My Problem with Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Fair warning, this is one for the nerds (if you hadn’t already gotten that from the title).

When Disney gained the distribution rights to the Spider-Man character last year, I was quite torn about the web-slinger’s impending introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Simply put, I am not excited.

                                     

I don’t claim to be a superhero expert. I’m only loosely familiar with the comic books, and much of my Spider-Man knowledge is based off of the old cartoons. That being said, Spider-Man holds a special place in my heart, as he does with many people, young and old. Seeing the latest trailer for Captain America: Civil War and noting the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, I began to think more closely about why exactly I love the character so much.

Spider-Man is, arguably, Marvel Comics’ most successful creation. Since his introduction in 1962, he has entered popular consciousness more than any superhero except for perhaps DC’s Batman and Superman. He’s appeared in countless television shows and cartoons, three separate movie franchises, and innumerable action figures. There’s a Spider-Man ride at the Universal Studios theme park, and the character has appeared as a balloon in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Eminem once stated that he was one of his favourite superheroes.

But why is Spider-Man so popular? His powers, while incredibly cool, are not terribly original (strength and agility, flight-like abilities, projectile “weapons”); his costume is striking, yet objectively no more notable than any other colourful comic book heroes such as Iron Man or Wolverine.

Spider-Man’s success comes from the man behind the mask. Peter Parker is the quintessential high school nerd, bullied and lonely, an archetypal character who is incredibly relatable for so many readers. Whereas most other super hero alter-egos (Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, etc.) are confident – often famous or affluent – adults, Peter is a high school student struggling with all the normal challenges of adolescent life. Spider-Man was one of the first comic books to feature a teenager as the lead hero, which helped it to resonate with the primarily young adult audience. He dealt with real life issues – bullies, relationships, grades – in addition to his crime fighting escapades. Young people could see their own imperfections and insecurities reflected in a lead character who rises above them to become a hero.

In addition to his relatability, Peter’s motivations for becoming Spider-Man are simple yet compelling. When he first acquires his powers, he is largely concerned with using them to make money through wrestling. His reaction is immature, yet it reflects the innocently self-centered knee jerk response many adolescents might have when given the opportunity for quick cash. Likewise, when Peter ignores a fleeing burglar because it wasn’t “his problem,” the seemingly harmless selfishness resonates with the readership. Only when this burglar goes on to murder his Uncle Ben does Peter begin to mature into his abilities, realizing he could have (and should have) stopped the criminal and prevented the senseless death of his uncle. Like so many people as they grow up, Peter comes to realize that his choices have consequences. In this case, his choice not to act resulted in the death of the man he loved most. The effect that the tragic preventability of Ben’s death has on Peter is echoed in the signature line: “with great power, comes great responsibility.” If you can help others in any way, you should. This moral message has been a big part Spider-Man’s popularity, helping him to appeal to so many people for so long.

Which brings me back to my feelings about his joining the MCU. The franchise began in 2008 with the release of Iron Man, and most of the films are currently distributed by Disney. Up until recently, the studio was unable to include Spider-Man in the franchise as Sony held tight to the distribution rights for their own Amazing Spider-Man series. However, a deal made between the two companies last year has given Disney the ability to include the character in their films, hence his appearance in Civil War.

Introducing Spider-Man to an already well established (and quickly wearing out) franchise is a mistake, as it does not give the writers enough to room to flesh out the character’s backstory. Civil War has an ensemble cast that includes almost every major character to have appeared in the franchise up until now. It is simply impossible that Spider-Man will be given a fitting introduction when he is dwarfed by those around him. By throwing him in as an excess character simply because they can, Disney and Sony are sacrificing any chance of properly introducing his backstory and motivations. Consequently, they are sacrificing the richness of the character.

In general, reception to this latest trailer seems to have been strong. People like the decisions that have been made. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take all the Spider-Man I can get. But if there is going to be yet another incarnation of the character, I’d like to see it done right. I wasn’t a fan of Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man movies. As much as I love Andrew Garfield, I don’t think he was right for the role, and the films couldn’t seem to establish what sort of tone they were going for. Yet they at least attempted to include the moral backbone that makes the character so compelling.

A solo Spider-Man film in the MCU is slated for a 2017 release, but the damage will be done by then. The way the character is being introduced represents a blatant money-grab on the part of the studios. Everything about the marketing represents an attempt to get as many people through the box office as possible. I think this is a tragedy, as it compromises the rich appeal of the character.

As always, thanks for reading! Also, I've added an email bar to the side of my website, so if you would like to follow my posts, feel free to add your email address!

On Writer’s Block, Fear, and Insecurity

I’ve been struggling over the past few weeks to come up with the topic of my next blog post. I have a lot of ideas, yet I’ve found difficulty in getting those ideas to coalesce on the page. Whenever I start to write my thoughts down, I find my mind wandering and I’m unable to pin down the issue that previously seemed so clear in my mind. To compound this, I’m constantly distracted by school. With so many papers and readings occupying my mental energy, the temptation to watch Netflix or read trashy thriller novels is sometimes too much. This isn’t to say I’m not doing any writing at all; I’m simply not doing any productive creative writing.

So, today, when I sat down and found myself struggling to find a post topic for the third time this week, I realized I had my topic right in hand: writer’s block.

In many instances, writer’s block is simply a fancy way of saying procrastination – God knows how many times I’ve played Star Wars: Battlefront during times set aside for writing – but this sort of procrastination often originates with fear: fear of failure, fear that your ideas won’t amount to anything worthwhile. It’s disheartening to have a clear image in your head, only to find it unintelligible and poorly composed when put upon the page. Continuing to put time seems almost pointless when the spark of inspiration continually fails to form a tangible product.

I know this is something that any of my writer friends (not to mention artists, photographers, and any other “creators”) can relate to. It’s something we all go through, to varying degrees at one point or another. I’ve gone through many such periods. There have been weeks when I’ve consistently written two or three thousand words a day, only to have that followed by weeks or months of little or no writing at all. This is the nature of creativity. It’s a cycle, wherein the creative juices flow with ease or grind to a painful halt. Rarely is there a middle ground.

Insecurity is perhaps one of the biggest problems that writers contend with.  Often, it is the root cause of writer’s block. What if nobody ever reads your work? Or, worse still, what if people do read your work, only to decide they don’t like it? I think that this constant fear of inadequacy is what stops many writers in their tracks. I often find myself feeling that I am unworthy of the stories I try to tell. Surely there is someone who could do a better job writing my ideas, is there not? Are any of these ideas even original? What will people think?

As a writer, allowing yourself to consciously worry about these things is poisonous. Insecurity grows insidiously, and often starts with questions such as these. You have to simply write without worrying about the consequences. A professor I had last year perfectly summed up the approach I strive for in my writing: “Don’t ever worry about what your reader will think, because nine out of ten things you write will never be seen by anyone but you.” This really struck a chord with me, and thinking about it helps me to write for myself. As much as we would all like to be the next Stephen King or Margaret Atwood, most of us aren’t ever going to get a wide readership. Acknowledging this fact can be strangely comforting.

I’ve found that the key to overcoming writer’s block is to embrace the struggle. Use those fears to fuel new stories and new writing. Write about the insecurity you feel. Let it be a driving force.

During the times I’m not being as creatively productive, I attempt to keep my mind active. I read or reread my favourite books, I listen to a lot of music, and I ponder issues that are important to me. Even if these things do not directly inspire any writing, I’ll often find the ideas and emotions diffuse into later pieces, once the creative wheel has started rolling again. Even as I am not writing, I attempt to stockpile creativity for when I eventually get the ball rolling again.

I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic. There are many reasons for writer’s block and many different strategies for dealing with it. These are just some ideas I’ve come up with after some introspection and discussion with others. I think most of these ideas can apply across the board into all areas of creativity, and I encourage everyone to explore their creative side wherever and whenever they can. Who knows: you might even surprise yourself, just like I did with this blog post!

As always, thanks for reading!

Writing

I've added some new pieces of short fiction to the "Writing" section of this website. For anyone hasn't looked, this is the section where I post my creative writing. The pieces are arranged (mostly) in chronological order, and there are some that aren't too bad (if I do say so myself!). I welcome any and all feedback, and I'd really love it if you guys took a look, as I've worked really hard on them all!

Some Thoughts Concerning Social Media

When I got my first cell phone, back in the days of flip phones and actual number pads, I wasn’t allowed to text. My parents paid the bill, and texting was an unnecessary expense. The phone was for practicality; it was only after I started taking the bus to school on the other side of town that my parents agreed to buy me one.

As such, I was somewhat out of the digital communication loop. I never felt like I was missing out on much. I’m not a terribly social person, so it wasn’t exactly like I had many people that I would have texted in any case.

Even as I gained more friends and acquaintances, I was never as involved with social media as many other people my age. I set up a Facebook account when I was thirteen, specifically for the purpose of communicating with friends across the Atlantic. I always felt a sense of disdain at the frivolous status updates of my peers, the vanity behind an apparently incessant need to chronicle their lives. As cell phones became smarter and apps more frivolous, my disdain only continued to grow.

My first girlfriend was a Tumblr user. As the victim of abuse, estranged from her family, she was very focussed on the idea of healing and progress. For her, Tumblr was an outlet for the pain she had suffered. She was constantly sharing motivational images, declaring her refusal to “look back,” and posting the occasional tacky poem. It was therapeutic for her, somewhat like journaling, but I could never escape the feeling that her constant posts represented a fixation on the idea of healing, rather than the healing itself.

You see, this is my problem with social media. It prioritizes the idea of something over the thing itself. It seems to me that there is such an engrained consciousness, in so many people, of how they are going to share events in their lives that they end up detracting from the enjoyment of those events.

I went on a hike last summer with a few friends from work. It was great. We drove into the mountains and hiked for a couple of hours to some lakes nestled between two peaks. Along the way, we went off the trail and stopped at a waterfall to just sit for a while, admiring the view and letting the sound of the crashing water rush over us.

And, of course, capture the moment on our cell phones. Within a few hours, we had well over 200 images between us.

Now, I’m not saying that stopping to take photographs is a bad thing. I enjoy photography, and often take my camera on such adventures. For me, it only becomes a problem when preserving and enhancing the scenery becomes more important than experiencing it. Social media perpetuates this sort of behaviour that detracts from experience. When your nose is buried in a phone, checking filters and panorama settings, you can’t possibly experience the full beauty of a mountainside view, the raging power of a waterfall, or even the bitter cold of a winter wind.

Social media is based on a pretense of experience and the illusion of a perfect life. On social media, you can control your appearance. You can present the best possible you, cutting out all the bad bits. On social media, you don’t have to appear insecure. There are no blemishes, no blood sweat and tears, because you only present the best parts, not the drudgery in between. You create the illusion that your entire life is as perfect as your page shows.

As such, there seems to be a sort of competitiveness. Even if most social media users understand the inherently false nature of their medium, there is a subconscious yearning to feel better than their friends. It makes sense. If you are constantly scrolling through a wall of images presenting the best aspects of everyone’s lives, you’re bound to feel a sense of envy, a desire to match it. So, the cycle continues as you resort to the same cherry-picking and filtering in order to create the perfect veneer.

There’s an Instagram account that, I think, really highlights this phenomenon quite well. Socalitybarbie parodies the emptiness of so much social media. Posting images of herself in various “aesthetic” scenes (drinking coffee, eating ice cream, standing on a beach looking out into the horizon) socialitybarbie highlights the vanity of this kind of social media use by placing obviously staged photos of a plastic woman against backdrops of nature and tranquility. The effect would, perhaps, not be so poignant if not for the fact that you could pick any half dozen random Instagram accounts and find near identical photos. This sort of behaviour isn’t limited to Instagram; have a look at Facebook, Tumblr, or Snapchat, and you’ll see the exact same thing.

I don’t have a problem with social media in general. I think it is a wonderful tool that has revolutionized communication and free expression. We live in an age where people have more access to information than ever before. And I think that is fantastic.

However, I think we should be wary not to let social media dominate our experiences. Social media should be a tool for enhancing our lives, not the other way around. Don’t let getting the perfect photo for your aesthetic detract from experiencing the beauty around you; don’t feel the need to validate your life with a motivational meme or inspiring image.

Just live your life. You’ll find things a lot more joyful.

As always, thanks for reading! I know it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything on here but I do plan to get back into it regularly. Stay tuned!

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!