Thursday, 21 June 2018

Breaking Badly

No, this is not about the TV show.  It's about how the Republic of the United States is slowly destroying the lives of its people. Particularly those who are fleeing violence in their home countries only to be detained and have their children torn from them.  I could write pages about this, but my friend Norm Duguid beat me to it and posted the following on Facebook yesterday:

***

"Those who continue to claim that it's the parents' fault because they are breaking the law by entering the country between ports of call should pay heed to this case."

And let's be clear about the "illegal" immigrant side of things too. Someone had the audacity to tell me, "The children are not responsible for their parents' bad choices."

Which bad choices? Would that be the choice to get out of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, away from the gangs and violence? The choice to not let their children be killed by said gangs? The choice to not have their sons be forced into the gangs, or their daughters used as sex slaves by the gangs? The choice not to pay a "war tax" to the "maras" (gangs) which roam with impunity down there? Oh, wait, perhaps you're referring to the chronic malnutrition children suffer? Which "bad choices" might you be referring to?

Once again, my bile and disgust rise when people seem to think refugees and immigrants just suddenly decided to pack up one day and say, "what the hell, let's go leach off the United States, Canada, or Europe".

These are families and individuals faced with untenable choices. And people condescend with "They should come through legally."

No. These are not people accepting a research assignment contract for a couple of years and then moving back to their politically stable country. These are people in fear of their lives and the lives of their children. People who have seen families murdered, unspeakable atrocities committed, and have run out of any other options. There is no government agency who can help them. I would guarantee they would love to stay in their birth country, but to do so, would mean death.

Or people say, "Why should we take them, other countries don't. It just costs us money."

I say: "Who gives a steaming s*** what other countries do?"

If you can, without blinking, tell a family fleeing from a war zone, gang violence, government dictatorship, or certain death, to go back there and accept their fate - congratulations, you are not part of the human race and need to develop empathy, compassion, and sympathy. It must be nice to treat suffering as an abstract, because it is not happening to you, or your family, personally.

Yes, it costs money. Millions, maybe billions, to take in these people. You want to increase my taxes by 100 bucks a year to do it? Go for it. 200 bucks? Have at it. I'm not wealthy, but at least I will sleep knowing we did the right thing, not the politically expedient thing, not the popular thing, but the morally correct course of action in protecting fellow human beings from those who would prey upon them.

Or hearing yet again, "Bunch of Liberal bleeding hearts."

Far from being a "bleeding heart blah blah blah" thing to do, it's the strong thing to do. To protect those who cannot fight for themselves. You want weak willed? That would be people who simply turn them away without a second thought, NIMBY in action. People who hide behind, or invoke policies that are isolationist. People without the guts or toughness to say "We will spend the money, time, and resources to welcome you to a country where you are safe, where you and your children can thrive and grow."

Remember, by twist of fate, luck, or (ironically) immigration from a stable country, that is why we have the lives we have here. Our parents were lucky enough to be in a country where democracy resides, financial stability can be earned, opinions can be expressed and your religion can be practiced. All without the fear that doing any one of those things will get you tortured, or killed. Don't tell me you had a say in it. We all got incredibly lucky. And if you are the first generation born in a country with parents who came from that kind of terror, I would expect you would be at the front lines in all this. To do any less is moral duplicity. We should be extending hands, NOT closing doors.

What do we get in return? Nothing. This is not a sum total game. No one ever explained to Trump that sometimes you do things with absolutely no benefit to yourself. Things that might actually cost you, because for no other single reason, not to do so is to abdicate your humanity.

Actually, we do get something. We have saved lives. Kept families together. Given them the rare gift of hope and compassion. And statistically, these "immigrants" will contribute more, work harder, and actually engage in less crime than the average citizen.

So if you want to proselytize that Trump is being tough, I'm being naive, politics doesn't work that way...

Go f*** yourself and whatever ideology that lets you think ripping families apart is a viable option.


Monday, 14 May 2018

A Woman's Rights

Yes, I know it has been a long time since I've posted, so here we are.

Yesterday was Mother's Day in North America, a day where mothers are celebrated.

And yet the hypocrisy continues.

There are people in government positions who are working to limit women's rights.  Believe it or not, some of these are actually women themselves.

Historically, women have been overwhelmingly depicted in positions of subservience and often subject to grievous punishments for any transgression or behaviour that was not considered proper.  The Bible reads "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Genesis 3:16).  Homer's Odyssey contains a scene where a young man tells his mother to get back to her weaving because "speech will be the business of men" (Scroll 1, Line 7).  As recently as the 19th century, women who aborted their pregnancies were sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Even today, many women feel that they have to work twice as hard for the same amount of reward that men receive.  They are subject to judgment and harassment for their career and life choices.  Even their most basic right - to control their own bodies - has come under attack.  That's just in North America.  In Yemen, women are not allowed to leave their homes at all without male permission.  In Saudi Arabia, rape victims can be forced to marry their rapist.

The last time I checked, this was 2018 and not 1930.

In the movie The Color Purple there’s a scene where Oprah Winfrey’s character Sofia was practically ordered by the mayor’s wife to be her maid.  Sofia, being a headstrong and independent woman, responded “Hell, no!”  She was immediately surrounded and attacked by several townspeople, and when she pleaded for help from the (white) sheriff, he pistol whipped her and put her in prison – all because she defied convention.  The experience broke her.

I am a member of several abuse survivors’ groups on social media and the stories are heartbreaking.  From sexual assault to kidnapping and gang rape, most of these people have one thing in common: the authorities don’t listen to them when they try to bring their abusers to justice.  Instead they are blamed, shamed, and ignored.  Many have gone to trial only to see their abuser get a light sentence, or worse, walk free to offend again.  Some women have ended up running and living in fear for years.

I too am a survivor: I was subjected to constant teasing, insults, gaslighting, and demands for sex at unreasonable times.  Because of that I nearly lost my job, my self-respect, and my sanity.  However I never reported him because it would've been my word against his, and he had lied about the situation to everyone who would listen. When I tried to tell the truth to his family, they said "he wasn't raised that way" and disowned me.  It took many years before I finally made peace with myself about it.

Abuse victims deserve to be heard and have justice done.  Women deserve to not have to live in fear.  I've heard it said that vigilante justice should be legal, but the problem with that is that more innocent people could be caught in the crossfire.

Sadly, at the rate things are going, it will take a long time before true equality is a reality.

Sunday, 18 February 2018

The Gun Debate Again

The following post by a long-time friend of mine has been cross-posted from my Facebook wall.  It is in response to a claim that gun registration lists were used by the German Nazis to identify and disarm people who were seen as threats to the regime, and that the U.S. was planning to start doing the same.

*~*

Can I play too? In 1996, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Control Laws

Because it worked out really well there. See, here's why your argument, for lack of a better word, is nonsense. Hitler's endgame was a fascist state. Unless you are a strong believer in Infowars or Breitbart, I'm pretty sure the endgame of the United States is not fascist. 

And you're running a straw man argument as well. The rights of law abiding citizens are ALWAYS changing. You used to be able to drive without a seat belt, but they looked at the facts that seat belts saves lives. Boom, new law. Matter of fact, it works that way with the vast majority of safety laws.

Except, it seems, with guns.

A school bus gets hit at a train crossing, boom, 17 new state laws enacted to make sure it never happens again. Kinder Eggs might cause a choking hazard in small children, boom, you can't buy them in the USA. Lead paint causing brain damage? Boom, removed, done. Asbestos in schools? Boom, removed, done.

Seven weeks into 2018, there have been eight shootings at U.S. schools that have resulted in injury or death. Sorry, we can't do a thing because the God given right to own an inert tube of metal that can shoot projectiles at high volume and high speed trumps even the MERE idea that people should have to give any thought to perhaps control and license them, or Jesus tapdancing Christ, give them up. 

So can we stop with this irrelevant argument that somehow your gun rights are in ANY kind of danger? Tell me of ONE single law in the past decade that has infringed on your right to own pretty much any type of gun? You can't. So you should be happy.

No matter how many people are shot in any kind of gun violence, "thoughts and prayers" will be the ONLY thing that comes of it. There will never be any significant changes made to gun laws in the USA, because you are comfortable with children dying as long as no one messes with your "right" to own lethal weapons and play with them, dreaming of Steven Seagalian scenarios in which you are the last great patriot defending the Second Amendment from God knows what.

Friday, 22 December 2017

Doctor Who Spoilers

They've killed my Doctor.

I have been a fan of the British TV show Doctor Who for most of my life.  The title character of the Doctor is an alien from the planet Gallifrey.  One of his race's most well known attributes is the ability to "regenerate", which heals the body from grievous injuries with the side effect of changing the outward appearance.  (This conveniently allows the lead actor to change every few years without otherwise disrupting the show's continuity.)

Since the beginning of the series the Doctor has been a man.  His appearance, perceptions, and general attitudes have been undeniably male.  He has neither wanted to nor even mentioned that he had the capability of changing gender (in the classic series 1963-1996 at least).  Despite their regenerative abilities, it appeared that gender was hard-wired into Gallifreyan DNA.

The idea of Gallifreyans being able to change gender was floated in the past.  In fact, Sydney Newman, the co-creator of the show, suggested that a way to bolster flagging ratings in the 1980s was to put forth a female Doctor.  While Newman's vision didn't come to pass, writer Neil Gaiman and producer Stephen Moffat were open to it.

That resulted in a throwaway line in the 2011 episode The Doctor's Wife.  Near the beginning of the episode the Eleventh Doctor receives a communication from an old friend of his known as The Corsair:  "Fantastic bloke. He had that snake as a tattoo in every regeneration.  Didn't feel like himself unless he had the tattoo.  Or herself, a couple of times.  Ooh, she was a bad girl."

The fans' reaction was swift.  Blogger Sarah Pinault wrote in 2012:
"...to me, in my heart of hearts, this is not only utter nonsense, but is heresy! ... Unlike Jadzia Dax in Star Trek: DS9, who is a joined Trill, Time Lords are not symbiotic beings as the Trill are.  Time Lords have a definitive sex, though I'm sure that the frequent regenerations could leave some of them with gender issues as a result of tremendous life experience, and the confusion of regeneration itself."  She goes on to give evidence from throughout the series that stereotypes of gender exist for Gallifreyans.

Why Doctor Who can Cross Time and Space but Can Never Be a Woman

But as if the implication wasn't enough, the show went one step further during the 2015 episode "Hell Bent".  The Twelfth Doctor tasers a Gallifreyan general, who then regenerates from a male body into a female body.  Afterwards the general expresses relief at the change because she preferred the female form.

Doctor Who fans have long endured the uncertainty of each regeneration, but the concept of the Doctor regenerating into the opposite gender was practically verboten.  When the rumours began swirling about the next actor to play the Doctor following Peter Capaldi's departure, I went into denial.  I unfollowed everything that was related to Doctor Who; any details that managed to filter through I could hopefully dismiss until I saw the "regeneration episode" with my own eyes.

Eventually however, with so many web sites and vloggers talking about the upcoming changes to the series, I had to accept the inevitable.  And I hated it.  They'd killed him.  A character whom I had followed and loved for over 30 years had been rewritten to serve as a gimmick, a surrender to political correctness.  I felt bereft, as if I had lost a dear friend, and I have no doubt that many fans of the show feel the same way.

I find myself thinking of Beverly Crusher's words at the end of the Star Trek: TNG episode "The Host", after the symbiont of her male Trill lover has been tranferred to a female body.  "Perhaps it is a human failing; but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes.  I can't keep up.  How long will you have this host?  What would the next one be?  I can't live with that kind of uncertainty.  Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited."  Time will tell if this changed Doctor will still resonate with fans.

Already there are signs indicating that the show might be falling apart.  The BBC announced that Series 11 will be shortened to 10 episodes instead of the usual 12 or 13.  Plus it won't even begin until at least the autumn of 2018.

I doubt the Doctor's past selves would be happy with any of it.

Wednesday, 20 December 2017

More Jingles

I wrote a post last year about my favourite commercials from the 1970s and 1980s, many of which contained jingles that had stuck in my mind because they were catchy.  The frenetic pace of TV and online advertising today coupled with an ever-shortening attention span doesn't often allow the use of memorable images or tunes.

Listed here are some more influential and beloved commercials.

"Where's the Beef?" (1984)

Wendy's restaurants, facing huge competition from McDonalds and Burger King among others, created this commercial which claimed their burgers contained the most beef.  The ad had at least two sequels: one with the protagonist phoning the manager, and the other where the ladies were driving around town to various restaurants demanding an answer.

"California Raisins" (1986)

This claymation commercial (and its successors) was produced by Vinton Studios of Portland Oregon.  Advertising writer Seth Werner initially came up with the idea of dancing and singing raisins as a joke, but the commercial ended up becoming highly popular.

"Deal with the Devil" (1982)

For decades people have wondered how chocolate maker Cadbury has gotten the caramel inside the chocolate pockets of its Caramilk bar.  The mystery has inspired several commercials over the years but the one remembered best seems to be one where two businessmen try to pay the Devil to give the secret to them.

"Archaeological Discovery" (1985)

The 1980s were at the height of the soft-drink wars, none more bitter than between Coca-Cola and Pepsi.  This commercial features the insinuation that in the distant future there will only be one company left standing.

"He Likes It!" (1972)

This masterpiece by Life Cereal features two brothers who refuse to try a new cereal and move the bowl in front of their younger brother Mikey who "hates everything", only to be surprised when Mikey likes it.  The commercial remained in rotation for 12 years and won several awards.  In the mid-1980s there were sequels featuring the same actor who had played "Mikey" - now grown up.

"Budweiser Frogs" (1995)

Originally aired during the 1995 Super Bowl, this commercial eventually became considered as one of the best Super Bowl advertisements in history.  It inspired several parodies as well as a popular computer screen saver.  The director Gore Verbinski later went on to direct the first three Pirates of the Carribbean movies.