Published Work

So for everyone who is interested in reading my creative writing, I recently had my first piece published (by an actual magazine, not just my blog!). This is a personal essay I originally wrote for a creative nonfiction class that I decided to submit for publication in Beautiful Minds Magazine. The piece is an incredibly personal recounting of my struggles with mental health, depicting a particularly dark moment. It was quite difficult to write about, and even more difficult to share.

You can read the piece here:
https://beautifulmindsmagazine.org/2016/07/17/i-cannot-repair/

Let me know what you think! I also want to take this moment to say that I really appreciate everyone who takes the time to read these rambling thoughts I write down. I do harbor dreams of someday making a living as a writer, so it's quite encouraging to know that people are interested in reading what I have to say. I appreciate the support.

As always, thank you for reading.

Cam

Standing up to Intolerance

I recently got into an argument on Facebook.

Yes, I know: pointless, right?

Actually, no. I’m going to suggest that arguing on Facebook is not pointless, at least in some circumstances.

The argument in question began with a response I made to a misquotation of Vladimir Putin shared by this particular person. The quote in question suggested that “minorities need the state but the state does not need minorities,” but after a little research I found that Putin never actually said the statement in question (though he has echoed similar sentiments at other times). The page that originally posted the quote was an American far right group.

Ah, the irony.

Usually I refrain from commenting on such things, as I do not think Facebook or any other social media is the medium for an informed debate. With my comment, I did not intend to change this person’s mind. I think this is a mistake people often make. I am not one to shy away from debates and arguments, particularly about certain subjects, and many people take this readiness as a constant desire to change the opinions of those I disagree with. This is not my intention. While I may not agree with certain views, I respect the right to hold them.

My intention is to foster conversation. I wish to understand why people hold their views and, moreover, I wish for them to understand why they hold their views. I understand that I am young, and I find that many dismiss my opinions out of hand as brash or naïve. In some cases, they are even correct. However, I have thought long and hard about most of my beliefs, and there are concrete reasons why I argue certain ones so vehemently. When I argue them, my goal is to challenge people to question their own biases, even if I do not change their stance.

So, back to the argument at hand. I made a comment on the original post pointing out the apparent nonexistence of the exact quote and the irony of a heavily right wing page quoting modern Russia’s throwback to the Soviet Union. The conversation quickly spiralled out of control expanding from the original issue of “minorities” to cover Islam, Sharia Law, immigration, and what exactly constitutes “racism.”

At times, the debate became somewhat heated. It didn’t exactly end well.

The next day, people asked me why I bothered to argue, especially over Facebook. Some people found it amusing and laughed at the two of us. Mutual friends would tell me that’s “just how she is,” and that I was “wasting my time.”

Sorry, but that is bullshit.

I’m not naïve enough to believe I will change the opinion of this person, or anyone else I might argue with, over the internet or otherwise. As I said earlier, I debate to make people think. Not just the person I am arguing with, but also the people who may be watching.

It’s easy, particularly on the internet, to sit back and ignore things that have no direct effect on us. We might not agree with certain opinions (racist or otherwise), but to actively argue against them takes a lot of effort and causes a lot of unnecessary friction. Best just to remain silent.

I dispute that notion.

Silence desensitizes us. When we remain silent, we are accepting their behaviour in our own mind. If we constantly see bigotry and do nothing but shake our heads and sigh, even that response becomes too much effort. Next, we don’t even notice the bigotry, and soon we are complying without even a thought of opposing, often actively engaging in it without realizing.

This is history and psychology. How do you think Hitler was so successful at getting an entire country to ignore the atrocities he committed?

Silence is acceptance. When one hears a bigoted remark and says nothing, the bigots are told that hatred and intolerance are socially acceptable attitudes. Do these people have a right to hold their beliefs? Yes. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are the cornerstone of all democracy. But having the right to a belief does not make it right. This is why it is crucial that we rally to dispute intolerant opinions: every time we remain silent, those voices become that much louder.

I’ve found that social media perpetuates this phenomenon. When information is easily packaged within a few lines of text with a flashy image next to it, few people go to the effort of fact checking or disputing negative opinions. The internet appeals to quick and easy answers, with little effort or thought.

Which brings me back to my original point: why I stand up against bigotry and intolerance even if I know I am never going to change the mind of the person I’m arguing with. Simply put, I don’t want to be another person who accepts that which I know is wrong. I want people to see me arguing, and see that opinions of ignorance and intolerance are not acceptable. It’s through silence and capitulation that we end up with Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, or geopolitical disasters such as Brexit.

Standing up for my beliefs isn’t easy. Often, I feel like I’m standing alone against a roomful of individuals. As a liberal living in Alberta, I often am.

But the issues I am talking about are not everyday politics, though we might like to think they are. I am not talking about taxes or fiscal policy, or even whether the government has the right to spy on us and monitor our communications.

I’m discussing issues that are, fundamentally, about human rights. I’m discussing discrimination based on race, sexuality, or countless other such excuses. All too often, many of us have a tendency to lump these issues into the humdrum of everyday politics, tying stances to political parties and speaking in abstractions. We forget that the discussion is about real people, many of whom have their very lives at stake.

I have no experience as the victim of discrimination. I do not understand what it is like to be profiled, judged, and hated based on the colour of my skin; I have never been forced to hold my tongue about my religious beliefs for fear of verbal or physical abuse. Many people are not so lucky.

The way I see it, that makes it all the more important that I stand up to intolerance. Yes, my life would be easier if I stood by quietly, shaking my head and doing little more. But the victims of discrimination, the people whose lives are destroyed by bigotry and intolerance, have no choice in the matter. Why should I have the option to remain silent?

We are all human. We all deserve a chance. I just happened to luck out as to which arbitrary borders I was born in and which particular pigments colour my skin. The same goes for just about anyone reading this piece. It is our responsibility to stand with those who don’t have the luxury of choosing their battles.

To those of you who tell me I shouldn’t bother arguing because “that’s just how they are,” I say no. As long as I see people supporting opinions that actively encourage discrimination and inequality, I will not stand idle. I will not sit silently when real people with real lives are at stake. If I can encourage even one person to reflect on their own views and maybe, just maybe, encourage them to stand with me, I will consider myself successful.

As always, thanks for reading!

Black Lives Matter because All Lives Matter

If a house is on fire and the firemen hose down that house, it doesn’t mean they care any less for the rest of the street; it means that the flames engulfing this particular house are a more pressing concern than the dry rot slowly eating the basement of its neighbour.

I can’t believe it needs saying, but Black Lives Matter because all lives matter. This particular group is getting attention right now because they need it. Just because we are focussing on the more pressing issue right now does not detract from other social issues, nor is the Black Lives Matter movement suggesting that we should not respect other ethnicities simply because the current focus is on aiding a group that is continually victimized.

The idea behind the All Lives Matter movement baffles me as much as the concept of “men’s rights” or “straight pride.” It is an undeniable fact that black people in America face discrimination that many other ethnicities (white or otherwise) do not. That isn’t to say that the trials other groups face are any less important. Rather, it is a matter of acuteness. With the recent high profile (but not out of the ordinary) killings of black men by police in America, and the equally horrific backlash against the officers in Dallas, this crisis has come to a head in ways reminiscent of the civil rights movement.

In light of the recent killings, I think there are two issues that need to be discussed. One is the obvious fact that black people are far more likely to be killed by police than white people, due to factors ranging from ignorance and profiling to outright racism. The other is the issue of police use of force.

This second issue is particularly intriguing, given that American police kill more people than any other western nation by a long shot.

Due to the nature of their society and the rigorous devotion many Americans have to the Second Amendment, it is understandable that cops in the U.S. face a different set of challenges from, say, the U.K., where guns are heavily restricted and the police go unarmed. However, even the gun-centric nature of American society doesn’t account for the disproportionate number of killings carried out by police. Indeed, simply calling the difference disproportionate is an understatement.

The Guardian’s database, The Counted, estimates that American police fatally shot the same number of people in the first 24 days of 2015 as British police shot in the past 24 years.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

In many instances, the use of lethal force is certainly justified, whether to protect the public or the officers themselves. And it is understandable that, sometimes, officers make mistakes. They are, after all, human beings. I have the utmost respect for anyone who goes into police work, putting their own bodies on the line to protect their communities. They see the worst of society: the mangled bodies of car crash victims, abused children, victims of sexual assault. I respect anyone who chooses to go into that line of work. I know I couldn’t.

However, that respect does not extend to a blind refusal to criticize.

In the United States, citizens that people trust to protect and defend them kill almost 100 people every month. Police officers in all countries need to be held to a higher standard. By allowing police officers to carry guns, we, as citizens (of America, Canada, or anywhere else), are giving the state the means to murder us. Policing is the only profession in which people are allowed to kill their fellow citizens as part of their job.

Isn’t it fair that we ask them to be damn sure they are justified in doing so?

Police need to be taught to think beyond the gun belt, especially when operating in places where a citizen can legally carry a concealed firearm with no ill intent. It must be ingrained into police officers that lethal force is a last resort, that drawing one’s gun is not the appropriate response for every kind of threat. Alternatives to firearms such as Tasers and pepper spray need to be used more consistently. Police officers must be taught to respond with equal force to that which they are facing, no more and no less. Officers need to constantly attempt to deescalate situations, resorting to the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves and the public.

This is not an easy thing. Police officers are trained to expect threats, and their reactions are often instinctual. Unfortunately, difficulty is not an excuse to avoid change. Despite the fact that most cops are generally decent people who do their job to the best of their abilities, continual efforts must be made to ensure that all cops are held to a higher standard. When mistakes are made, they can be, and often are, fatal.

The mistakes of police officers become all the more important when a specific minority group is disproportionately the victim in such incidents. As the state’s wielders of lethal force, police officers need to be trained to understand and avoid their own unconscious biases (and the biases of the society they represent). The fact that armed or unarmed black men are often the victims of excessive force is suggestive of that society’s wider tendency to profile and discriminate, and does not reflect the impartiality that police officers are supposed to exhibit. Police officers are who we look to for an example. They represent the laws we are all bound by. They must be the best of us.

I doubt that the killers of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were consciously racist, or that they intentionally murdered black men. They perceived threats to themselves and simply reacted as their training and unconscious biases dictated. Herein lies the issue: police in all countries, particularly America, must develop a standard that emphasises the reality of situations over perception. Tragedies like those of the past week must be avoided at all costs.

No system will ever be perfect, but perfection is what we must strive for; mistakes will always be made, but we cannot simply abandon trying to prevent them.

Police officers are human beings. Does that mean that easily preventable, often fatal, mistakes should be ignored? No. Police officers are our protectors and our examples, carrying the power to end our lives should it be necessary. These are heavy responsibilities. Is it so much to ask that only the strongest of us be allowed to bear those responsibilities? 

Odd fiction

So I recently wrote a piece of short fiction inspired by a conversation with a friend, where one of us said something about "living at the bottom of a cereal box." We sort of both paused and looked at one another, and then she said, "That would make a good story."

So I wrote a story about a child who lives at the bottom of a cereal box.

It's as bizarre as it sounds, but I'm inclined to think it isn't terrible, though it certainly isn't for everyone. It's very short, and doesn't have a conventional plot. However, I'd really love some feedback on this, so give it a quick read and let me know what you think :)

Untitled

This is a story about a child who lived at the bottom of a cereal box.

This child’s name is Samuel, and one can see from the start that Samuel’s story is hardly typical, not in the least because its conclusion has yet to be reached.

You see, most stories begin after the fact. They are a recounting of events past. Samuel’s story is ongoing, and shall be for quite some time.

Right this second, Samuel sits at the bottom of his cereal box. Where the cereal box is, he does not know. He has a vague understanding of where such items end up, but he can never be sure so long as he lives inside the box.

He remembers the children in the factory where he came from, his friends before they were packaged and placed in their own boxes. They always did wonder what would happen once they were placed in their boxes. Samuel remembers the stories they told about the big people who took the cereal boxes into their homes and would collect the children from their cardboard bottoms.

This frightens Samuel. He does not wish to be collected from the bottom of his cereal box. It is a simple, safe place. There is the occasional jostling and shaking, and sometimes he thinks he can hear voices coming from the other side of his box’s wall, but it is an otherwise peaceful existence. Some children are scared by their boxes, by the dark and the oppressive boundaries of their homes, longing for the freedom and possibility of the outside world. But not Samuel. Samuel is a simple fellow, and a simple life holds the most appeal to him.

Hence his fear.

What will he do when the day comes that his simple life is interrupted? He has never experienced the world before, and he would prefer to keep it that way. His friends in the factory always did tell stories of the outside world. Of course, none of them had ever experienced it firsthand; all cereal box children go straight from the confines of the factory to the safe darkness of their cereal boxes. Yet the fact remains that the world has always seemed to Samuel a scary place.

They say that some cereal box children find happiness in the world, when the big people free them into the light. Some big people cherish and love their cereal box children, embracing them and helping them face the terrifyingly boundless new world beyond their safe havens. This thought is intimidating, but it does not frighten Samuel.

What frightens him are the other stories he hears, of children being left and forgotten, stolen from the safety of their boxes only to be tossed aside when the big people grow bored. As Samuel now sits in his box, wondering if he can hear voices on the other side of his wall, he remembers these stories and fights back tears. He must be strong.

The balancing of safety with freedom is one of life’s great paradoxes. As comfortable as Samuel’s cereal box may be, it is indeed a prison. One cannot experience life from the confines of a cereal box, however cozy that box may be.

Samuel does not understand this truth. All that the poor cereal box child can understand is the fear as his world is shaken and voices come from above.

Will he be cherished, in the open world, he wonders? Will his big person care for him, or will he be discarded, as he has heard so many are?

He sees a light above, the outside world seeping in. Samuel is scared.

This is not the end of his story.

Only a page break.

Game of Thrones: The Finale

So now we’ve all had a few days to digest the game of thrones finale, I thought I’d share some thoughts on it. Warning for anyone who hasn’t watched it yet, spoilers are coming.

First thought: holy shit.

This episode was jam packed with far more than I expected. After the amazing “Battle of the Bastards” (arguably the best medieval battle ever seen on TV or film, and certainly the most realistic), I wasn’t sure how “The Winds of Winter” would hold up.

Somehow, the showrunners gave us a finale that not only wrapped up loose plot threads, but also gave us some truly epic moments.

First off, let’s begin with King’s Landing. As much as I despise Cersei, I have to hand it to her: we all underestimated her. The writers have been building up the presence of the wildfire for most of the season and they pulled off the scene in the most spectacular way possible. With excellent performances from Jonathan Pryce and Natalie Dormer, the viewer’s shock mirrors that of the characters as we all realize the depths to which Cersei will go to achieve her goals and get revenge.

I guess this is why they call it King's Landing...

Perhaps the best scene from King’s Landing dealt with the fallout of Cersei’s plan. The silent simplicity of Tommen’s suicide really hammered home the sick brutality of his mother’s actions. In the wake of all this destruction, I really hope Jaime finally comes to his senses and redeems himself by turning against his sister.

Speaking of siblings, the actions of the youngest surviving Stark sibling provided another fantastic scene. The death of Walder Frey, one of the show’s most viscerally sickening characters, was a suitably satisfying moments. Arya’s list is slowly getting shorter, and I can’t wait to see who she crosses off next. Villains of Westeros beware!

Hell yeah a girl is Arya Stark! 

This episode was chock full of such fan-service moments. Tyrion’s naming as Hand of the Queen was not exactly surprising, yet it was immensely rewarding. He is a character who’s had a really rough time of it, and it is quite heartwarming to see him finally get some recognition for all the work he’s done. From the start, Tyrion has grappled with prejudice and discrimination (largely from his family) despite the fact that he is probably the most intelligent character on the show. I’m glad he finally has some of the respect he deserves.

Now, perhaps (plot-wise) the most important moment of the episode was the conclusion of the Tower of Joy scene. We finally see the confirmation of the R+L=J fan theory. The importance of Jon’s parentage cannot be overstated, as his identity as both a Targaryen and a Stark gives him the most legitimate claim to the Iron Throne, even more so than Daenerys. Whether Jon wishes to take advantage of this claim (unlikely) or whether Bran is even able to tell anyone of his discovery (slightly less unlikely) remains to be seen.

The revelation of Jon’s parentage represents one of my only major criticisms of this season: book spoilers. For those who only watch the show, this isn’t a big deal. But for those of us who have read the books, it’s quite disappointing to have the gun jumped on these points that George R.R. Martin has spent decades developing, from Jon’s parentage to the true meaning of the word Hodor. Understandably, such revelations can’t really be helped, but that doesn’t make them any less disappointing.

My only other criticism of the episode (and the season) are two largely useless plotlines, one dealt with in this episode and the other not.

After nine episodes, we finally returned to Dorne and, again, I find myself wondering why this plot tangent is even in the show. The decision to kill Doran Martell seemed a poor move on the writers’ part when it happened, and it seems even more so now. Why did Doran need to die if they were just planning on subbing Ellaria Sand into his storyline? The treatment of Dorne has left me more confused than annoyed, because the choices made don’t seem to follow any discernable logic.

That being said, seeing the colourful Dornish spearmen marching alongside Daenerys is something I’m excited to see next season.

This season’s other tenuous plotline rests in the Iron Islands. Even in the books, the introduction of Euron Greyjoy and the Kingsmoot seemed to come out of left field; in the show, it just seems like an excuse to send Yara and Theon to Slaver’s Bay (now renamed Dragon’s Bay). Surely they could have come up with an easier way to engineer this? Doesn’t the fact that Yara and Theon stole all of his ships kind of makes Euron a lame duck? This is another instance where the writers attempt to address a secondary plotline yet have neither the time nor the space to do it justice.

"I don't care if he's a bastard: he's my king!"

Overall, however, the finale was a great end to another wonderful season. All the pieces are on the board and we’re rapidly hurtling towards what is sure to be an epic finale. The fact that we have to wait another ten months to see what happens next breaks my heart, but it’s sure to be worth it. For all its faults, Game of Thrones has earned (and continues to earn) its spot as the best show on television, just as Jon has earned the title of King in the North. Both have had their ups and downs, and they continue to make mistakes, but, in the end, we remain loyal, and the world is better off for it.

As always, thanks for reading J

Brexit and the Problem with Nationalism

“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” – Albert Einstein

Right now, the world is in a period of transition. The United States is losing its place as the world’s primary superpower, Russia is stirring up trouble again, and the Middle-East continues to be a seemingly unsolvable problem. Humans are on the move more than they ever have been before, many of them as refugees, and, the world over, economies are suffering as free market capitalism collapses under its own weight. Information travels faster than it ever has before, and people demand news that is ready made and easy to digest straight from their smartphones.

Considering all this, the Brexit debate doesn’t seem terribly surprising.

I’ve hated the term Brexit (“British Exit”) from the start, as it seems like a silly, trivial name for such an important issue. For those unaware, it refers to the referendum the UK will be having on June 23^rd to determine whether or not the country will remain in the European Union.

It surprises me that North American media outlets aren’t paying more attention to the referendum, given the possibly disastrous effects Britain’s withdrawal from the EU will inevitably have on the world. While the referendum debate might seem like a far-off issue for Britons and Europeans, the outcome will have real world consequences that will affect all of us. Considering the fact even the anticipation of a Brexit has a significant effect on the Canadian economy, it is well worth it for Canadians to be informed about the issue.

For the Brits reading this, I’m not going to argue Vote Leave is a con, or why Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage don’t give two shits about the working class. Brexiters are notoriously stubborn, and no amount of logic seems to convince them. Better people than me have tried.

What interests me is the origin of Brexit sentiments: why do intelligent people so staunchly (not to mention angrily) support a decision that would ultimately do nothing to benefit them? Each of Vote Leave’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked, from the absurd notion that an economically independent Britain would be more prosperous to the idea that Brussels is somehow to blame for the woes of the working class. It continually astounds me that intelligent people are campaigning to leave the EU.

As far as I can tell, Brexit, and other such nationalist movements, invariably begin with patriotism.

For all of my adult life, I have refused to call myself a patriot. I was born in the UK, but was raised in both Canada and Britain. I am a citizen of both countries, yet I don’t think of myself as either “British” or “Canadian.” My accent flip flops back and forth, and I consider both countries to be an intrinsic aspect of my identity. Perhaps it is because of this background that I refuse to identify myself as particularly belonging to either country.

 “Aren’t you proud to be British?” Canadians often ask me. “Aren’t you a Canadian now?” my British friends say.

Sure, I appreciate my British heritage as much as I appreciate Canada: the UK is a richly vibrant nation with a deep connection to its history, just as Canada is full of wonderful people, landscapes, and cultures.

Do either of these things make my homelands any better than the rest of the world? Do my Britishness or Canadianness make me intrinsically different from, say, a Frenchman or a German?

Hell no.

Human beings are the same wherever you go. In every nation, you’ll find good and bad people, a vast mix of privilege, class, and ideology. These things are a constant of human society, unaffected by the arbitrary borders and illusions of shared identity that form the abstract concept of “nationhood.” The particular manner in which these facets of humanity manifest is based more on circumstance and attitude than any facts of identity. In short, people are only different because they choose to be different based on race, religion, or, in this case, nationality.

While I respect those who are proud of their country, I also fear them. Patriotism is dangerous, fostering divisiveness and widening our divides, inevitably leading to nationalism and ultranationalism. We’re seeing the fallouts of seemingly benign patriotism right now in the rise of Donald Trump and the possibility of a Brexit on Thursday.

The world over, we are seeing people turn to nationalism, the big brother of patriotism, as the answer to what they perceive as their own powerlessness in the world. This is why Donald Trump is the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, and this is why Vote Leave has so much support. For once, people feel that they are being given a voice in issues that affect them.

Looking at Britain, it is easy to understand the desire to opt out of the EU. The economy is suffering and it is easy to blame those who are visibly “other” for the sorrows of the working class. The EU is an overly bureaucratic organization that seems to do little other than stifle Britain’s success as a country. Political parties like UKIP and news outlets like the Daily Mail stoke the fires of discontent by continually spouting off about the EU’s misuse of British money.

Are there problems with the EU? Yes, obviously. But all logic suggests that the UK is far off as a member than not. The arguments are vast and numerous (I’ll attach some further reading on why the EU should remain at the bottom).

Yet, despite the logic of Remain’s argument, people are unconvinced, and so many members of Britain’s working class see Brexit as the answer to their woes. Come Thursday, the referendum is anyone’s game.

Brexiters are thinking with their hearts and not with their heads. When Boris Johnson promises to make Britain great again, it’s understandable that people want to jump on the idea. Given that, for all its history, Britain has been a ruling force in the world, Brits don’t relish the idea of playing a bit part in a larger group.

Nevertheless, the facts are undeniable. This Thursday’s vote will not help people to “get their country back.” Britain will not reclaim the days of the Empire and become the great power it once was. There is no changing the fact that the sun has indeed set on the British Empire.

Intelligent people are being blinded by nationalist propaganda and rhetoric gone wild. A single referendum will not change Britain’s fortunes for the better. Rather, it is likely to do quite the opposite.

If Britain leaves, Europe will crumble as other restless states follow their lead. The continent could very likely slide backwards into the bickering group of schoolchildren it was prior to the Second World War, and international sentiment will turn against the United Kingdom for setting that ball rolling. Internally, the UK itself is also likely to crumble as Scotland and Northern Ireland hold onto a dying EU. Nationalist parties throughout the world will receive a propaganda boost, and the success of Brexit will encourage Donald Trump and his supporters as the US heads towards an election in November. We could even see a serious movement for an independent Texas, and, if that succeeds, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a revival of Western Canada’s campaign for independence.

There is nothing inherently wrong with patriotism. Pride in one’s country is not a bad thing. But people need to avoid making the mistake of thinking that divisive nationalist sentiments will drastically improve their quality of life.

For everyone voting in the Referendum, it might feel like you are taking back control, but you are not.  Because of circumstances, partly of my own doing, I am unable to vote as an expat in the Referendum, which I deeply regret. For everyone who is voting, please don’t make a mistake of historic proportions.

As always, thanks for reading!

Further reading on the referendum:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/english-working-class-victims-brexit-vote-false-patriotism?CMP=fb_gu

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/mood-ugly-mp-dead-jo-cox

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/10/no-single-market-access-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/president-trump-brexit-which-worse-britain-votes-leave-hammer-blow-peace?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/brexit-canada-impact-1.3643295

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36024492

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21700697-parochial-and-vacuous-britains-dismal-referendum-campaign-has-been-populists-dream-nigel

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700692-aftermath-vote-leave-european-union-will-depend-unpredictable-responses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8

Orlando Shootings

I wanted to write something about the shootings in Orlando, but I don't want to politicize it. People know my views, and I will continue to argue them vehemently. But now is not the time.

I've decided to share the diary entry I wrote yesterday about the incident, because it best captures my thoughts. Right now, we should be thinking about the victims and those who grieve for them. Forget the politics, forget why this happened. Forget what might come from this. For now, just think of the families. Because we'll all forget about them soon.

From my diary:

"There was a shooting in Florida last night. A man walked into a gay night club and gunned down fifty people.

Fifty people. Dead. For nothing. Hundreds of grieving family members, hundreds of survivors. People whose lives will no longer be the same.

I did not know these people, yet I cried. I continue to cry. Why? They were strangers to me. Their deaths have little effect on my life.

Why then do I feel this weight on my chest?

It isn’t because of the inevitable way the media will jump on it like sharks to blood. It isn’t because news agencies will milk the story until the next big tragedy, squeezing out every ounce of coverage before people lose interest.

It isn’t because of the politics, the futile calls for gun control, the fearmongering. The cynicism of the pundits, and the naïve hope that this single instance will change anything.

It isn’t even because of how heartless and empty we can all be, with our Facebook statuses and our prayers, retweeting and sharing only to forget as the world forgets and we all go back to our comfortable little lives.

I weep because still there are cell phones ringing in pools of blood.

Unanswered.

June 12th, 2016"