"Russian roulette is not the same without a gun" - Lady GaGa

This morning Greenpeace protestors scaled the roofs of Parliament to unfurl protest banners while one of their fellows buzzed the city in a small plane. As watched the plane (it was maybe a 1000 feet up) I was thinking about the probable outcome if these activities had happened in Washington DC (substitute "rapidly expanding debris field" for plane and "undisclosed number of terrorists" for protestors). In Ottawa - well the plane didn't appear to have F18's on its tail yet and Parliament Hill security had yet to make any move other than to close down access for the rest of us (the non-protestors). Huh, that’s interesting. So the question of the day for me is why do some people get a pass and the rest don't?

There are numerous examples out there of what would appear to selective enforcement of the laws under which we all agreed to live under. One such example occurred today - Natives decided to block highways to protest the removal of their sales tax exemption that the loathsome HST will bring. So far no one from the government is doing anything to restore order. As in the past they will monitor the situation and hope it runs its course. In my worldview I wonder what would happen if I decided to protest the HST and blocked some road here in Ottawa. As an AMAWG (Angry Middle Aged White Guy) I would expect the SWAT team guys to dispatch me post haste so morning commuters can get back to line-ups at Tim's.

What these folks are protesting (Greenpeace, Natives etc) is all fine, I have no issue with anyone’s right to protest because I believe Canadian society can support different views (I am after all an Enlightened AMAWG). The question is does everyone have the same right to protest and does our government treat everyone who does have an opposing view equitably? My view is that the current practice of selective application of consequences for actions has had the effect of reducing our civil rights rather than supporting them.

What I see is application of consequences to groups and/or individuals not based on the rule of law but rather the issue of risk to the government of potential negative publicity. Using the example of the Native versus me road blockade the potential negative publicity risk to the government of enforcing the laws of our land is huge. The only consequence is that everyone else shrugs their shoulders and finds another way to get to where they're going (BTW I am not picking on Natives - EXACTLY the same suspension of civil liberties occurs during any major labour action where the public is involved). On the other hand if I set-up a protest then my muzzling/arrest/gulag poses no risk of negative publicity therefore its ok.

The difference is that everyone agrees that Natives have had and still have a rough go of it in Canada. No argument from me on that point. So we as a society (and by extension our elected officials) look at protests with a tacit combination of understanding and frustration. The examples of this are endless - everyone is concerned for the environment so let’s cut the various groups pushing their particular agenda some slack etc etc etc. What happens though if your opinion on something doesn't happen to fall into the "PC" category - does that mean its worth any less? All I can say is don't try this at home kids - you might figure out that although we are all equal in the eyes of the law we are most decidedly not equal in eyes of those who we have trusted to enforce those laws.

“A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.”

William Orville Douglas

Stupid People Give Me Drain Bamage

My best friend Denis told me that the topic of stupid people is an inexhaustible source of "inspiration" for any rant. In fact Denis (who is an excellent writer) has waxed on about the subject for a number of years. What is interesting is the evolution of his coping strategies over the years (from outrage to don't suffer fools - just make room).

This subject is interesting to me because we all are, to one degree or another, stupid. I made a particularly bone headed mistake last week that felt dumb when I did it and boy it delivered on that promise in spades. So in the after-burn of that particular flaming taco I consoled myself with the "I’ll be smarter next time" rationalization. I wonder though, are any of us actually smarter with experience or do we simply find new and innovative ways to express our "inner stupid"?

My inner stupid is a wonder to me, despite all my pretensions of some degree of rationality if it wasn't for the golden horseshoes south of the equator I would shuffled off my mortal coil years ago. So my question is smart people smarter or just luckier than the rest of us? Stupid people on the other hand are always judged through their deficiencies of "process' and often in a judgemental manner as if bad luck is somehow earned (and good luck is given?).

I recently reread "The Marching Morons” by Cyril Kornbluth (1951) for a humorous (and somewhat fascist take) on what happens when the stupid people take over the world. The story is as relevant today (perhaps more so) as it was all those years ago. Did I feel smarter for reading it? Not really but I recommend it anyway. It is interesting because it suggests that society will easily adapt to lowered expectations – whoops hasn’t that already happened?

In the end we are all as god made us, smart, and stupid, whatever – in a hundred years everyone who knows will be gone. That’s ok too, perhaps if there is a grand plan somewhere then that part insures that the terminally stupid and dangerously smart can’t really do any lasting damage to the rest of us marching morons…

"Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do"
Bertrand Russell

The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step (BTW it can end really badly)

Experience with anything is a curse and a blessing - both have the same outcome in that surprises at work, in relationships or life in general become fewer and fewer the older you get. When I was younger the uncertainty of my life scared me more than it excited me. The younger me flailed about trying to find something (anything) that worked out the way I THOUGHT it should rather than my experience (such as it was) told me it would.

Eventually I figured out what works for me and progressed through a blessed and fortunate life that has far exceeded what I thought I'd ever experience. During that journey I studied religion and philosophy formally and informally for a while and tried to assign value to those experiences through consideration of those principals that resonated with my particular sensibility. I used to consider myself an existentialist of the "nothing matters and what if it did " school of thought.

This was an easily defensible position (sort of like being an agnostic) in that the burden of proof as it was always remained on those who questioned that outlook and not on me for having it in the first place. One day I figured out that I am a coward for maintaining the self delusion that somehow I understood everything through that narrow and ultimately pointless perspective. Did I have an epiphany? some sort of religious conversion - nope sorry about that. What I did realize is that the big questions are just that, fricking big questions that no one will ever answer with any confidence. Oh and I'm fine with that.. magic remains in the world.

So now I like to stand outside my house in the country these cold nights and stare into the majesty of space and wonder why I ever worried about anything? I am free and getting free(er) every day.

"I used to think it was a terrible thing that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'what if life were fair, and all of the terrible things that happen to us came because we really deserved them?' Now I take great comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe."
J. Michael Straczynski

It's the end of the world and we know it (sorry REM)

H1N1 - will it pass us by, or is it the long awaited super flu that Stephen King called "Captain Trips" in his epic (aka frigging long) novel "The Stand". Its hard to know given the various media reports that on one hand play this up as a real (H1N1 is coming for you!) crisis and the government dispatches that tell us we have nothing to fear as long as we do exactly what they tell us to do (so that's always worked out well before right? whoops tainted blood and the Red Cross - what was I thinking).

In situations like this perhaps the only way to make sense is to measure the levels of paranoia associated with each side of the debate - for example in this case there are those who believe EVERYTHING that the Government tells us to do is wrong - the vaccine will harm you, its unproven etc - just eat gluten free products and do yoga and all will be well. Uh Huh. Then there are those who think that the government is actually holding back how serious it all is and everyone should get every possible shot they can find, we should all practice "social distancing" (as if Ottawa wasn't slow enough already) wear face masks and gloves in public - well you get the picture.

So where is reality in all this? One of my nostrums is that reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. So given that what's left over? My reality is that given all the crap already wrong with me I'll stand for a couple of hours to get the shot regardless because I personally think the risk not to get it is greater. For my children I am really torn - they're both healthy now but if you believe what we've heard about so far that doesn't mean anything.

If anybody reads this I would love to hear your take on it, until the next time...

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken,