The Last Day of Your Life Is Like Any Other Day (except shorter)

There has been lots of media noise around the right to self termination and assisted self termination. I'm not really sure why there is a public and legislative debate on this. To me this choice is the single most inalienable human right everyone has. If you are religious in your outlook then it’s an easy question to answer – simply follow the dictates of whatever belief system you embrace. If you are not religious and believe the ultimate purpose of life is that it ends then you engage your rationality and make the one decision that is truly no one else’s business. To me this would seem to end the discussion but thank goodness there are so many people out there willing to complicate my life (or specifically its end) with their particular brand of “we are right and everyone else is wrong’ rhetoric which (sadly) passes for actual thinking in an increasingly dumb world.

Ask anyone with a terminal condition facing an ugly end if they would like to die relatively free of discomfort or die horribly and in pain and I’m pretty sure that unless they really believe that their God wants them to suffer before their reward they will opt for option “A”. For years caring and committed doctors have warned their terminal patients that if they take too many pills it might be fatal thus jumping that ethical chasm as smooth as Burt Reynolds in a black trans am with a screaming chicken on the hood. So, why the debate- none of us have any choice about being born into this world (religious belief systems aside) so really who’s business is it how and when I decide to check out of it? (Assuming we are of sound (ish) mind).

Perhaps it is the rise of social media as collaborative phenomena – the pervasive belief that everyone is interested in everything everyone else is doing. After all if we collectively offer up the minutiae of our lives for validation then why wouldn’t we do the same with our deaths? I read recently of services that offer to continue or terminate your Face Book, MySpace etc pages after you die. Not sure about Twitter but it certainly raises some interesting scenarios (still decomposing, its dark, there are bugs in here).

As with most social issues the various interest groups have engaged in the worst levels of demagogy by raising every nightmare scenario possible (it got so bad I had to sit down and watch my copy of Soylent Green again to get a rational perspective). But to what end? When a cat or dog knows it is going to die it will often leave its home, curl up somewhere warm and wait. Jeez – what do they know that we don’t? It is our perpetual arrogance that we are somehow removed from the natural world and the rules under which it governs our existence, however brief, that drives this debate. Imagine the surprised look on everyone’s faces when the truth, the real truth of existence (namely that it ends) is revealed and the moral, ethical, religious, political and philosophical drivers resolve into a simple choice between death with dignity or the surrender of that inalienable right to those with no stake in your particular game.

"Death is terrifying because it is so ordinary. It happens all the time.”

Susan Cheever

"There must be some way out of here said the joker to the thief" Robert Zimmerman

There is a persuasive sense of ennui to our winter political experience in this country. An example is the reaction to Mr. Harper's (aka "Steve") suspension of Parliament. The stated rational from the government being "we've got stuff to do helping the recovery, and oh yeah the Olympics are on TV" etc is weak at best but that rational has been almost perfectly balanced by the level of "outrage" from political parties and the lumpen proletariat. The whole thing has felt like everybody has been going through the motions but with no real (to quote Bruce Lee) "Emotional Content"

The public protests about Parliament not sitting have predictably come from the same folks who protest everything the government does when Parliament IS sitting. The opposition parties muddle around consumed with their own inner drama (yeah that's you Natural Governing Party or "Liberals" as they like to portray themselves). The biggest flame so far? The British Economist comes out and says Steve's a bad boy. This bold move probably helped the big C's in Quebec for all I know.

Guy on the street? A giant "whatever" seems to be the prevailing reaction. The workings of our government are pretty much a mystery to us (and by mystery I don't mean something cool and slick with a space age crime lab that solves everything in 60 minutes). Everyone complains about the economy, the weather, hockey and repeat once and rinse. Nobody connects what does or doesn't happen in our government with anything meaningful in their own lives. Governments have always known this thus the long tradition of bread and circus type public events stretching back to Rome. Think I'm exaggerating? Wait for a series of bold, visionary and expensive pronouncements to flow like wine from our current government JUST before Parliament sits down again, quelle surprise!

Soon spring will come, snow melts, dog poo reeks, flowers bloom and for some reason I always want to buy a new car. Everything changes right? Will anybody think that democracy was suspended for a while like some third world junta? The truth is we elect a government to do stuff. In retrospect parliament is redundant in the eyes of the current (and past governments) and that might be true except for the annoying fact that without parliament a lot of important "stuff" gets left on the table. I want that stuff voted in so my world can be changed in some meaningful way. As this session goes gently into the night we are witness to the expediency of politics over the the principals that a lot of Canadians voted for. Bad Steve...

“Policies are many, Principles are few, Policies will change, Principles never do.” John Maxwell

"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,