man and he laments,"The world will blame us.Because we wear turbans. " There's a turbaned man on the television set,a dark looking,foreboding man,he looks more like a shadow.

Clink of bottles,stench of sour beer,rattle of coins,pickers cart.Broken glass and paper under foot.Some spoiled liquor stuck to the floor,sticking to my feet,trying to draw my shoes away,off of my feet.And the television drones.You can hear it now from anywhere in the shop,because someone has turned it up.We started the day talking of other things,co-workers,customers,like any other day,but it changed.No other conversation,just the one thing,and there is a fear in every voice now.You can't escape it,it cannot be hidden.

I used the planes to tell me where I am in the city.I knew their glide slopes better than the streets.But there are no planes in the sky.And that's what I remember most.And I turned my mind to a verse about signs and wonders in the heavens.I didn't know it's exact wording,I'd have too look it up.

And I was dumping garbage outside,into a dumpster.Broken bottles.Lock the back gate because even here the bottle pickers would break in and scatter the contents looking for a single can or bottle.Or maybe a place to sleep.They might even come in through the back door,looking for a windfall.The dumpster reeked like a vomit factory and a handful of wasps and hornets hovered about ever malevolent sucking in the tiny drops of spoiled liquor.Kahlua and Coors and Jaggermiester and some thick dark wine.Peaches.And an apple core fallen onto the pavement,bitten once or twice.And the ants seetheed over it,hornets swarmed to devour it.A City On The Hill.

And going home.A boy hawks extra editions of the paper at the train station.It's the first time I've ever seen an extra edition in any place except film noir gangster movies.I was forty,and just found that single day of my time,our generation,the will live in infamy.What would it be like if today were your birthday?Undecided.Just another day maybe,or something tainted and ruined? Undecided.

The sky was silent and vacant.The only things there were the things that really belonged there and it was such a foreign thought.From the window of the train I watched a hawk circle,on the hunt for small creeping things.A crow on the fence post,taking flight.Sparrows gathered on the platform looking for crumbs.Jays and magpies waiting to chase off the sparrows.Flies and gnats and a butterfly.And the sky was so quiet,because no man ventured there.There were no wonders in the heavens and the silence was a great unmeasured weight.I'd never known a day without planes.

I though of The Tower Of Babel,that night,like I'd never thought about it before,in that Ancient land that you knew was going to be laid to ruin,once the silence passed and the days were not so undecided.And The City On The Hill was my first waking thought the day after.Because man was at root so disobedient and uncaring.Even the good ones,even the best sometimes longed for the destruction of others,even those building upon higher ideals.And I though a thought of fallen towers,and of an endless sea of black bodies chained together and of That Great Lady in the harbor,in smoky air.America has an unpaid debt,I thought,and it's coming due.

blyndpapaya
GOD BLESS AMERICA...IN MEMORY,9/11

Teacher conduct 2.0

Once again The York Regional District School Board is coming under fire for remarks allegedly posted on one of it's teachers Facebook pages.That's two times in as many days.

This time around the concern is about remarks which are alleged to be Islamophobic. Just a few short minutes ago I tried to view the page in question,to read the full account of those statements.However,they were nowhere in evidence on that particular page.Accordingly,I have no choice to reserve judgement on whether I share the concerns of others regarding teacher conduct in this incident.

Again,the school board in question is promising a full investigation,according to the protocols they have in place,and which you would expect any responsible school board to have in place.For the time being we have to put our trust in that process. What exactly was said will very much come into play here.Perhaps the comments made were truly racist.Or it may be that they indicate a real and legitimate concern about immigration policy from a public safety point of view.Only time will tell,but,assuming the later is true,I'm going to come down on the side of this teacher to speak her mind while still insisting that what teachers do both publicly and privately should be open to public scrutiny.

There is,I believe a real danger here in reacting to hastily to remarks that were made by this teacher,whatever those remarks may have been.That danger has to do with drawing proper distinctions between Islam,the religion and Islamicism,the political,terrorist movement.We are,to the best of my understanding still at war with terrorists.We are not,and never have been at war in any legitimate sense with Islam.

Air strikes,embargoes and hand to hand fighting,indeed military or political sanctions of any sort alone are never going to win this war.A vital strategy in this regard will be encouraging debate with and  among Muslims here and abroad,particularly liberal Muslims.So,I'm hesitant to shut this teachers opinions down simply because they may be controversial,as she would seem the be the voice of liberal Islam.She seems to be identifying herself as a Muslim who wishes to live in peace,but at the same time be vigilant to the possibility of terrorist threat.And there is nothing wrong with trying to strike that particular balance.

What would be wrong is to single any particular group out for hatred or differential treatment based on any of the excluded  categories in current civil rights legislation.And again,to be clear,we are not yet certain that this is what has happened here.What is imperative is that we know what was said,and that it be held to a sufficiently high standard of academic discourse,and be presented in the appropriate arena for debate.If that's what has happened,I will commend this teacher for being an effective agent in the War on Terror.

Without hesitation,though,I will call on the York Regional District School Board to get it's house in order.This is the second incident involving teacher conduct in less than a week,so it's time to set some standards regarding professional conduct for it's staff.There may well already be standards in place,but I think it would be helpful to be much more public and transparent as to what those standards are.It would also help the board staff comply with expected standards of behavior regarding private statements.Because it would seem,at this moment that there may be a corporate culture that encourages misunderstanding of expected behavior among teaching professionals.

I reiterate what I said in my last column.Some professions need to be held to higher standards than others.It goes with being role models.We may have particular expectations,for example of construction workers,when a female passes by the construction site.Those expectations are,however totally incongruous with many other professions including teaching.Once we know definitively what those standards are,we can decide what particular actions must be condemned,and which can and should be supported

                                                                                               blyndpapaya    

Some thoughts on teacher conduct.

A rather old story is just coming to light today,the first day of school for most students here in the Greater Toronto Area.It's old in the sense that the events causing the controversy happened more than a year ago.But it raises some issues with respect to teacher conduct,both in general,and in reference to this particular incident.

It seems that a group of teachers from Markham,Ontario,a northern suburb of Toronto were out enjoying themselves one evening,more than a year ago.Let's be clear about this.It was on their own time.They were involved in a recreational ax throwing contest,at the conclusion of which they pose for a picture which shows them prominently displaying extended middle fingers.Apparently this is a tradition in ax throwing.Who would have guessed? And that may be an esoteric fact,or just an excuse,or perhaps both.

Now,it seems,a group of parents are concerned about the behavior.And I would suggest that it's not without some justification,though I'm uncertain just how many would agree with me in this day and time.However nostalgic it may seem,in my school years,teachers were expected to teach professionally and to maintain a dignified presence in their community at all times.Let me be the first to suggest that a dignified presence really does matter.

Children spend a significant amount of time in the presence of teachers during their formative years.Next to perhaps parents and siblings,few have greater influence in a child's life.So,they are role models,whether they want to be or  not.They must conduct themselves accordingly at all times.Simply,they must ask the question:would I recommend that one of my students engage in the behavior I'm undertaking? If the answer is no,then why are you doing it.Now surely the answer,respecting the display of ones middle finger,tradition aside,is no.Would such behavior be encouraged or even tolerated in a school hallway or playground.Perhaps things have changed since I've graced the school grounds.If so,too bad.That's everyone's loss.The middle finger gesture is universally understood,as far as it's literal meaning is concerned.It is also a last resort of the chronically rude,the ignorant and the inarticulate.All concepts best not associated with either teaching or role modeling.

Of further concern in this matter is how the incident came to light,and how long it took.To finally bring this incident to public attention required the filing of a freedom of information request.It is said,however that the picture in question was taken by a student,and therein lies an additional level of concern.If these activities were being conducted on teachers own time,and no one seems to be disputing that,how did a student come to have,or take the picture in question.This would seem to be a matter of keeping an appropriate professional distance between students and teachers.In our day that doesn't seem to be as clear cut an issue as it was in years past.However,I expect that the school board in question has developed and articulates guidelines in this regard.I would be interested in knowing if those guidelines are ,in fact in place and if they were complied with in this incident.

The fact that it took so long for this incident to come to public attention would tend to make me think that some of the participants saw some wrong,or at least some possibility for embarrassment in their actions.In that event,I ask again:why are you doing it then? Further,what efforts,if any were exerted to discourage or prevent the student involved from coming forward sooner.This,in my estimation is the more serious concern regarding this incident,and it should be fully investigated.It would seem that this student was in the presence of these teachers,and perhaps some higher up administrators as well for some time after the incident.And to be clear,I am merely indicating concern,not pointing out wrong doing.But the questions here are many.Did the student come under any sort of duress as the result of this incident? Was there any question in the students mind that any adverse possibilities existed regarding academic standing as a result of his having taken the picture in question? Was the student subjected to any kind of ridicule?Any kind of coercion? Were the expressed parental/family values of the student respected or violated? Were it not for the incident,these questions would not now be in everyone's mind.Even though the conduct may not have been wrong,it is still questionable.

Again,I may be a relic of some by-gone age,but I believe that some professions,including teaching require a higher level of discretion and decorum.That derives directly out of a teachers power to influence children through their own behavior.Yes,there is a difference between public and private conduct.There are places where no one should be allowed to inquire,and it's fairly obvious in most cases what that entails.But some behavior becomes public because those participating in have chosen to make it so.And,if you've chosen to publicize your behavior,in the manner of these teachers,inquiry then becomes a matter of fair play.The concerns of parents and the wider public also become a matter of legitimate concern and comment.

The rhetoric of Kellie Leitch

Kellie Leitch became a sitting member of Stephen Harper's Conservative government in 2011.She served as Minister of Labour and Minister of The Status Of Women.In 2015,the Progressive Conservative Party was defeated in the general election.Kellie Leitch,however retained her seat in Parliament.On April 6th she declared her intentions to run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives.

It would be hard to argue that Kellie Leitch lacks the qualifications of someone seeking Canada's highest office.She is a doctor and a professor and has been involved in the Conservative Party from a young age,in addition to her experience as an elected Member Of Parliament.Indeed,some nations would do well to emulate Canada in their choice of leadership hopefuls,in terms of quality that is.

But we need to pay some attention to some of the rhetoric currently issuing from Kellie Leitch's corner.Specifically,she's asking if we should be screening immigrants for"anti-Canadian values".A politically fashionable,if not altogether politically correct question.And one that in 2016 is likely to gain a lot of political traction.

The problem with this question is that it's really pandering to populist views in a rather simplistic manner.Conservatives will ultimately be the ones to decide what constitutes policy in regards to this question.And perhaps they have a better understanding of the issue,being as they are  more politically active and astute than the average Canadian.It's up to them to decide how to answer this question in a way that allows them to be as politically relevant to voters at large as they can be.The goal,after all is to get elected,whether led by Kellie Leitch or someone else.

But how will Conservatives define "Anti-Canadian values" in today's world? Most likely by looking to the south.Most likely by identifying populations who are predominately Muslim,as has been the fashion since 9/11.,as those most likely to offend our sense of values.

What exactly are Canadian values.Democracy?Liberalism? Multi-culturalism? Those would be some of the ones that most readily come to my mind,but there are others as well.The problem is that Canada is a very large country,and even those expressed values don't take the same form in every region,relative to every other region.That is no more true than in the realm of politics.For instance,the Province Of Alberta is culturally,and politically until just recently,very conservative.The Province Of Ontario is not.So,I tend to get a bit uncomfortable about the idea of conservatives defining "Canadian values" And I'm certain that conservatives feel likewise about liberals.Moreover,the bulk of the population of Canada resides in Ontario and Quebec and,consequently so does the voting power.There could thus be a regional bias in determining normal values.And,it should be noted,the regions farthest from those two provinces tend to be the regions most diverse in the values they hold.That is to mention nothing of the fact that we have over thirty million people living here,none of whom are going to see Canadian values in exactly the same way,even assuming a general sort of agreement on those values in a macro sense.

We really have no means to define Canadian values.Thus we have no truly definitive way of  identifying "Anti-Canadian" values and applying them to immigrants.Is the ideal immigrant Christian? Surely not,at least in terms of necessity.Does the ideal immigrant hold secular views,to the exclusion of religious beliefs of any sort? Does modesty sufficiently offend Canadian values as to disqualify a would be immigrant? That question seems downright silly to me,but one only has to look at what's been going on in France of late.Should immigrants be liberal or conservative? I'm sure Kellie Leitch has her own way of answering that question,in a very broad sense,but should that answer ever impose a restriction on public policy to the point of denying some persons immigration status,while denying others the same? And of course that coin has two sides.How often have we heard that Liberal policy in this regard being criticized as vote stacking?

As far as immigrants are concerned we should be concerned that they are willing to be fully participating members of  Canadian society,given that our society functions with a lot of division between us at times.That is not only implied by the term "Democracy",but it is also implied as being alright and even necessary to a well functioning democracy. Further,we should be concerned that would be immigrants will follow Rule Of Law in the Canadian sense.This may have to be explained to new Canadians,but I see no need to define certain values on immigrants apart from already existing laws.

In proposing this question,Kellie Leitch doesn't seem to be proposing particular values.But we can speculate that she is asking for permission to follow the lead of conservatives in other places regarding policy.And it should be pointed out,this pandering is taking place with very little risk to any given candidate.After all,there will be plenty of time for conservatives here to watch what has at times been a dog and pony show with respect to immigration going on south of our border,and to improve on that process.

I would much rather Kellie Leitch involve herself in a meaningful  debate as to what exactly Canadian values are,or should be,than proposing restrictions on immigration based on conformity to ideals that we can presently  only guess at,and will likely change in relation to their perceived value in terms of forming the next government.

                                                                            blyndpapaya

Are you ready for some football?

Speaking of fall,are you ready for some football?I sure am. Cornhuskers on Saturday.Packers on Sunday.

But there is an ongoing outrage in the NFL,and it's time it was resolved once and for all.It involves the team in Washington D.C.that I refuse to call by the name that owner Dan Snyder insists on using despite pressure to mend his ways.It's time the NFL either brings Snyder into line,or relives him of his franchise and manages it on his behalf. Neither tradition nor just plain stubbornness on the owner's,or fan's part is sufficient reason to continue with this racist name.

Washington is perhaps not the only team that should change it's team name.There are teams out there called The Black Hawks,The Seminoles,The Ragin' Cajuns,The Mohawks,The Utes,The Aztecs,The Fighting Irish and The Chippawas,among others.A few years back I was living in Calgary, Alberta.Western High School changed their long standing name,The Redmen,in favor of doing the right thing.I commended them then and I continue to hold them up as an example today.It's a shame one of the more storied franchises has to be beaten to the punch by a high school team in Western Canada,but,when you have a neanderthal for an owner...It's time to lay down the ego.

Most of the comments I've heard on this long running issue tend to focus on team names like The Braves,The Chiefs,or,of course The...oops,I said I wouldn't honor that name with a mention,so I won't.I have never heard much complaint about the Seminoles,for instance.That may be that I'm not a local of Florida and am not really up on the issue,or it may be that there is nothing as offensive about using that name as opposed to the one used in Washington,which is clearly a racial slur,and,as a word,has never existed to any other purpose.So,I wonder,would it be acceptable if Washington were to name their team after a particular tribe of the region,who could be portrayed in an honorable and historically significant way? That does seem slightly exploitative to my thinking,but perhaps it would be acceptable if some means of improving the lot of that particular tribe could be tied to team revenues.

All of that aside,however,the R word needs to go.In fact,notwithstanding the great wrong done to Americans of African decent,it's a worse word that the more famously offensive N word.Don't misquote me here,I'm not suggesting you should use the N word.Certainly were it up to me I would gladly cause it to cease to exist.I do note however,that the N word has,at different points in history,and in different contexts existed with a less offensive meaning than it currently does.For instance,some Africans have undertaken efforts to take ownership of,and re-define the use of that particular word. Nothing of a similar nature can be said of Mr.Snyder's R word-it is and always has been derogatory,a means of inciting fear and hatred,and has never in the history of it's usage been anything other that racist.Except,it is argued by some in the context of it's usage as the team name in Washington.But,if you could not,and should not name a team,The N-----S,you likewise cannot rightly continue to use any other purely racist name.

There really is no such thing as practicing racism,or indeed any other form of discrimination solely against one race.Discrimination can really only be an affront to all of humanity.It is just simply discrimination,always wrong,always requiring correction.In fact,it dehumanizes it's practitioners as well as those against whom it is being undertaken.

Every year I take a good look at every NFL team,as many true fans do.In the past I've looked at the team in Washington and thought they really should do better than they usually seem to.Having once been involved in coaching football,in a rather minor capacity,I often suspect a problem of organizational culture when a team continues to under perform year after year despite having decent talent.And I wonder if that is not what has been happening in Washington.The attitude starts at the top,or,at least accountability for the attitude should.It rolls downhill like you know full well what else does until everyone from the coaches,to the star players to the maintenance staff really don't want to be there,and consequently don't put in the effort anymore. Nobody usually says much when this is happening,but it can become the malignant reality just the same.

A few days ago,Colin Kaepernick decided to protest by sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem.I wonder if the ongoing atrocity in Washington figures in even some small way to the stand he took.And to be clear,I would not have pursued similar action to Kaepernick.However I continue to commend him for taking an unpopular stand.But it's time some others did likewise.So,if Dan Snyder is determined to be the next Marg Schotz,the NFL needs to step up and follow MLB's lead in that respect.Somebody stand up and right this wrong,because it continues to cheapen a game that many of us hold dear

                                                              blyndpapaya.

Will this be the year?

Well,here it is,just before Labor Day.In a few short days kids will be back in school,if they are not already.So will  this be the year that children are instructed in  how to think,rather than just what to think? I'm talking about older children for the most part.Obviously a great deal more of the answers in the younger grades are of the simple right or wrong variety.There is only one right way to spell cat or to add two and two.But it's not really too early to begin instruction in basic logic.

To the best of my knowledge,this is the first time in my blogging career that I've ever recommended a book.But Normand Baillargeon's book A Short  Course In Intellectual Self Defense is a must read for any learner.When I first encountered the book,about eight years ago I wondered why I'd ever gotten out of Junior high school without encountering something similar too it.Certainly by the time I reached college I had professors who expected that I would have already acquired the skills that are so well laid out in this book.In short,it teaches readers how to think.How to recognize and avoid errors in logic and how statistics can be manipulated.It's aimed at those seeking a means of not falling for everything being presented by today's media or politicians and,as such has a pronounced political angle.But you need not be a savvy political observer to put this book to good use.It's well presented and simple enough for the average grade eight reader to understand and apply,and is not long and drawn out,so it does not demand a long attention span.Yet it outlines skills every learner needs.

Here in the province of Ontario,the sex education curriculum is back in the news.Last school year saw some parents,particularly Muslim parents opt out of having this subject taught to their children.Sex is,and most likely always will be a controversial,but necessary area of instruction.And,unless things have drastically changed since my school days,it's hardly the only source of controversy in school.My school days may be somewhat unique in that I had a gentleman named Malcom Ross for eighth grade history.That name will be familiar,if not notorious to many Canadians,as someone who denies or at least downplays the Holocaust.That was a bit after my time,but I was nonetheless presented by views in his class that generated a lot of disagreement.I truly wish I'd had a book to assist me in staying ahead of him,and others in terms of defending my own thoughts intellectually.

So,when you send your teen aged children off to school next week,take the time to slip a copy of A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense  into their new back packs.And discuss it with them.This book will serve them as well ten years from now as it does today.Until there is a real commitment to teach them how to think... 

I won't stand for it.

It's almost Labor Day and that means summer is nearly gone.Time to get back to school.Time for football season to start.Time to write about-what else,education and football.

Say what you will about Colin Kaepernick,he has a conscience.He uses his position to speak his mind,on behalf of people who lack that ability.Colin Kaepernick is the backup quarterback for the San Francisco Forty Niners and,this season he has been sitting as the National Anthem was being played prior to team games.He says it's in protest of living in a country that discriminates on the basis of race,that oppresses black people.Let's be clear,Colin Kaepernick has the right,as do all Americans to express opinions others may find offensive.He is not insulting the Military,or the powers that be,or the establishment,or people of any identifiable race.He is stating a strongly held,which may cost him,as conscientious views often do.And he is willing to take a stand.Far better than saying nothing,because,in case you haven't noticed,America is deeply dysfunctional.So,when a professional athlete takes his position of role model seriously,he is to be commended,not vilified.

Colin Kaepernick is not the first football player to take a stand.The late,great Reggie White took a stand for Christ.His onetime team mate with the Philadelphia Eagles once took a stand against the KKK.Ricky Williams took a stand too,of sorts.He decided to stand for marijuana,rather than football.Taking a stand is not all that unusual.

Perhaps the most memorable stand taken by a pro football player was that taken a few years ago by Pat Tillman.Pat Tillman was a defensive back with the Arizona Cardinals.Following the 9/11 attacks,he decided that he could not in good faith continue to play football while others went overseas to fight The War On Terror.So he enlisted and was sent to Iraq,where he made the supreme sacrifice.And I honor that sacrifice.He's the only pro football player that I'm aware of who lived out his belief to the point of dying for it.Pat Tillman joined a long list of Americans who fought and died to defend the rights of  Colin Kaepernick to take his stand.

Kaepernick's stand is a bit different from Pat Tillman's.But if Tillman's actions are to be fully appreciated,and not wasted,we have to accept Kaepernick's actions as well.Otherwise,sacrifice is meaningless.I believe,Colin Kaepernick loves his country. I've never heard him say otherwise despite his not standing at attention for the National Anthem.He is on record as saying there is a particular aspect of society that he does not wish to honor,and whether you agree that such is the case in America today,or differ with him on how to deal with that reality,he should not honor that which is wrong.So Colin Kaepernick is trying to be part of the solution.I can't say I would have approached this issue in the same way.And I equally believe that those who choose to demonstrate their patriotism by standing,hand over heart when The National Anthem is being played,love their country.But,if you love your country,you need to encourage it to be the very best that it can be.Is that not what Colin Kaepernick is doing?

                                             blyndpapaya

"StopWhitePeople2K16.

There are times I'd like to be a fly on the wall.I'd like to find out about something which wouldn't ordinarily be available be available to me and which the media doesn't seem to sufficiently explain.At least not yet.Such a time and place would be in the Binghamton,New York university that is offering a training course to it's residential assistants called "StopWhitePeople2k16.Because I'm not at all certain what is being undertaken here,but the title alone invites one to imagine some rather unpalatable things.Perhaps the days to come will make thing more clear.I would hope that would be the case,because when you describe something in what seems to be racially provocative language,a fuller explanation is in order.

Briefly this course is described as having to do with "race" and "privilege"presumably that would be in the context of the undertaking of one's duties as a residential assistant,that is within the residences of the college.So can I assume that this instructs residential assistants on how to intervene in potential racial disputes with sensitivity? Because there doesn't  seem to be anything especially inappropriate about that.In fact,if that's all it were,most Police Departments,and in fact most organizations of any sort would benefit from such instruction,as would society at large.

But there would seem to be a political shadow lurking over this course.First,there is the mention of privilege,which may logically imply to reasonably minded people that what is being discussed is in fact white privilege,however that is being described.At this point I would ask just how applicable the idea of white privilege would be within the context of a state university.While I'm certain that there are racial divisions,state colleges,in my experience have generally been attended by middle class and even lower income people of all races.Moreover,they seem to be more liberally minded academically and socially than their private counterparts,though there are exceptions.So,in the context of CUNY Binghamton,is white privilege being identified as a problem,or as THE problem? Is it an assertion of "fact" that racial minorities are being disadvantaged or even abused by a group,namely white people,who cannot experience racism by virtue of some imagined privilege? And if so,is it proposing some particular kind of response in terms of social engineering? I really wish State University Of New York would provide a  more complete explanation.And I emphasize here,they are a state funded institution, so some accountability is in order.

Among the questions I have are,what is it you are proposing to stop white people from doing? Without a clearer explanation I can accept this only as provocation.If stopping white people means stopping them from abusing the rights of others on the basis of race,sexual orientation,language,religion or any of the other criteria of human  rights,or reasonable university policy,I'm all in.I just wish I knew,as a white person,what it is that this particular institution was requiring of me.Because my basic orientation is to treat humans,of any description as humans deserving of respect.I look at as basic interpersonal courtesy and wonder why such things need to be regulated.

Further,I'm wondering what will be the outcome of  residential assistants having such training.How will it effect everyday campus life,and how will that  be different than in the past,before the advent of such a course.Again that's a matter of accountability.

Looking at the actual title of the course,a rather cynical thought occurred to me.I tend not to be cynical in everyday life,but it's a shoe that fits rather well when I write op ed.It may even be necessary given the current nature of society.But,in any event,it's crossed my mind that such provocation might well be a response to the current top down debate among those wanting to be American leaders. Why call it 2K16 unless you were intending to associate it with the current electoral cycle? Surely addressing race issues would have virtue in any given year.In that sense,it could mean stopping would be leaders who have long records of racially charged speech,in the attempt to gain public confidence and,thus,public office.Those people,whom I am content not to name for the purposes of this discussion could hardly be misidentified given their current profiles,and I do not limit them in partisan terms.Nor are they limited solely to those seeking highest office.It seems a clever,if perhaps unintended negative response to those trying to rack up political points on the backs of those just trying to get by,educate themselves,and who could do so much more effectively and peacefully without creating a greater problem.And that applies to all races.It is important to consider how one's actions on the biggest stage there is will effect a society already struggling with racial issues.

Finally,I simply encourage State University Of New York to step up and explain themselves.Be part of a solution,not an exacerbation of current problems.Because it may be that I have things all wrong.But that's in the context of a rather thin explanation at this point.

                                                        blyndpapaya

What is Laurella Willis apologizing for?

Laurella Willis has been busy parading about the South Side of Chicago carrying a sign that says"Black America,I'm Sorry." I'm a bit unsure as to what it is she is sorry for.The video of her strolling about is a bit vague on that matter.It says she's apologizing for everything going on in America Today." And while I cannot deny that America seems to be living out an ongoing tragedy in terms of race relations,I'm not certain that Laurella Willis,or anyone else should be apologizing for everything and anything.I do salute her initiative,I do believe it's intended to add something positive to all that's going on today but not everything demands an apology from everyone.

America has a tragic history with race relations from African slavery to Jim Crow.to the attempted genocide of Native Americans.It continues today with the numbers of African American men being incarcerated,or even killed before due process is allowed to follow it's intended course.And for that we should all be profoundly sorry.So it's hard not to get behind Laurella Willis when she steps up.So far she's been walking about twenty miles everyday.The video does show mostly positive reactions from the black people she meets,though one does ask her what she's sorry for.

I'm wondering,specifically if Laurella Willis is apologizing for being white,and ,if so  is she doing so for white people collectively.If so,I must say she does not speak for me.Let me just say,I am not ashamed of being white.I have not owned slaves,nor has my family going back in history.I have and always will support human and civil rights.I will regard any and all people without respect to their racial background.And if I am not doing so,I am receptive to having this pointed out to me because we all hold sub-conscious attitudes that are usually less than flattering.So in short.I will not apologize for being white,nor do I accept anyone else doing so on my behalf,or anyone's contention that I should provide such an apology.Now,I should note that I have,in the past,when I was possessed of much less maturity than I am now,done and said things which were not altogether right,in terms of race relations.I have,for instance,used the N word,and for that I should be,and am sorry.But this idea that we need to apologize for past wrongs committed by  generations long gone is stopping anyone from moving forward.

Behavior is what may demand apology.But ones existence does not.But then again behavior may be changed with the diligent efforts of all people,without regard to race,or any other aspect of an individual's or community's existence. So,develop a good value system in relating to others.It's called respect.It needs to be accorded to all people without exception.Apologize when it's called for,but not when it is not.Apologize for unacceptable behavior,then get on with life.It's called repentance.And we all have a ton of things to repent of.

I wonder how black people feel when they encounter Laurella Willis.I don't really know and I don't want to attribute any one sort of thought to all.I would think that there would be a wide range of different reactions,and indeed,that is viable when you see Laurella's video.But I can make note of how I would regard someone doing something similar to me.And again,I'm not black.But were a black person apologizing to me in such a general way for,say high crime rates or the fact that certain communities are not safe,I would have two distinct reactions.First,I would tent to be embarrassed that some well meaning person might think that such an apology was necessary or even demanded.And,to a somewhat lesser degree,I would feel that it was just possible that I was being patronized.Neither reaction is especially helpful in moving forward with the hard work of improving race relations today.

What is needed today cannot be accomplished by means of general,non specific and uncertain apologies.There is a certain counterproductive political correctness to Ms.Willis actions,and that is limiting debate on a great many painful things that must be discussed if we are to leave our children with a better state of race relations than we now have.We need to ask hard questions like how do we combat gang violence,how do we insure better outcomes between black people and police,and why do we see such high rates of incarceration among young black males.We need to take on open expressions of racism too,wherever we find them,be they from the man in the street or our would be leaders.First we need to agree among ourselves that we are going to commit to these discussions with honesty and with respect to those who are not like us and who have very different experiences than we do.Then we need to get on with life and believe that we can make that life better,unapologeticly.

                                                                                blyndpapaya

Water For Pigs

It's true that no good deed goes unpunished.Some time last year Anita Krajnc,a human rights activist had a run in with a couple of truck drivers who were transporting pigs to a slaughterhouse west of Toronto. While the truck was stopped,Ms.Krajnc  gave a drink of water to some of the pigs.For her trouble,the owner of those pigs had Ms.Krajnc charged.He objected to anyone touching his belongings.The case comes to court today.

Ms.Krajnc's politics are not my politics.While I do believe animals,including the pigs in question should be treated humanely, I have no problem at all eating pork,or any other meat product,though I do try to purchase meat that is ethically raised and slaughtered.By that I mean that I will not purchase meat if I know it's been raised in inhumane conditions,and I trust our agriculture authorities to ensure that it is.Perhaps that's not enough for some people.Generally I believe certain animals were intended to feed us.

Having said all that,I also have no problem with someone giving water to pigs,or any other sort of animal,and I wonder why the courts are being used to convict this woman,at the expense of taxpayers.Obviously,one would suspect that there were some basis for charging this women,or the police would not have done so.But I'm very curious as to what she did that is so wrong.Was any damage done to these animals as a result of the simple kindness offered by Ms.Krajnc? I fail to see how.It seems as though there is some history here.Something of a difference in ideology between Ms.Krajnc and the owner of these animals.There would seem to be a matter of dissent about business as usual.So,if that's true,I'm not surprised to see the law coming down hard on Ms.Krajnc.There is a price to dissent.

Property rights are not supposed to be absolute.That's especially so when you count as your property things which may incur suffering as a result of not being properly handled.Pigs are certainly not persons and therefor do not have the same rights as persons.Neither are they machines or some other class of inanimate object.You are therefor not free to do with them as you might like,without regard for their well being.And there is no real indication,so far as I've been able to determine that these pigs were being mishandled,though it was a hot day and it would be reasonable to think that they welcomed a cool drink of water. If these animals had been dogs found locked in a hot car we would now be applauding any effort made on their behalf,up to and including breaking a window to relieve their distress.And I'm all in on that one.Yet Anita Krajnc finds herself charged for undertaking an action that saw no damage done.Where is the sense in that? Why should the courts be using as much as one cent of tax dollars to prosecute a person for providing a simple kindness? Is winning that one point in a war between animal rights activists and the meat industry so important that we must spare no help to business? I guess some people feel that there is a point to be proven here,but I fail to see what exactly that point is or why it matters.From my perspective the incident in question was win win.A few pigs were provided with a comfort they would not otherwise have had on their way to be slaughtered.No harm,no foul.There was no attempt to stop that slaughter and indeed those pigs went on their way and inured no loss of value.So do the right thing.Leave Anita Krajnc alone. Stop using my tax money on pointless prosecution.

                                                                                                              blyndpapaya

What is so threatening about modesty?

Can anyone tell me why I should be threatened by someones personal choice to be modest of dress,speech or behavior? Is there really a problem with burquas and hijabs or is it just an invented problem drawn up from that place where we all unwittingly store those mostly negative attitudes that we are sometimes unaware of?

There used to be a time in my lifetime when people,in general were far more modest that what they are now.Women were deemed to be appropriately attired in a dress of a certain length,rather than jeans,and very tight pants on either male or female would have been considered provocative.Of course cross dressing was thought to be deviant and seldom encountered in respectable places.However,time goes on and fashions change.Not always for the better,but that's only my opinion perhaps.

Now we live in world of wardrobe malfunctions,knee high pants that show way too much and thong swim suits. I've given up on tuning into The Academy Awards to see what the celebrities aren't wearing.Instead I just sit at home with the television off and wonder why such wealthy and influential people can never seem to afford to buy the rest of whatever garment they are wearing.I am hardly prudish,but at times,I do miss modesty.

Modesty doesn't seem to be a concept that North American society accommodates very well.That may just be changing fashion,for good or for bad,but really,I think there may be something else afoot here.Take a look across the big puddle to where European countries have been banning religious head wear for some years.In almost every respect this seems to be unique to the post 9/11 era.The thought behind it would seem to be that religion is the foe here,having been the cause of much of human strife.It would be hard to argue with that,but the idea in nevertheless misguided,and all too often directed at Islam as an ideal.

But we need to ask,if it only Europe where freedom is being eroded,and what the enemy really is.Europe,for the most part was guided by liberal ideas.But the current bans on religious attire,no matter what the logic behind it is a direct attack on religious values,beginning with,but unlikely to end with the attack on modesty.Modesty is a concept shared by most religions,so,is the attack on modesty simply the thin edge of the wedge.I would note here too,that I've recently talked to two friends just returned from Europe,on a Christian,the other an observant Jew.Neither were confronted over their choice to wear appropriate head gear,or,in the case of the Christian,a t-shirt stating "Jesus Is Lord" The identified enemy seems clearly limited to burquas and hijabs.

Of course there seems to be a rising tide of Islamophobia here in North America  as well,again originating with 9/11.At one time,Americans were  retaliating appropriately against the right enemy.Now The War On Terror is a war on Islam,and many people seem more interested in attacking a convenient but vilified straw man.

In terms of attacking Muslim modesty here,much of the debate has focused on the issue of identity.But the thrust of this argument is rather cleverly disguised.It focuses on the need to identify persons in the public forum,in the day to day interactions with others in society.But it wrongly insists that identity can only be assured by the banning of garments associated with religious,Muslim modesty.I'm unaware of any nuns,for instance who have been asked to remove their habits in order to vote,or who have been asked to submit to some form of body search in order to enter some public event.Identity can be assured in other ways,and really,in most cases those ways are more personally invasive yet nevertheless respectful of modest attire.What's being cleverly hidden here is the actual attack on Muslim identity.Even so,those of other religious backgrounds need to be cognizant of the fact that religious values in general are  being attacked,and need to give some thought to where those attacks could lead.

What the trend to want to ban religious expression,specifically Muslim attire seems to be directed at is largely a matter of image. I've mentioned above the role that celebrity plays in determining what is attractive and therefor valued.Of course those celebrities have no shortage of corporate accomplices in making those determinations.We are all quite aware of the problems,for instance of young girls trying to achieve a particular body image,in the name of beauty.Something rather similar seems to be going on with respect to Muslim women,by creating an expectation that they will conform to our immodest values,such as they are,Or,more likely there is a recognition that they will not,or perhaps not be able to comply with those expectations,and can justly be discriminated against on that basis.The idea planted in our minds then becomes that there is a model that represents beauty and that Muslim women cannot achieve that ideal.An admittedly subtle form of Islamophobia,but Islamophobia nonetheless.

Let's think for a minute about what true beauty means,then put this idea in the trash heap where it belongs.Beauty has less to do with what you look like than it does with who you are and what you are like.I live in Toronto,and there are many Muslim women.Some are dressed in typical North American fashion.Many are traditionally attired Traditional is not to be confused with unattractive.Nor should it be taken as a slight against society at large,because that's not how it is normally intended.The traditional Muslim dress is simply a self assure affirmation of ones own values in most cases.At times it may be dictated by a male relative,but that is far from always being the case.Moreover,such can sometimes be dictated by American or Canadian men as well.Beauty.then is a person acting conscientiously and in a self assured confident manner in the expression of their values,and in respecting others who do likewise.

There is a very good reason to give up this war on modesty,especially as it applies to those choosing to observe traditional Muslim values.Simply put,we need to win The War On Terror.And a big part of any effective strategy in doing so will involve building strong relationships with dissenting Muslims both here and abroad.Those relationships cannot be built in a climate which disrespects the traditions and religious values of others.Classical liberal ideas in this respect were and are well founded.It's time to stop shadow boxing with the straw man.Modesty is not the enemy.

                                                                                      blyndpapaya        

This dog bites!

I was once bitten by a dog.And as much as I love dogs,I came away from that experience with one vital piece of information :that particular dog bites.Life really is very simple at times.The need to over think is not always necessary or helpful.

Donald Trump has a new campaign manager.His run seemed to be faltering so it's reasonable to change strategy,the goal,after all being to get elected.So now we are seeing what would seem to be a kinder,gentler Trump.Also,a politician who seems more prepared to stick to the script rather than calling in his own plays.

Along with the new sense of direction,Donald Trump has become,at least in terms of appearances apologetic in respect of past misdeeds,especially those misdeeds which were perceived to hurt people.Perhaps he's sincere,or perhaps he's just become satiated with the taste of his own shoe leather.Either way,he insists that " I will always tell the truth." So what does that statement mean in view of the many things he's said already?

Was he telling the truth when he described Mexicans as rapists and criminals? If that was the truth a few short months ago,is it the truth now too?Speak up Mr.Trump,I'm wondering.Here's how I translate those expressed thoughts:Trump is taking ownership of being a racist.Mr.Trump,is it still an issue that we have no reason to suspect,on the basis of  Clinton being "unable to satisfy her husband" that she could satisfy the pressing needs of America.Translation:I'm a misogynist,and given the actual matrimonial score keeping,a hypocrite as well.If that was the truth then,has that truth changed at all? Donald,are disabled people still worthy only of your ridicule and contempt? Tell us the truth now.because my current translation is "I have no empathy,I don't care for a whole class of people who are beneath me" But maybe that "truth" is different now.Does the sacrifice of a Muslim war hero seem any different to you now than it did a month ago?Different truth ,different day? Translation:I support our troops.As long as it's a good old all American boy.

The problem with Mr.Trump's current repentant statements is that it's impossible to know what they really mean.I believe that many people,given the choice would choose not to hurt others.Equally,difficult truths need to be told at times.Trump is just talking in generalities.What is important is that if certain people are being hurt by  thoughtless dirty politics,then those specific incidents need to be identified and apologies made to those specific groups and individuals.I would be much more inclined to believe this change of heart were Trump talking about trees rather that the forest.Genuine sorrow over ones past actions is specific.

Now,lets find the bottom line here.Mr.Trump suggests,in what seems like a brush off to me,that these issues are insignificant relative what is actually at stake.So then,what is at stake,again,specifically?Moving the nation to the right? Preventing America from being dominated by liberal ideals? Making America Great Again? Maybe I'm missing something here,but how does any of this not have something,indeed a lot to do with racism xenophobia and lack of empathy?

So I'm walking down the street,past that house where I was bitten by the dog.But,instead of a sign saying "Beware Of Dog",I only see a sign saying "Under New Management." But the same old cars are parked in the yard,the same old pitbulls roam the yard and the fence separating me from them is neither higher nor newer.The kinder,gentler,repentant dog owner is still standing on the porch,with a nicer smile.It'a a damn good thing I know what I've learned by hard experience: THIS DOG BITES!

                                                                     blyndpapaya