Charlotte vs. The World

Char vs Pop Culture

2007-03-02T09:14:00.000-05:00

I am not a biblical scholar.

I am not a sociologist.

I am not even a pop psychologist.

But I have noticed that two big stories this week have been about the possible burial sites of Jesus, and Anna Nicole Smith. The parallels really are striking. Jesus came from a poor family, so he couldn't possibly have a fancy burial, right? Anna Nicole Smith came from a poor family, but she's having a fancy burial! Jesus had a following in life, but the lessons of his life spread after his death. Anna Nicole Smith had a following, though when living she had been a train wreck, now she's a tragic lesson to others in death.

In the interest of fairness, I would go into the far longer list of differences. But as I said, I'm not a biblical scholar, so it would be an incomplete list at best.

I guess I'm just saying that if there can be this much trouble deciding where Anna Nicole Smith will be buried, surely there is as much trouble deciding where a Messiah might be laid to rest, and who might or might not be with him.

A Conservative Minority

2006-01-24T14:26:00.000-05:00

I think I like that. I’ll be honest, anything would’ve been better than the Liberals. I agree with much of their policy platforms, but they’re terrible at implementing it, and pretty much just waste money. I understand that governments fundamentally waste money… but the Liberals didn’t seem to care.

I don’t agree with everything the Conservatives stand for, but with any luck their common sense policy will be supported by the Bloc Quebecois while their ‘scary’ platforms will be blocked. I’m not entirely sure what ‘scary’ constitutes. They’ve promised to leave abortion alone. I’m not fond of abortion, but don’t figure it’s worth fighting for. I don’t understand why people oppose gay marriage, and anytime I ask a respected conservative what’s wrong with gay marriage, they just say it’s ‘wrong’ and say it leads to other evils without any real facts to back that up.

I like the idea of a senate that isn’t appointed by the PM. I like the idea of every vote in parliament being a free vote (and yes, a free vote includes the cabinet ministers!). I like the idea of giving people money to spend on programmes of their choice, rather than simply setting up a programme and hoping it’ll work. And, I like that Americans might respect our PM. Canadians and Americans are 99% the same. To have a PM who is anti-American, who focuses on the 1% difference… doesn’t seem like a good way to deal with the most cooperative sovereign nations ever.

A lot of people are probably going to be nervous about a federal party working closely with a separatist party. I think, ironically, this will weaken the Bloc Quebecois. Stephen Harper has promised more power to the provinces, and, well, the BQ only exists to gain more autonomy for Quebec. If the Conservatives give Quebeckers what whey want, then they don’t need the BQ. If the Conservatives offer Quebeckers what they want and the BQ block them… then they don’t need the BQ. It’s win win. Even if the BQ dissolves, surely it’s not a bad thing if they made Quebec stronger. (And hopefully the rest of Canada too!)

Using the Spotlight vs. Attention Getting I-Told-You-Sos

2005-09-12T12:38:00.000-04:00

Okay, all you know-it-alls out there who predicted a disaster in New Orleans, you can shut up now. It’s one thing to discover something, it’s quite something else to get someone to listen. If you’re right, then it’s up to you to get someone to listen.

Having said that, everyone who can prove they knew New Orleans was doomed, you have a golden opportunity. You HAVE the attention of people who would otherwise ignore you. Brush off that other report, about how a 8.2 quake is coming to level Los Angeles. Or find that report that talks about Boston’s preparedness for a big hurricane. There are other disasters waiting to happen to cities that are not prepared. If you know which cities have been tempting fate for too long, LET US KNOW.

We’re done blaming people for New Orleans. Anyone who knew it was coming but couldn’t get anyone to believe them is as culpable as someone who has 8 million other pressing concerns but overlooked it. It’s time to prepare for the next disaster, to ensure the next disaster doesn’t come.

If LA, New York or Chicago is wiped out, it’s the fault of anyone who saw it coming. Not anyone who didn’t.

Char vs. Gas Prices

2005-08-23T11:19:00.000-04:00

Hey, Geniuses!

I can’t believe these gas stations that don’t have their prices up on their big fancy signs, but rather put them up on some tiny sign at the side of the road. Why? Because they’ve only got room for three digits on the sign, and now gas prices are four digits.

I’ve got a solution:

Drop the fucking fraction of a cent and move the decimal place over.

Quite honestly, if I’m paying 103.5 cents, I’m probably just as happy to pay $1.04. Look, only three digits. You can use your old sign, and we don’t have to worry about the extra… what… 25 cents that .whatever adds on to the final $50+ price.

Canada vs Power

2005-05-20T15:32:00.000-04:00

Look, you can’t begrudge someone in their quest for power. At most, you’re jealous that you’ve been unable to attain that power. You can fear they might abuse it, though, to be honest, the aphorism ‘Power Corrupts’ isn’t just for fortune cookies.

Do the corruptible seek out power?

Since when is being the PM of Canada the pinnacle of power anyway? What is Paul Martin clinging to, and why are people allowing him to do it? He doesn’t have a long list of things he’d like to accomplish. He has a long list of promises that he’s made no effort to fill. Why do people keep thinking that he’ll fulfill them?

I understand why people don’t like the Conservatives. They’re different, they want change. Canadians don’t want ‘change’, they just want things to work. The Conservatives need to run on a platform of reconciliation. They need to run as moderates who are going to do everything the Liberals promised, because the Liberals promised everything that Canadians want.

That’s why we vote for them, they at least pretend that our opinion matters.

You want to win an election in Canada?

Make extravagant promises.

You want my vote?

Follow through on them.

In Ontario, we’ve actually had a string of governments that have done what they said. Maybe that’s why we keep believing the Liberals, because we’re accustomed to Mike Harris and Bob Rae keeping their words. (We won’t get into the fact that in Bob Rae’s case, keeping his word was a bad idea, and Mike Harris did more backroom dealing than he’d care to admit.) Even Daulton McGuinty is really in over his head. It comes out as lies, but it’s incompetence combined with bad luck. If Ontario had been the province he thought it was, I think we’d be doing better.

So, until we get saddled with slimy politicians in Ontario, it looks like we’re going to give the feds the benefit of the doubt, and keep voting for the guy who promises us more.

And Paul Martin knows that.

And so he clings to power, so he can make more promises he has no intention of following through on.

The Pope vs. Democracy

2005-04-04T14:29:00.000-04:00

With the passing of Pope John Paul II, there’s understandably been an absolute media assault on the subject. He’s being honoured as the greatest man of his time. Quite honestly, I couldn’t begin to evaluate how true that is, so I won’t even bother with this assertion.

It does lead me to rather… odd avenue that no one seems to have taken yet. The Pope is possibly one of the most powerful men on earth (certainly the most powerful man without ‘any divisions’!), yet is essentially a dictator for life. Hopefully we understand I use dictator literally. In no way should be compared with Hitler, Stalin or Castro. But at the same time, like these men, he merely has to say ‘jump’ and 1 billion Catholics say ‘how high’? (Luckily no other dictator has had 1 billion people under their thumb. Hmm. Well, we’ll give China the benefit of the doubt for now, okay?)

Perhaps we were lucky to have John Paul II to prove that absolute power does NOT always corrupt.

Perhaps it’s impossible for a corruptible soul to become Pope. Given that few people can name ‘great’ Popes, I somehow doubt that.

Was John Paul II a fluke? Did the Catholic Church simply luck into having such a great man when such a great man was needed? I don’t believe in God, but I’d even concede that it could have been His will in place of luck. But that wouldn’t explain the lack of other ‘great’ Popes.

But, given that the line of Popes is longer than the life of any government that I’m aware of, certainly longer than any current government, perhaps there is something to this ‘elected for life’ thing that resulted in John Paul II’s greatness.

Once in power, he never had to worry about retaining it. It was his, no matter what he did, popular or unpopular. The very definitions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were in his hands. That’s a lot of responsibility to hand to someone. I can’t think of anyone that I’d hand that I’d trust with that. Certainly no Canadian PM of late, definitely no American President nor UN President that I can think of.

Is there a way to recreate the process that creates a man like John Paul II? Or, if he was not formed by a process, do we need to recreate a process that identified and elevated a man like John Paul II?

And if there is a way to recreate this process, is there a way to implement it? Most democratic nations are pretty good at retaining their democracy, even if ‘mature’ democracies seem to be a little apathetic towards it. I simply cannot imagine that, say The Senate would get to choose the Prime Minister of Canada, who serves until he passes away. Especially since the PM himself appoints the Senators. And yet, that’s exactly how the Pope is chosen. More to the point, it worked. This time.

If the next Pope is as ‘great’ as John Paul II (he’s got a template to work from, I can actually envision this happening), is that going to be a threat to democracy as we know it?

If so, is democracy something that will be missed? Certainly wise and benign dictators for life are better than bickering partisan ‘leaders’ who are more interested in fame and lining the pockets of their friends.

Conquest vs. War

2005-03-08T11:24:00.000-05:00

War vs. Conquest

Whatever your views on the most recent Iraq War, as far as wars go, it was pretty tame, and not all that many people killed. (Don’t misunderstand me: one person killed is too many! I certainly mean no disrespect for anyone killed senselessly.) Mostly because the civilised world has decided that killing people is uncivilised. Good for us.

Of course, there are still a great many people who don’t live in places that I would consider ‘civilised’. It’s all perspective, of course. When you get right down to it, someone who digs wells in rural Africa has more in common with me than we don’t have in common. A big un-commonality is that this well digger is much more likely to experience war firsthand than I am. He lives in an area that values life differently than I do. People may not LIKE killing any more, but enough seem to accept it that it’s a problem. Until these places attain what we like to call ‘civilisation’, war will continue to haunt them.

African War Lords aren’t about to lob ICBMs at the USA or Canada. The fact that they’re willing to go to war doesn’t really scare me.

So who is willing to go to war that does scare me?

I’m sure that geo politicians might argue with me, but the world’s civilisation is divided up into a few blocks: North America, ‘Old’ Europe, ‘New’ Europe’, the Islamic World, India, China, Japan and the Koreas. It’s not a complete picture, however, I think it’ll serve my purpose.

Now, certainly we don’t need to fear ICBMs from North America. If it comes to that, civilisation as I know it is gone. Old Europe has a lot in common with us, I doubt France is ever going to actually attack us. New Europe is still adjusting to our civilisation. It seems pretty unlikely they’d attack us.

So that leaves Asia. I honestly don’t know enough about India to say they’re antagonistic towards the USA or not. They’ve got a lot of people. They’re a democracy, they seem to have free market economy. I think they’d like to be civilised like us, but it’s a lot of effort getting everyone moving in the same direction. Going to war doesn’t seem likely.

I know Japan has been forbidden certain military hardware because of WW2. I have no way of knowing if they’re capable of attacking anyone. I’d assume ‘no’ since Sony and Toyota are such big companies, attacking the people who buy their stuff doesn’t help anyone.

So we’re down to China and North Korea. (I suppose I’ll lump South Korea in with Japan. Not very fair of me, but I’m just writing here, not trying to win the Nobel prize.) We’re certainly used to thinking of Communists as evil. I’m one of those people who would like communism to work: it seems like a great idea where everyone’s equal and people put forth all their effort, and are provided with everything they need. Of course, I also realise that if it was going to work, it would have worked by now. Communism and human nature simply aren’t compatible. There might yet be a mechanism to implement communism, but I don’t know what it is. Since communists are ‘evil’, it’s easy to assume they’ll attack us.

But WHY would they attack us? Japan attacked the USA during WW2 simply to prevent the Americans from stopping their empire. I guess that’s why China/Korea would attack us: just to keep us from stopping them from doing whatever they want to do in Asia.

Would that work? Wiping Canada/USA off the map isn’t easy. We’re big nations with spread out population. Even without a missile shield, it would take a lot of effort to ‘nuke us’. Invasion would be virtually impossible, especially if attacking us is an effort to divert us from a real target.

Even if we were ‘neutralised’, what could the bad guys target? Japan? Korea? India? Taiwan/Republic of China? These ARE civilised nations. Would a civilised nation simply accept being invaded? They’re mostly service/manufacturing economies. Does China want to take over all the call centres in India? Do the North Koreans think that taking over Nintendo by force, they can run it better?

They could try to skip the ‘civilised’ countries and move on to some nations that are resource rich. But modern mining/pumping techniques are efficient uses of high technology. It will take years for Iraq to recover from the damage caused by a small war with the USA, and that’s with the USA’s vast resources rebuilding it!

If Korea were to take over an oil/mineral rich nation, they’d probably have to rebuild all the equipment from scratch. How long would that take? Can they possibly retain control over the country while they do that?

War, in the ‘civilised world’, is expensive. It’s not just about seizing farm land and natural resources any more. It’s about controlling the people you’ve invaded.

Indeed, this may be why WW2 failed for the Axis, the Soviets failed in the cold war. If Americans try to control the Iraqis, that’s why they’ll fail. If the Americans succeed, it’s because they’ve given the Iraqis what they want.

If the ‘bad guys’ want to go to war with a civilised nation, they’ll have to give them what they want. This is why Rome worked: they brought civilisation itself with them. That’s why the USA/Canada could grow to encompass so much of North America: they offered people something they wanted.

Stephen Harper versus Paul Martin

2005-02-01T13:38:00.000-05:00

Mr. Harper, while the odds of you reading this are just about zilch, I beseech you, DON’T DANCE to Mr. Martin’s tune.

Gay marriage is very important to very few people. I happen to know a few people who think it’s very important, but that’s beside the point. If they never get married, or if they do pay their $120 and do get married, the effect on their life will be very very small. And the effect of their decisions will be miniscule compared to even the slim odds of you reading this.

The Liberal Government is wasting so much money, supporting tyrants, turning a blind eye to genuine suffering and many other things I’m not even aware of. And because Paul Martin says he’s going to legalise Gay Marriage, you’re pulling out all the stops on stopping this.

If you honestly think this is more important than reducing hospital wait times, shame on you.

If you honestly think this is more important than ensuring we have a fair trade relationship with China, then may you never become Prime Minister.

The Liberals KNOW they’ve made a gazillion mistakes that they should be taken to task for. And yet they throw you a bone, and you jump all over it. You’re the head of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. PLEASE oppose the corruption, the ennui and the downright evil that is going on in the name of Canada.

Even if this opens a Pandora’s box, surely someone marrying their brother and their sheep is nothing compared to our submarines catching fire on their maiden voyage.

Outrage vs. GasolinePrices

2005-01-10T10:53:00.000-05:00

How come the gas companies are getting a free pass on gasoline prices now? Back when the prices first started spiking, people complained about gasoline taxes, or the price of crude oil rising from terrorism or just outright profiteering from the gas companies.

So what’s happened? The price of oil has remained constant for, what, a year now, and the Canadian Dollar has appreciated 10% compared to the price of oil. That means that for the same amount of money, I should be buying 10% more gasoline, right?

Then how come prices are hovering around $0.80 still?

The gas companies are profiteering.

I suppose they’re allowed: certainly if people are willing to pay that much for gas, they may as well sell it for that price. But what happened to the outrage? Are we limited to complaining once about something that is an injustice? Did we decide that it wasn’t an injustice after all?

Gay Marriage vs. Traditional Marriage

2004-12-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

The solution to this problem is simple: what is the POINT of being married? It’s something that society has generally taken very seriously for a very long time. It seems to be quite universally accepted as a man and a woman.

Why is this relatively universal?

Why hasn’t Gay Marriage been tried before?

These questions need to be answered. I’m no sociologist, just a bitch with a weblog, so the best I can do is write down what I think.

The 20th century saw genuine steps forward in making men equal to women. There have been other points in history where men and women were more or less equal, and one could certainly argue that influence women held made up for lack of genuine rights (indeed, wars were fought over women, how much more influence do you want?). But the 20th century went a long way in establishing that men and women are equally people.

Before this equalisation, women were frequently seen as property; first of their fathers, then of their husbands. Marriage was a partnership, but the ‘obey’ clause clearly indicated who was the senior partner.

Now that women have achieved equality with men, it seems they are now interchangeable with men (and vice versa).

That’s why it’s never happened before: women have never had enough status that they could be supplanted by a man: it wouldn’t make sense for one man to turn over all his assets to another. But now that’s not an issue.

Marriage has been watered down, thanks to divorce, pre-nuptial agreements, common-law arrangements. Gay marriage isn’t wrecking anything, the Traditional Definition of Marriage has already been wrecked!

Marriage is now the joining of equals, who can choose to end the joining!

If we want to end gay marriage, we can only do it by stripping away women’s rights.

THAT, my dear readers, is a bad idea.

So, I’m in support of Gay Marriage, because it is the sign that women are 100% equal with men.

Democracy vs The World

2004-12-10T13:35:00.000-05:00

I have a sneaking suspicion that my generation may see the end of Democracy As We Know It. I kind of hope I’m wrong, and it’s tough to tell what would replace it entirely.

Even as Afghanistan has completed their first election ever, Iraq is preparing for their first ‘free’ election and Ukraine has demonstrating they won’t tolerate crooked politics, there is a certain ennui falling over democracy in North America. I know we didn’t invent democracy, but I’ve got a feeling that if we give it up, it’s not going to last long anywhere else.

Of course, it’s tough to say exactly at what point democracy ceases to exist. Certainly we vote for our representatives, and they make the laws. In Canada we currently have a Prime Minister who is theoretically in complete control, though he didn’t receive the support of a majority of Canadians. (I like to call that ‘Prime Minister Lite’.) So, is ANY decision he makes technically democratic? He doesn’t have the backing of a majority, just the backing of more than anyone else. Is that democracy?

In the USA there is a lot of talk that George Bush Jr won his second election as president because a great portion of the electorate was uneducated and ill-informed. True or false, their vote counts, doesn’t it? Should people meet minimum requirements before they can vote? Who sets those requirements?

In the European Union, they are wrangling with choosing the leaders of the whole Union. I’m not as familiar with that process as I am with Canadian/American politics, but I have heard that EU officials are not being selected by European citizens, but rather by other people in charge. Who will all these people be accountable to?

Of course, there is the United Nations, the biggest democratic dichotomy of them all. They routinely hold votes (which is good), however, their electorate contain scores of people who are not accountable to their own nation’s citizens. People who are there because their people CAN’T vote, and yet they get to vote.

Well, it’s good that the UN considers every nation equal. Otherwise, who’s going to come up with the criteria that one nation is better than another? And it’s not a great idea for the UN to enforce a specific governmental form on a country, what works for one group of people will be a disaster for another.

However, how can you let someone vote if they themselves don’t believe in voting?

The UN can only survive its schizophrenia for so long. This has to be treated, or the UN will fall apart. Perhaps the time for the UN is past: if the entire world were democratic, we’d get along without a forced forum. If the world eschews democracy as a whole, then the UN can’t work anyway.

Of course, for Democracy to decline, something has to replace it. I can’t imagine dictators taking over the ‘mature’ democracies. Of course, a few subtle moves, and you can create a dictatorship that certainly LOOKS like democracy. Hitler pulled a trick like that.

What’s more likely is a circle of ‘elites’ will manoeuvre to ensure that selection is limited, so that while people are voting, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Whether or not people catch on might be immaterial. If our leaders do a good job, it’s hard to argue with them. If our leaders do a bad job, they know they’ll be out on their ass.

I don’t think this is a better solution, but certainly the idea of a leader for life/until you screw up has merit. I think that the downfall of democracy is having to get elected means making promises that don’t make sense: great leaders have to compromise their way to power, and are handcuffed from really using it.

One effective leader can supplant democracy. The question is: what comes next?

The civilised world was once democratic, and then lost it. It can happen again.

Common Sense vs. Missile Defence

2004-12-07T22:48:00.000-05:00

There’s a big deal these days about how Paul Martin, the Prime Minister (Lite) of Canada, doesn’t approve of George Bush’s proposed Missile Defence Programme (aka Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars).

I hate to say it, but I agree with Mr. Martin on this issue. Perhaps ‘agree’ isn’t the right word. I’m not aware of an expression in English where you agree with someone, but for completely different reasons. Perhaps other cultures have it, or perhaps it’s a decidedly modern idea. Or perhaps that’s what ‘politics’ really means.

I agree with Mr. Martin that the missile defence is a bad idea. Of course, he opposes the weaponisation of space… as though a ballistic missile travelling through the same space somehow isn’t a weapon. He also feels that this will create a new arms race: everyone will be trying to find a weapon to defeat the missile shield. This is absurd, as the missile shield is currently intended to stop a handful of missiles. The technology already exists to defeat it: MORE MISSILES.

However, this is my point: the missile defense isn’t going to work against a bad guy who really wants ‘us’ dead. So why spend the money at all? I’m not privy to the design details nor contractor costs, but surely if the USA has an enemy who would use the requisitely small number of ballistic missiles for the defence to work, it would cost less to simply invade this Rogue Nation than build this system.

As for people not learning from history, I’ve got two words: Maginot Line.

France hoped to pre-empt WW2 by defending against WW1. I’ve seen Saving Private Ryan enough times to know the Maginot Line didn’t work. The Americans are trying to stop the next war by defending against the Cold War.

If I’m not being clear, history has a number: 9/11.

The missile defence would be useless against another such attack. Terrorists are going to strike from within the USA, not from an ocean away. Spend the money where it’s going to prevent all attacks.

If a nation is going to launch an ICBM at the USA, they’re going to have to be invaded anyway. With the Bush Doctrine in place, why wait?

Basketball vs Violence

2004-11-23T13:50:00.000-05:00

You know, I’m not surprised about this fight between fans and players. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner! In every sport in the world, there’s a separation of the players from the fans. But in basketball, they’ve got the fans RIGHT THERE on the court. Given that fans are impassioned (fan being short for ‘fanatic’), the fact that there haven’t been more incidents is the real surprise.

So why did it happen this time and never before? Surely that wasn’t the first incident of a hometown fan assaulting a visiting player. Surely these aren’t the first players who are tightly wound impassioned athletes open to the smallest provocation.

Was it a security lapse? I don’t know enough about the situation to comment one way or the other. Certainly a lack of previous instances means that security has always been fantastic, was this simply a new level that they weren’t prepared for? Or do years of relative calm take the edge off of security?

Or is greed the root of this problem? As I understand it, a night out at a basketball game might buy you a small Korean car. If I’m spending that much at a game, I’m going to expect a certain level of return. Frustration for not getting value would certainly escalate over time. Further, if the costs of a game are going up, surely it’s linked with player salaries. Players may feel that by earning a premium amount of money should make them immune from things, like being assaulted. Fans are expecting more, players are expecting more; there isn’t enough ‘more’ to go around. In any society, that always leads to violence.

Fat vs Thin

2004-11-22T13:07:00.000-05:00

Believe it or not, I had a tough time deciding what goes first in the ‘vs’. Does it matter? Is there an accepted protocol? Good guys on the left?

Anyway, that’s an essay for some other time.

Every week there’s another study about how fat America/The Western World is. Children are bigger than ever, airplanes are using more fuel than ever, XL caskets are in great demand.
I’m sure this has to do with the abundance of cheap calories now available. Getting refined sugar, or specially bred beef down our gullets is easier than any time in history. Of COURSE we’re going to be bigger than ever.

But is this a bad thing?

There are studies that point out disease is on the rise. But a lot of these diseases that are blamed on weight, another large risk is always stress. Could the stress of living in a fat phobic world be the cause, not the weight itself? I don’t know, but I can’t tell you that anyone’s actually checked!

So why are fat people loathed so much? I’m sure there are many reasons. So what ones can I pick at?

Well, first off, there’s the obvious: historically, a fat person was a prosperous person. Historically, wealthy people are held in contempt, mostly from jealousy I suppose, but also because some wealthy people will stoop to anything to gain/maintain their wealth. It’s natural to dislike wealthy people, so that might be part of it.

Then there’s the Catholic ‘7 Deadly Sins’. These are all things that can tear apart a community. Of course, they date to the close knit communities of medieval Europe. ‘Gluttony’ would mean eating more than your fair share, meaning someone else has to go hungry. I could eat non stop for 24 hours a day, and no one in my community is going to go without. Further, if I DON’T eat a second Big Mac, it’s not like they’re going to send it to starving children in Rwanda. If anything, increased appetites help create economies of scale: more food consumed means bigger processing facilities means bigger farms, means that it will be cheaper to export food.

There’s a stereotype that fat people are lazy. I won’t deny that. However, I wouldn’t assert that fat people are lazier than thin people. And, quite frankly, since when is someone being lazy a bad thing? Everyone complains about the non-stop lifestyle we’re faced with. Isn’t lazy just… not partaking the non-stop lifestyle?

Which brings me to what I feel is perhaps the REAL reason why people might dislike fat people: jealousy. Sure, every maligned group automatically assumes that their antagonists are jealous of them. Maybe they’re right. I mean… people think fat people are lazy… they’re jealous because they don’t think they can afford to be lazy. People think that fat people are wealthy, of course that leads to jealousy! People deny themselves eating pleasure, and believe that fat people stuff themselves silly. Well… I’d be jealous if I thought someone was having more fun than I was.

Now, the world is populated by fat people, and the world is populated by thin people. Certainly most people probably don’t REALLY care about the ‘obesity crisis’. And certainly there are fat people who hate fat people, just as surely as there are thin people who hate fat people.

There are fat people who started out thin, and grew to be fat for whatever reason. There are fat people who were born that way, and don’t seem to have a choice in the matter.

Many of these fat people don’t give it a chance. They’re fat, and they know they’re supposed to hate it, so they do. They need to try to experience it without prejudice. Go ahead be fat. Feel that jiggle when you walk, feel those clothes cling to your skin.

Being fat isn’t for anyone, just like The Beatles aren’t for everyone.

But I think if more people would just gain 20 pounds, and see what happens, just let it BE, they might find they like it.

If people didn’t worry about fat, there’d be less stress among the ‘afflicted’.

Less stress is always good.

Winning vs Defeating

2004-11-10T13:17:00.000-05:00

What is the point of democracy?
It is to choose the better person, with ‘better’ determined by the people who get a vote.

This is why John Kerry lost the election. Many people on his ‘side’ were only there by default: they were NOT on George Bush’s side.

While it’s fair to oppose someone, that’s not the way democracy is supposed to work. Sure, you can prove the other guy’s doing a bad job, but then you have to prove you’ll do a better job. Just harping on someone’s faults isn’t going to work.

It’s human nature. Ever been told ‘don’t look down’? Admit it, you looked down. You can’t help it, it’s the way we are. You go around saying ‘don’t vote Bush’, guess what’s going to happen?

While I’m sure there are a billion examples of people voting against someone, rather than for someone, I think it’s inherently a bad strategy, and a complete anathema to democracy.

Call out the bad record of an opponent, sure, but let your ideas carry the day.

Name calling politics.

2004-11-04T14:06:00.000-05:00

There may be traces of irony here. If so, too bad.

There are people of all political stripes. If you can imagine it, then odds are there are people who would steadfastly support it, and steadfastly denounce it. Twould be a dull world indeed if everyone agreed on everything all the time.

In fact, it’s good to have ‘bad’ ideas linger. Sometimes an idea is ‘bad’ because it needs other ideas to make it good (for example, what good’s a can without a can opener?).

So, I like the idea, nay, love the idea that there are people in the world I disagree with. I even acknowledge that while I’m right 100% of the time, it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong 100% of the time.

There are many people who can’t accept that others don’t share their thoughts. And they’re never more evident than during election time. Now that the US election is fading into history, there are scads of name callers. Look, I don’t agree with Bush on every issue (or even on enough issues to comfortably call myself a Bush Supporter), but I’d never call him a monkey.

You start calling people names, and suddenly your own credibility is gone. If the best you can do is childish name calling, then the first thing that comes to my mind is that you’re WRONG. You may not be, but you’re not conveying a message that I’m listening to. You might as well be trying to send me a telegraph in Swahili. I won’t get it.

Do you think the War in Iraq was a bad idea because $87 billion could be better spent fighting AIDS in Africa? That’s a valid point. Tell me that, I’ll listen. Call Bush a hyena, and I won’t, and I’ll never think that fighting AIDS in Africa will do more to fight terrorism than any invasion. (I don’t postulate this is true, but don’t have enough knowledge to proclaim it to be false. To be honest, I don’t know that anyone has made this assertion!)

Of course, the ‘Conservative Side’ (which I suppose I’d be on) is far from innocent. I hate for anyone on my side to do something that I hate.

If you’re going to run for office, run on ideas. I’d like to say ignore the other side, but that’s not practical. Attack bad ideas as bad ideas. If someone changes their mind because they backed bad ideas and have moved on to good ones, praise them for seeing the light, don’t harp on the fact that they changed their mind.

Hopefully with the Most Important Election in History behind us, I’ll be able to take on things in the world besides US politics!

Conservative vs Liberal

2004-11-01T10:52:00.000-05:00

When people discuss politics, invariably the labels ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ pop up. Sometimes I wish these terms would go away. Having to choose between two categories of beliefs is ridiculous. I’m not going to paint a picture with only red and green (well, maybe I would… but I’m not going to do ALL of them that way), I’m not going to do a sketch with only vertical and horizontal strokes, and I’m not going to make a meal with only steak and salt!

Forcing people to choose between two views, no matter how distant, nor how similar, just isn’t fair. Surely that’s the reason why Bush and Kerry seem to be so close in the American Presidential election set for tomorrow; what if you like the idea of hunting terrorists, AND think abortion should be allowed? How can you reconcile a choice like that?

Why do Conservatives have to oppose abortion? Why to Liberals have to oppose war?

Of course, one of the big problems with any labels, is that different people believe the same labels mean different things. While I think that Conservatives oppose abortion, I’m sure there are many people who don’t agree with that. Works for me. (For the record, I don’t oppose abortion. I don’t think it’s a good idea, but it seems like banning it is a worse idea. How does it go? “Rare, but safe”?)

Since this is my ‘blog, I’ll say what ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’ mean to me. I think by the time we’re done this, we’ll see that if I’m forced to choose, I call myself ‘Conservative’.

When it comes down to fundamental beliefs, the core is whether you trust other people or not. To me, Conservatives believe that people will do the right thing more often than not. Liberals, conversely, believe that people will act in self-interest more often than not. Now, in a great many day-to-day decisions, ‘the right thing’ and ‘self-interest’ coincide enough that Liberal/Conservative doesn’t matter all that much. That’s the key principle that makes democracy work.

But, when the details unfold, I see it like this: a Conservative will let you do what you want. If you make mistakes, you’re in trouble. A Liberal will tell you what to do, and if you make mistakes, they’ll pick you up and dust you off. In this view, conservatives are optimists, liberals are pessimists.

Ironically, most people view Conservatives as ‘cold and calculating’, with Liberals being ‘warm and compassionate’. This certainly fits in with my belief. On the other hand, think about life, and who you like to be cold and who you like to be warm. You want your doctor to be warm, but you don’t want to see him very often! You want your accountant to be cold, because then he’ll get you the most money.

As I see the world (the democratic world), there will be an eternal tug of war between ‘Conservative’ and ‘Liberal’. It’s GOOD to have a safety net. People make mistakes. People just can’t quite get it right. But if we focus on the net more than on success, the net will become meaningless: who goes to see the trapeze artist lying in the net?

If we go too conservative, the net breaks when it’s needed. If we go too liberal, then we spend too much time on the net, and can’t afford to maintain it.

If I had to choose, between going without a net, or manning the net, I’d choose to go without the net. And I think that’s what makes me ‘Conservative’.

Weighing in: Bush vs. Kerry

2004-10-29T10:53:00.000-04:00

As a non-American, apparently it is my duty to tell Americans who to vote for. I’ve never really known that it was the duty of foreigners to tell locals who to vote for. On the other hand, isn’t that kinda what the whole point of Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003) was?

Non-Americans overwhelmingly like the idea of John Kerry as president. If I were an American, that would make me lean towards Bush. Certainly a president who is good for OTHER countries isn’t going to be good for my own, is he? These other nations like Kerry because they’re scared of Bush. They see Kerry as a pushover who is going to have the interests of non-Americans at heart. (I don’t believe that Bush invaded Afghanistan ‘cause he cared about Afghanis.)

I’d rather see Kerry as president than Bush. He’s from New England, he thinks of Canadians as rich vacationers. That’s a nice thing to be thought of. Bush is from Texas (at least he seems to be…) so he thinks of ‘Mexico’ when he thinks of foreigners. Nothing against Mexicans, but I don’t think that Canadians should be thought of as Mexicans. Bush thinks he can bully us, and Kerry thinks he can deal with us. I like that.

I suppose the MAIN reason why non-Americans are interested in who runs the USA is because the US is the world’s sole super/hyper/monopolar power. They can do whatever they want, and it drags pretty much the entire world along with it. In effect, the president of the USA is the leader of the world (look how effective the UN’s leadership has been in the past 4 years). They want a leader who will sit back and not rock the boat. I don’t blame them, who wants the boat rocked?

John Kerry’s grand ambition is to… well… leave well enough alone. That’s not a bad ambition. The USA IS the strongest nation in the world. Would leaving well enough alone maintain that? For the next four years or so, sure. If he wants to be a stewardship president, then that’s what he’s in for. Things might go well, ala Clinton. Clinton did a fantastic job of not rocking the boat.

George Bush’s grand ambition is to… well… fight terror. While the War on Terror is important, that’s a bad sole focus of a leader. Pretty much once he’s made that decision, he should leave it with someone else and move on to other things. But he’s proven disastrous in just about every other thing (I wont’ debate the effectiveness of the war on terror. There hasn’t been another strike in the USA, so it’s possible they’re doing something right).

Personally, my political persuasion lies along the lines of ‘Libertarianism’. In other words, do whatever the hell you want, but don’t hurt people, and try not to bring down society. Fundamental to that is choice. I think that George Bush represents choice more than John Kerry does. He likes the idea of Americans keeping their own money and deciding what to do with it. He likes the idea of American companies hiring who they want. The government’s role is to make sure that everyone plays fair. It’s not their role to tell people what to do. (Okay, that’s a subtle difference… but ideally the less rules the better.)

If I was an American, I’d vote Bush. But as a Canadian who is looking for an advantage for Canada over the USA, I’d vote Kerry.

But, I feel I have to be perfectly clear on this one point: the American two party system is showing its limits. I don’t think either choice is a good one. There is no easy way for a third choice to be made. Ross Perot only did it because he was so rich. Ralph Nader only made a showing because he’s famous. Howard Dean, for example, couldn’t possibly make a serious run as president.

Bush really hasn’t been a great leader. The last 4 years in the USA have been very fractious. If he were a good president, surely there would be less complaining. And Kerry, if he were such a great leader, how come he’s never DONE anything?

Charlotte vs. The World

2004-10-28T09:57:00.000-04:00

This is just another outlet for me to vent. My friends can only take so many of my diatribes before they simply agree so I’ll shut up. Now, all my thoughts will be preserved for posterity. I’ll be able to look back, and see how my opinions have changed (I’d love to use the word ‘matured’, but that sounds a little arrogant. I’ll save arrogance for future posts).

I don’t expect to change the world.

I’m not planning to do any hard hitting reporting.

I’m just going to write what I think about whatever topic I want. I realise I’m not fully informed on any given subject. If you happen to read this, and happen to think I’m wrong, let me know. The worst thing you can do when someone’s wrong is to let them continue being wrong.