Election Results

I live in Calgary, heart of the oil business. Harperland, I like to call it. I'm one of the few people I know who is happy with this election's results. Scrolling through my facebook feed, one gets the impression the sky is falling.

People, let's take a step back and look at this rationally. For those of you arguing that this has been a dark week for Canada, I argue that one cannot possibly claim to "love Canada" without loving the Liberal Party. In my opinion, the Liberal Party represents the heart of what Canada stands for. This is a country that stands for equality, a country founded on multiculturalism. It isa country people come to in order to escape persecution and find happiness. Over the past decade, Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party have strayed farther and farther from these ideals.

Universal health care, bilingualism and multiculturalism, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, same-sex marriage. We owe all these things to the Liberals. Will anyone argue that these things are not what Canada stands for?

The Liberal Party has been in power for almost seventy percent of Canada's history, 69 years in the last century. Are they perfect? No I think it is dangerous for any party to hold power for too long, even the party I predominantly support. I actually think the events of the past ten years, as abhorrent as they, are for the long term betterment of the party, as it has forced them to get in touch with the people again.

I am optimistic for the next few years, more so than I have been in a while. I think Harper was a dangerous, racist, and borderline fascist leader that only big businesses have any reason to miss. Seriously. Do you make six figures? No? Then you aren't going to be affected economically by this shift in power.

Trudeau isn't perfect. He has flaws. I don't agree with everything he stands for (his support for Bill C-51, for example). But I think he truly loves this country: he loves its people, and he loves what it stands for. Canada needs a leader with these qualities, a ruler that truly represents the people.

Here's an example. For those complaining about the first past the post voting system... Trudeau is planning on reforming this system, despite the fact it could likely harm his chances at reelection, because the will of the people. I know some people are skeptical about whether he'll continue through with that promise, but I, personally, like to think he will.

A final point for my Harperland friends, mourning the loss of  "their prime minister"... I urge you to look at some international news sources. Have a look at how people have been talking about Canada. Stephen Harper has done a lot to tarnish the name of the nation we all love.

I'll leave you with this terrible pun that made me chuckle.

In Defense of Liberalism and Rational Argument

I recently had the misfortune to come across this post on Facebook, shared from an anti-NDP page.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will report it because they are offended."

At the time, I wasn’t planning on writing any kind of response to it. However, after several days ruminating over the absurd nature of some of these ideas, the ridiculously oversimplified (not to mention easily arguable) story, and the fact that, frankly, it was downright insulting, I decided to come up with my own story and clarifying list for those who are unsure which side of the political spectrum they fall on. Here goes!

Alan was a man in his late fifties, recently retired and living off of a well-earned pension. Alan was a staunch conservative who’d lived his life despising liberal tendencies. The mere mention of wealth redistribution or social programs got his blood boiling. The way he saw it, he’d worked hard to support the life he lived and everyone else could damn well do the same! Why should he have to pay higher taxes so layabouts didn’t have to do the same?

This opinion was often a bone of contention between him and his daughter, a recent college graduate who considered herself very liberal. “She’ll grow out of it,” Alan often thought to himself, putting her ideologies down to the naiveté of youth.

One day, after listening to his daughter ramble on about the need for higher taxes on the rich to help support government programs, Alan interrupted her to ask about her grades in college. He then went on to use her hard earned grades versus those of a lazy student’s poor grades to illustrate the flaws of liberal thinking.

“Welcome to the conservative side of the fence,” Alan said, sitting back with a gentle smile, convinced he’d finally gotten through to her.

Alan’s daughter frowned for a moment, then looked at her father. “Dad,” she said, “how much did you save up towards my education?”

Alan replied proudly, “Your mother and I started a savings account when you were small child. We put a little bit into it each month and in the end we were able to pay for more than half your tuition.”

His daughter nodded. “Did it affect how you lived your life, giving up enough money to pay for half my tuition?”

“Well, no. It was only a little bit each month and we had plenty to spare.”

“But doesn’t conservative ideology dictate that one should keep everything they earn, that others shouldn’t get the benefits of your hard work, even if it is just a little bit each month?”

Alan was aghast. “Without my help you would have struggled a lot harder to put yourself through college. You might not have been able to achieve a degree because you would have spent most of your time working rather than studying.”

His daughter smiled. “Exactly. You gave me the boost to get me on my feet. That’s all liberalism is about: helping people to help themselves, not blindly awarding laziness. Being a liberal is about a willingness to help others when they are in more need than you are.”

“But you’re my daughter,” insisted Alan. “I’m not a liberal for helping you. Why should my hard earned money go towards helping some stranger out a situation they got themselves into?”

“Let me ask you this: if you saw someone drowning in the river, would you jump in to save them, even if it meant ruining your clothes, wallet, cell phone. You don’t know how they got into the situation – maybe they were being stupid, maybe someone pushed them, or maybe they just tripped. All you know is that they are in trouble and can’t help themselves. Would you help them?”

“Of course!” cried Alan. “What’s a wallet and a cell phone compared to someone’s life??”

His daughter leaned in and smiled. “Welcome to the liberal side of the fence, Dad.”

Liberalism isn’t about blindly rewarding laziness; liberalism is about the willingness to give up some of your own excess in order to help someone who cannot help themselves. Liberal ideologies suggest the wealthy be taxed higher because, relatively speaking, it does not make that much of a difference for them, while social programs make a world of difference for the impoverished. For a wealthy individual, a high tax bracket means their second car might have to be a 2013 Mercedes rather than a 2015 model. For an impoverished family, a welfare cheque can mean the difference between one and three meals a day. High taxes are an inconvenience for the wealthy; welfare can be a lifesaver for the poor.

But maybe you’re not sure if you’re a conservative or a liberal, so here’s my version of the helpful list from the original post!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one. If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he works to make sure that all individuals (both liberal and conservative) are safe from being killed by another person’s gun. The conservative doesn’t care so long as HE isn’t the one being killed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat either. He may advocate the humane treatment of animals, but he will respect another individual’s choice to eat meat so long as the animals are treated right.

If a conservative is down and out, he thinks about how to better his situation, even at the expense of others. If a liberal is down and out, he may accept help from other liberals. Once he is back on his feet, he’ll go over and be the first person to offer the conservative help.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he buries his head in the sand. If a liberal doesn’t like a talk show host, he seeks meaningful discourse and exchange of ideas. If those ideas actively perpetuate prejudice and hatred towards an individual or group, he may try to highlight the toxicity of such speech, often resulting in the host’s show being dropped when his ratings plummet.

If a conservative is a nonbeliever, he does not go to church. If a liberal is a nonbeliever, he respects the beliefs of all others (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc.) and seeks to protect those beliefs. He asks that any organization or government representing more than one of these majorities respect the beliefs of all groups, remaining impartial and refusing to favour one above the others.

If a conservative is sick, he pays for health care. Unless he lives in Canada, in which case he gladly reaps the rewards of the system he criticizes. Or he gets a job that pays for his health care, and uses his coworkers’ money rather than the taxpayers. If a liberal gets sick, he is rewarded by the system he advocates. He then happily puts money back into the system to pay for the healthcare of others’, because they did the same for him.

The point I’m trying to make with this is that these things aren’t black and white. My examples are exaggerated and bias, just as those of the original post are, but they serve to highlight the absurdity of such broad generalizations and stereotypes. There are conservatives who act selfishly just as much as there are individuals who abuse liberal policies.

The nature of party politics creates an “us against them” mentality, which I think is patently absurd. Am I generally center-left in my views? Yes. Do I think everything the Liberal and NDP parties do is pure gold? Hell no, just as I don’t think the Conservatives are pure evil (though Stephen Harper is a different story…). My views may align with one group over another, enough for me to accept the policies I do not agree with, but that does not mean I respect or like those holding opposite ideals any less.

Posts such as these are silly and appeal to a simple way of thinking. They do not serve to create any meaningful discussion as they are composed almost entirely of blind rhetoric and hyperbole. I’m not saying that conservatives and right wingers are the only ones guilty of these tactics: god knows some liberals can be terribly subversive and simple in their arguments. It is a problem for all sides. If you do not agree with another individual or party’s point of view, have a discussion and make your case rationally. Do not result to petty insults and stereotyping. To do so betrays a simplicity of thinking, and, in my experience, probably means you don’t really have a very good understanding of theirs, or even your own, point of view.

This was a really long post so, as always, thanks for reading!

"Praise God for our courageous firefighters and police force"

I've been away with my family for a week now, driving through BC and Washington State. We stayed a night in Vernon, two nights in Osoyoos, and are now in Seattle for four nights. I'm always a fan of travelling and visiting new places.The drive was beautiful, and I've gotten to spend some quality time with my family.

Unfortunately, we were travelling through areas heavily affected by forest fires. Signs of the fires weren't too obvious for the first few days of our trip, but time went on, particularly during our second day in Osoyoos, it became quite clear this was not an issue to be taken lightly. There was a day when we were entirely shrouded in smoke, unable to see more than a few hundred feet into the distance, as ash fell from the sky. The entire atmosphere was somewhat apocalyptic.

When we crossed over the border into the U.S., the fires were even worse. We were diverted off the highway to pass through evacuated ghost town so as to avoid open flames upon the hillside. Less than an hour after we passed through, the entire area was shut off and we would have been forced to remain in BC. For the next several hundred miles we drove through smoke so thick that I continually had to remind myself it wasn't just a foggy day.

That isn't fog. That's smoke.

The devastation, while mostly confined to nature so far, is immense, and the risk these fires pose to peoples' livelihoods cannot be underestimated. Entire towns are at risk of going up in flames. I have the utmost respect for the firefighters and emergency services helping to deal with the situation, and my heart aches for the families of the three firefighters killed a few days ago, as well as the others who have been injured. These people are brave, selfless, especially given that many of them are simply involved in firefighting to fund school and other ventures. I have endless admiration for these people.

And so, perhaps, one can see why I was a little irked when I came across a sign, in a church just outside of Osoyoos, reading "PRAISE GOD FOR OUR COURAGEOUS FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE FORCE".  I'm sure that anyone who knows me--indeed, anyone who has ever brought up the subject of religion around me--will know where I'm going with this.

God should not be the main source of praise for the courage of the firefighters and police officers. the FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS are the ones deserving of praise!

Yes, perhaps He deserves a cursory nod of gratitude as basically anything can be attributed to an omnipotent being if one believes in such things. However, people should not be displaying roadside signs attributing human bravery to any kind of higher power. This sort of praise should be limited to like-minded individuals, not brandished, rather insultingly in my opinion, where it will achieve maximum exposure, and where the emergency crews themselves will see it. To do so undermines the real world sacrifice these people are making. The men and women fighting these fires are being injured and killed simply because they want to help, not because of heavenly powers.

 I'm sure some of the emergency crew members themselves would attribute their bravery to God, and that is their right. They are the ones making the sacrifice and doing the hard work, so I will not argue with them. The rest of us, however, should be praising the people themselves. Do not thank an abstract, invisible force before you thank the real individuals sacrificing themselves for the good of others. As far as us laypeople are concerned, these people do not do this job because God sent them, or because He compelled them to; they do it because they are brave, selfless human beings willing to put the greater good before their own safety.

They are the ones who deserve the praise.

Now, one could argue I have no right to be upset by this sign given that I am neither a firefighter or a police officer, and nor a churchgoer. These people would bring up a valid point. I am, indeed, none of these things. I am an opinionated person who was rubbed the wrong way by brave individuals being duped out of their well earned praise. They get so little for their hard work, surely we should not also try to take our gratitude away from them as well.

I realize that this sort of thing is not uncommon. But to see this straight after reading about the deaths of three brave firefighters really made me angry. I'm an atheist and I have very big problems with organized religion, so my opinions are biased. So I appeal to logic and human decency. How can anyone defend praising an abstract force--whatever their religious beliefs--before praising REAL HUMAN SACRIFICE? If I were a firefighter, police officer, or member of any emergency service, I would be incredibly insulted by this sign.

Any firefighters or policeman who would disagree with me? As always, I value any kind of feedback. Thanks for reading!

A review of Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee

My hopes for this book were actually fairly low; I wasn't expecting to be knocked off my feet as I was by To Kill a Mockingbird. Unfortunately, I nevertheless found myself disappointed with Go Set a Watchman.

The book was marketed as a sequel but, in reality, it's pretty much an earlier draft of Mockingbird. Rediscovered in the last year, it seems to have been published as it was found, with little or no revision. As such, there are many inconsistencies with the original book, including the outcome and significance of Tom Robinson's trial. Because of this, the book is less a sequel than it is a reflection and examination of Mockingbird's themes from a different perspective.

I knew all this going in. I knew how the character of Atticus was going to be portrayed, I knew the novel was going to have a far less optimistic tone than that of Mockingbird. Going into Watchman I was hoping for an alternate story that would serve to compliment and shed new light on Mockingbird, which remains one of my all time favourite books.

In part, Go Set a Watchman succeeds: it sheds new light on the characters and themes of Mockingbird, challenging them and revealing a way things could have been. Unfortunately, the manner in which it goes about doing so is incredibly clumsy. Go Set a Watchman reads like a first draft. The messages are delivered rather ham-handedly; the subtelty and elegance that made Mockingbird so powerful is almost entirely lost. Characters progress in haphazard ways, and there are stretches of incredibly stunted dialogue, not to mention pages and pages of poor writing.

All of these problems can be owed to the fact it is an early draft. But, then, that's the biggest problem with the book: a first draft should never be published without extreme revision, all the more so if it's going to be held up against a book like To Kill a Mockingbird.

I knew before I started it that the novel would lack one of Mockingbird's finest aspects: a young, idealistic Scout as the lead character with an older, retrospective Scout as narrator. Unfortunately, I don't think I was prepared for how much that absence would reflect on the quality of the story. I think, perhaps, that To Kill a Mockingbird succeeded only because of that character and narration, the window through which the story and its universal themes are viewed. With this in mind, Go Set a Watchman was always doomed to fail.

That being said, there were a few very enjoyable and very insightful passages, particularly during the last third of the book. Jean Louise's conversations with her uncle and her angry tirade against her father were quite powerful.

Overall, Go Set a Watchman was not a bad book. Unfortunately, it lives under the shadow of it's predecessor. If Go Set a Watchman had been published independent of that shadow, I might have enjoyed it more, though I doubt I would have loved it. People were worried the book might shatter their image of To Kill a Mockingbird, but the simple fact is that Go Set a Watchman is neither well written enough, nor consistent enough with the original book, to be capable of such a feat.

If you're interested, I just found this article that sums up some of my thoughts surrounding the book's quality and the circumstances of its publishing. Worth a read. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/opinion/joe-nocera-the-watchman-fraud.html?_r=0

As always, thanks for reading! If you're interested in reading any of my other book reviews, click here

A Review of Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I recently read Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Before I read the book, I had never heard of Hirsi Ali, but apparently she is a prominent critic of Islam (I intend to read her autobiography, as her backstory seems interesting). The book caught my eye, as the idea was obviously fairly unusual, and I hoped that the author might have some interesting ideas to put forward in a tactful and thoughtful manner. Unfortunately, I found this was not the case.

My feelings towards this book changed several times as I was reading it, and I've waited several days to write a review, so as to let my thoughts on the book solidify. After a lot of reflection, I stand by my initial reaction. The few intelligent discussion points this book brings up were ultimately consumed and overshadowed by angry tirades and blatantly illogical arguments. I couldn't escape the feeling that this book was written with the specific intention of stirring the pot, making people angry, and creating a bestseller. It quite unsettles me that this book was front and center the last few times I walked into the bookstore, and that there are so many reviews on Goodreads commending the author for being "courageous" and "inspiring".

I consider myself fairly well informed when it comes to politics, religion, and current events. However, there are millions of people out there a lot smarter than me who could argue my thoughts a lot better, and I wouldn't call myself qualified enough to argue the specifics in regards to Islam. However, in regards to the book, Hirsi Ali contradicts herself quite a bit within its pages. She talks of a difference between Christianity and Islam as being the former's progression away from a literal interpretation of their holy book, while Islam, she states, continues to do the opposite. How, then, can she single out specific lines and verses within the Quran when she has just said the only difference between doctrines is the method of interpretation?

This sort of cherry picking facts is present throughout the book. She picks specific verses she wishes to criticize and ignores others. This is hardly unusual, given the argumentative nature of the book. What frustrated me, however, was the overbearing tone in which the book was written. Hirsi Ali condescends to the dissenting reader, appealing only to a very specific demographic (a fact she herself acknowledges). She calls out Western Liberals for branding any critic of the religion as an "Islamaphobe", which is, in some cases, a fair statement. Critical thinking should not be shut down, simply because we don't wish to offend people, and the media and government often go overboard with political correctness. The problem lies in the fact that, so often, ignorant and racist individuals shout with the loudest voices, overpowering those able to make rational and informed arguments. Hirsi Ali seems like a reasonably intelligent woman, and I would not be so critical if the tone and method of her argument did not, ultimately, provide fuel to the fires of ignorant and hatred. She claims to seek rational and reasonable discourse, yet the angry tirades she continually goes on will only serve to invigorate uninformed individuals who think they know what they are talking about.

Hirsi Ali states at the beginning of the book that she won't subdivide Islam. This pretty much defeats her argument from the start. When speaking about a religion that is some fourteen hundred years old, arguably the world's single most diverse faith, how can you not subdivide? It is ignorant and uninformed to make such sweeping generalizations. When discussing the problems in Islamic doctrine, one simply CANNOT compare western Muslim communities in the oppressive Saudi regime, or radicalized groups such as ISIS or Boko Haram. Again, this is an example of Hirsi Ali contradicting herself, as she specifically draws attention to the fact that Islam is decentralized, with many different sects and groups, unlike an organization such as the Catholic church.

I think that Hirsi Ali believes such sweeping generalizations justified because of her personal experiences. I have not read her autobiographies (though I think I will in the future), but her tale is undoubtedly sad and, yes, many young Muslim girls are not afforded the opportunity to escape. Unfortunately, this leads to her book being incredibly tinted by her own anger, to the detriment of her rational arguments. She simply cannot seem to separate her own experiences from her argument, and thus she does not come across as the informed individual she purports to be.

Hirsi Ali claims this book is attempting to insight discussion within the Muslim community itself. I don't really see how she can reasonably hope to accomplish this goal. In terms of addressing western liberals, she hits her target audience. But given that she herself states that change can only come from within the community, how can crafting a western bestseller achieve this change? Everything about the book's surface appearance, from the title and author photo to it's inflammatory tone, seeks to make it a bestseller (I'm sure she's making a nice profit off of her crusade for change). Yet I can hardly see it being widely read in the middle east, where she argues change is needed, and where most of her anecdotal evidence comes from. Pissing off western lefties (such as myself) is a noble goal, but it's hardly going to get people in Pakistan and Iraq having serious discussions.

As I've said, she does have some good points. Talks about the problems with literal interpretation of the Quran, the prevalence of Sharia law in the middle east, the appeal of radical groups and the use of the religion as a political tool. These are all very serious issues, and I found myself agreeing with some of what she had to say on the subjects. If she had focused on these arguments rather than contradictory ones, as well as scaled back her personal rhetoric and been a bit more subtle with her cherry picking, the book might have been a success.

Directly comparing herself to Johnathan Swift in "A Modest Proposal" was, for me, the final nail in her coffin, as her writing continually falls short of Swift's informed intellect and wit. Hubris betrays her, as her self confidence is ultimately empty. I think this is the root of most of my problems with the book. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not as smart, nor revolutionary, as she thinks. Moreover, she is a disillusioned woman with a few good points, overshadowed by a condescending and, at times, whiny tone, complete with sweeping generalizations and contradictory arguments.

Boston Bombings and the Death Sentence

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s sentence. The infamous Boston Marathon Bomber was sentenced to death a few weeks ago, with the trial drawing a lot of the attention from the media and the public, as anyone who has turned on the TV or looked at the news over the last year will know. I always find myself feeling slightly uncomfortable watching coverage of these kinds of high profile trials for a number of reasons.

The media always loves a spectacle. The more terrible things in the world are, the happier FOX and CNN are. Some networks, of course, are worse in this regard than others, but even the most unbiased news networks enjoy a spectacle simply because their viewers enjoy one. It’s simple logic. We get endless reports about the heroics of the rescue services involved, stories from the survivors, and interviews with the teary eyed family members of the dead, speaking of how they can finally have peace now they’ve achieved justice.

Now, I’m being cynical, but it is an undeniable fact that the public, you and I included, feeds the cyclical nature of the news. Even now, only a few weeks after the sentencing, the amount of coverage has dropped drastically in lieu of other more pressing news stories, and it will remain this way until some other revelatory event happens. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his older brother, and their victims will be forgotten again by the bloodlusting public for a time. People react to these cases very emotionally, whether in anger at the act itself or elation at the sentence. Yet, as soon as it isn’t flashed in their faces every waking moment, the emotions slip their mind. I don’t blame people for this (the average individual has far too many worries on their hands to be concerned with the sentencing of some terrorist). However, the more I think about it, the more I find myself wondering: does this not lend a false air to their cries for justice?

The argument can probably be made in relation to any major news story from terrorist attacks to natural disasters, and I am not saying it’s ever going to change. However, surely if such emotive reactions were sincere then they would last a little longer, with more depth? I suppose this is beside the main point of this essay, which I am getting to, but I think it is very important to consider the manner in which we are affected by a sensationalist media, one that loves to stoke the fire.

And here, I reach the problem I set out to write about: Tsarnaev’s death sentence.

I am not a supporter of the death penalty and never will be. My reasons are long and varied, but they effectively boil down to a belief that the death sentence is institutionalized murder. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are some people out there who could not be rehabilitated, would waste taxpayer money in the prison system, and the world could generally do without. However, I think these people are surely few and far between, and it is impossible for a bureaucracy weed these individuals out. How can a society hope to uphold civil rule of law when its government is exempt from the same rules?

The media attention, people’s overly (empty?) emotional reactions, and my pre-ingrained biases in regards to the death penalty all combine to leave me incredibly uneasy over this case. I simply can’t help but feeling have not seen the results of a trial, but that of a witch hunt. Tsarnaev’s trial represents an entire nation in search of vindication. This is an incredibly dangerous president to set, and we see the same mentality in the biases present throughout the west concerning Muslims and Middle-Easterners.

Now, I’m all for patriotism and I am certainly all for justice. However, it is an incredibly slippery slope once we, the public and the government, begin making examples of certain individuals in the way that America seems to have done with Tsarnaev. This is a problem present throughout western nations, not just the United States; in Canada, as much as any other country, we are so brainwashed into a fear of the “terrorist threat” that we allow bills such as C-24 and C-51 to be passed.

As we have seen with the Tsarnaev trial, people are scared and they are angry; scared and angry people tend to lash out.

And, finally, I come back to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev himself. The boy was only nineteen at the time of the attacks, barely more than a kid. By all accounts, he was a caring, good natured kid, who idolized his older brother. He was not the mastermind in this plot, simply a pawn. This does not excuse his horrific actions, but it does provide some context for them. We’ve all been there: confused, young, alone, tired of constantly putting up a façade and hoping for a chance to do something meaningful with our lives. His older brother’s radicalization provided Dzhokhar an opportunity to do something meaningful, and, for better or worse, he took it.

I guess I’m just trying to say that evil acts do not make evil people. This was a confused – probably depressed and lonely – young man who was presented a way to do something meaningful. I don’t mean to say he should not be punished, but can’t we show at least a minute amount of compassion, the slightest bit of understanding?

Dzhokhar Tsarvaev’s sentence saddened me, but it did not surprise me. I’ve been trying to work out my thoughts in order to write this piece for a while now. I suppose I expected it, but hoped for a different outcome to the trial. Many people reading this (not that anyone actually reads this blog) will probably not understand where I’m coming from, so I was hesitant to voice my thoughts, lest I not articulate them clearly. These sorts of cases continually inspire a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality, that extends even to these at home discussions.

That said, I hope I’ve articulated my thoughts clearly. Anyone reading this, I’d be interested to know what you think! Message me on facebook or comment on here. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I value all kinds of feedback, and I love debate and discussion.

As always, thanks for taking the time to read my rambling!

Bill C-24

I recently found out about Bill C-24.

Here is a Globe and Mail article explaining Bill C-24, and here is the government's take on Bill C-24. Basically, it boils down to an increased ability on the part of the federal government to confiscate and restrict Canadian citizenship. Anyone holding duel citizenship and anyone who has emigrated from another country can have their rights stripped, with little to no oversight.

For anyone interested, here are a few other articles and links for information on C-24:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=832299 

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/4605503-immigration-experts-say-bill-c-24-discriminatory-and-weakens-citizenship/

https://bccla.org/2015/06/its-official-second-class-citizenship-goes-into-effect/

http://www.sfu.ca/education/cels/bilingual/bilingual-corner/bill-c-24.html 

This bill is, frankly, incredible. As someone who feels very strongly about certain issues and discussion points, immediately this raises red flags for me. However, I also have a personal stake in the discussion. My entire family holds duel citizenship and because of that we are "second class" citizens? My mother is Canadian, born a bread. My father has spent seventeen years married to a Canadian woman, and became a citizen himself last year. My sister and I have had duel citizenships since we were born. I've spent almost half my life in this country, and my sister even more than that.

And now the door is opened for us to potentially have our rights stripped?

Bill C-51 is bad enough, but C-24 is blatantly discriminatory and xenophobic in a way that has the potential to affect anyone in their day to day lives. For a country that was founded by immigrants and, to this day, advertises itself as a multicultural haven, Canada sure seems to be trying to wheedle out any kind of diversity in its population. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander defended the bill by saying that citizenship is a "privilege, not a right". This is a dangerous precedent to set, besides being downright wrong. If you are going to enfold someone into your country, it should be on an equal basis. If anything, make a firmer entry process, but once a person is in... that's it, there should not be potential for eviction.

I am a second class citizen, with the potential to be ejected from the country at a moment's notice, simply because I happened to be born on a different lump of rock on the other side of a giant puddle?

This bill disgusts me. Are people so brainwashed by the semi-mythical threat of terrorism that they actually buy into this? I could write a whole essay on my opinion about terrorism, but, effectively, it amounts to this... terrorism is not a threat to the average person. You and I aren't going to get blown up on our way to the Seven Eleven across the street. The average person--especially somewhere like Canada--is more likely to drown in their bathtub than be killed by "Jihadi Terrorists." We don't see any anti-bathtub laws, do we?

Okay, I'm being facetious. But the point stands that terrorism really is not a valid threat. With a few exceptions, there have been very few terrorist attacks against western nations, particularly in Canada, and the vast majority of those threats were home brewed. People are afraid of terrorism because that is how the media and the government tells them to be. A population in fear is far more submissive.

This is a link to a petition to try to stop Bill C-24. I am begging you, anyone who reads this post, please sign the petition. Not for me, but for yourselves, as people who believe in and are willing to uphold the principles of democracy, something the current government is simply failing to do.

"Future Library"

I heard about the Future Library a few months back, and thought it was quite an inspired idea. Basically, every year a different author is selected to write a manuscript that will be placed in a time capsule and opened in the year 2114; the manuscripts will remain unread by the public until they are all published in that year. One thousand trees have been planted near Oslo, near where the manuscripts are to be kept, and will provide the paper for the books to be printed on.

I think this idea is beautiful.

I tend to be a cynic who thinks the worst of people and human society in general, but the optimism in this idea strikes me quite profoundly. It assumes that humanity will still be around in a hundred years, in some form, and it assumes we will be in a state to publish books and reflect on what would, by then, be history.

The more I thought about it, the more I thought about the people involved. Margaret Atwood, the first author to be selected, will be long dead by the time anyone reads her book. She will never know what people think of her book, never see the reception it receives. The pioneer behind this idea, Katie Paterson, will--unless some kind of medical miracle happens between now and 2114--almost certainly also be dead by the time her idea comes to full fruition.

These individuals, and those who will become involved in the project over the years, are placing their hopes solely in the art they produce, ignoring the insignificance of their own lives and allowing their creations to exist in their own rights. In the end, the 100 manuscripts of the Future Library will function as a yardstick by which to measure the progression of human writing and expression, reflecting the society and species as a whole.

Though I usually cringe when I hear people say phrases like this, I think that the Future Library represents the best of humanity. It represents hope and optimism and it represents art existing beyond a single individual. The idea struck a pleasant chord in the heart of this hardened cynic.


Here's the future library's website and a Guardian article on the project.


As a side note, I feel obliged to mention that I have only ever read one Margret Atwood (gasp!) though I've had the Handmaid's Tale on my shelf for a while. I'll get to it at some point. It's also ironic that I'm listening to Radiohead's OK Computer as a write this post. The album is somewhat of a contrast to the optimistic nature of the Future Library.

Also forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes. It's been a long day.

Maybe soon I'll work up the courage to start telling people about this blog and I'll get some readers other than my family. I've been working on rewriting some of my old short stories to post on here, under the "Writing" section, though I'm deathly insecure about them. Most of my writing has only been read by a select few individuals.

Alcohol Art

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/amazing-photographs-alcoholic-drinks-under-microscope

This is really cool. I like alcohol, I like art. Alcohol to make art (and not in the way you think)? Fantastic.

Science is cool

Writing Excuses

So I've been listening to the Writing Excuses podcasts a lot recently. It's a really cool little series, only fifteen minutes long, where a couple of authors discuss their approach to various aspects of writing and the creative process. They are certainly geared towards genre fiction - fantasy and science fiction particularly - just given the background of the authors, but the tips they give about drafting, planning, structure, etcetera are universally useful.

I found about the podcast via reading Brandon Sanderson, who is rapidly becoming one of my favourite authors, but I am ashamed to admit I haven't read any of the other three podcasters' books. I've had one of Dan Wells' books on my shelf for a while but I haven't gotten around to reading it, and I hadn't even heard of Howard Taylor or Mary Robinette Kowal until a few weeks ago.

Even without knowing the authors' works, though, the podcasts are still very helpful and enjoyable. If you're a writer looking for some tips, give them a go!

http://www.writingexcuses.com/

Alberta Elections

This week is really big for me: my first election. Where my friends were excited for their eighteenth birthday because they could now legally do all the same things they were already doing illegally, I was excited for voting (sad, I know). I think this picture nicely sums up my feelings about being eighteen (also because feel like cat photos are the sort of thing you obliged to do on the internet).

Anyway, I've always had a fairly active interest in politics and current events, and I'm certainly very opinionated. Finally being able to actively participate is a really exciting prospect. Naturally, I swing towards the left end of the political spectrum and am, therefore, naturally inclined towards the NDP and the Liberal Party. Living in Alberta, this makes me a minority. I actually really dislike party politics, and I think that continuously voting for the same party because "that's what I've always done" is closed minded and is the sort of mentality that leads to a situation like we've had with the Progressive Conservatives.

I don't care who you are--whether you're Liberal, PC, NDP, or the goddamn Marijuana Party-- no party should be allowed to hold a majority government for 44 years, at a municipal, provincial, or federal level. This very election, and, indeed, Albertan mindset as a whole, is a prime example of the dangers of having one group in power for too long. The PCs have had the run of the place for so long, they feel absolutely no accountability. It is the height of arrogance to complain about a lack of money only to call an election that costs nearly $30 million, especially when polls show that nobody wanted it. This was a blatant attempt to monopolize on the troubles of the only half decent opposition, and pure dirty politics.

The fact that the election is coming back to bite them in the ass is quite satisfying. I'll admit, I was expecting another PC walk in the park. I expected people to complain to one another in their living rooms but, on election day, vote exactly the same "because they always have." No one thought the Wildrose would hold out as well as they have and nobody was even thinking about the NDP as a serious contender. But Prentice overestimated his strength, and I underestimated Albertans' level of frustration. I don't usually like to admit that I am wrong, but I gladly do so here.

The Herald wrote a good article on how this campaign came back to bite the PCs in the ass: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/sleep-walk-campaign-has-turned-into-a-fight-to-save-a-dynasty

I really, really hope that the NDP gets in. I really, really hope that the PCs are sent packing (I actually even thought about voting Wildrose for a while, when they looked like the front running "opposition"). As I said, I don't like party politics. I will vote where I find myself intellectually and philosophically aligning. This Tuesday, I'm voting for the first time, and I'm voting NDP. Even if they don't succeed in unseating the Conservative dynasty, I am at least fairly confident of a strong opposition.

I'll end with this picture. I think it sums things up quite nicely.

A Dance with Dragons

So I'm finally caught up with the Song of Ice and Fire books. While A Dance with Dragons certainly wasn't on par with A Storm of Swords, it absolutely was not as bad as fans would lead you to believe. Also, I'm sick of fans whining about the wait time between books. As Neil Gaiman said, George R.R. Martin is not our bitch. He doesn't owe us anything.

Here's my review for the fifth book in the series
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1257993405?book_show_action=false

First Post and Ex Machina

I've been agonizing  for a few days now over what my first post should be (months, if you count the time I spent procrastinating about actually setting up the blog). I'm usually a fairly quiet, understated person, and I do my best to go unnoticed. For this reason, having a blog does seem somewhat... counter intuitive. Why should people care what I have to say? Who is even going to read it? What would they think if they did?

Then it clicked. I realized it really didn't matter who read it. Why? Because, at least as of right now, there is nobody reading it! The only people who know about this page as of right now are my family (hi mom!).

They say dance like nobody's watching. I say write like nobody's reading. This is the only way to write. As with all art, writing must come from the heart. Write for yourself, whether you're writing fiction, poetry, essays, or blog posts.

Continuing on this tangent, I decided to share one of the best examples I've read recently of a writer following his own heart, breaking many a convention in the process. Jonathan Ball's Ex Machina examines the nature of fiction, dissecting the relationship between author and reader. Written in the manner of a choose-your-own-adventure, the book is a narrative poem of interconnected philosophical statements and rhetorical questions that act with the reader to create three separate stories. In Ball's book, the reader is as key to the creation of these stories as the author.

Admittedly, I found it very difficult to discern three distinct narratives. The book is short. I read the book cover to cover abut half a dozen times in one sitting, and found a different story each time. There are hundreds of ways to read Ex Machina. The end result is the same. Ball highlights the inherently contrived nature of fiction, by removing the human element. Deus Ex Machina translates from Greek to "god from the machine". Ex Machina removes the god, leaving us with the machine running rampant; we are given half the story, forced to act as god, fulfilling the missing link in order to create a story.

Ex Machina is an incredibly bizarre and unsettling reading experience, but a supremely satisfying one. In my opinion, anything that draws an emotional reaction in the reader, either good or bad, is a success in my mind. Ex Machina is a short book, one you could easily read several times in an afternoon. Seriously, give it a try. You'll thank me for it.

Hello

Hi there. I'm Cameron, 18, English major. I like reading, music, and poorly timed humour. I'm somewhat of an aspiring writer. I spend much of my free time writing fiction, and it is my goal to one day be a published author. This blog doesn't really have a specific direction; it's sort of just a way for me to air my thoughts and talk a lot about nothing. Expect lots of aimless commentaries on books, television, movies, and music. Maybe some current events, too.

Enjoy :)