the path to enlightenment now comes in a plastic bag (2/10)

I spend most of the winter holiday season trying to enjoying the time off with my family and friends.  It's difficult for me because this is the time of year where the horrific consumerism of our world comes flying at everyone full throttle.  Every time I see a Hummer idling in the parking lot of a toy store I get a little nuts.  Not slash their tires nuts, but I certainly am not happy with the way things are.

The dream of a industrialized family seems to be unending comfort--being rich enough to worry about things that don't matter.  This time of year reminds me mostly of how immature and trivial people need to be in order to participate in consumerism.  The treadmill of always buying the latest version is shocking in its waste and unerring message that "if you really loved your family, you need to spend more money."  

Forget that.  As part of my UBBT, I am buying nothing new (besides the obvious exception of food and other things that don't come used--like underwear).  Now, I accidently bought something new around three weeks ago (I wasn't paying attention and thought I was buying it used, which is stupid of me), but otherwise have been good.  In conjunction with this, I am trying to cut severely down on my spending--because most of the crap we buy we neither need nor really want.  There is a gaping maw in all of us--call it ennui, malaise, or plain boredom.  Many just buy silly crap in order to distract themselves from an empty life.  But others lead a full life.  So kill your television, don't set foot in West Ed this season, spend time with your friends and practice your heart out because even I have figured out that's what matters.

Which leads me to my second living hero.  Thomas Pynchon is the author of several books, including my all time favourite: The Crying of Lot 49.  His works have been called 'hysterical realism' and are dense and complex as well as very funny.  While Lot 49 is a short, intense book, his most well known novel, Gravity's Rainbow is a sprawling epic of headache proportions.  He has won several prestigious awards, including the National Book award and nearly the Pulitzer (the jury unanimously recommended it but the Pulitzer board rejected them and no prize was awarded).  

He has also never accepted these awards in person--for the National Book award he hired a comedian to pretend to be him, it's pretty funny.  There are very few photos of him and he has pretty much avoided any contact with journalists for the past forty years.  I'm sure the guy is a bit shy and reclusive and I don't recommend this sort of life.  After all, he has the means to have a decent chunk of the world listen to him and chooses not to, which is a waste considering the power of ideas.  But there is something else in that reclusiveness.

In the primped up, self-important and overly romanticised world of literature, Pynchon rejects the glamour of being an author.  Now I could be wrong about this, he just might be shy but still have a shrine to himself in his house, but it at least seems like he doesn't want to win awards or go on talk shows, but rather write.  That's what I like and that's an important lesson.  Strut around telling everyone you've got a black, brown or whatever coloured belt and you will end up in trouble.  Get in a hissy fit because you think your martial art is the best (if you're curious what I mean, venture out on to the wasteland of the internet and see) and you will be contributing to some of the major problems facing the martial arts today.

But if you practice and never forget the love of just studying kung fu, if you can find as much enjoyment in countless reps of kempo as a flying spinning kick--then you'll have caught on to both my points. 

i bet the queen of england has no friends

My roommates have started reading this blog--so hello there roommates.  I wasn't comfortable with them doing so, it took a fair bit of persistence for them to get the address out of me.  In retrospect, I'm not entirely sure why I was so resistant to them reading this--it's hardly like I'm not proud of what I write here.

Firstly, I don't exactly like the idea of having a blog.  Most blogs are just self-absorbed navel gazing and I was worried that I would fall into that trap, thinking that for some reason the internet needs to hear about my day.  But snobbery aside, I feel somehow that my private and kung fu lives should be separate.  I'm perfectly willing to talk someone's ear off about kung fu or write a blog posting about philosophy or music I like, but it seems to me that somehow Graham (hey, guess what--that's my name) and Sifu Robertson are two different people.   

A good example of this is my heroes posting about Adam Morton.  One of my roommates noted that I didn't include any sort of criticism or cons about professor Morton, which is a good point.  Now, I doubt any students or black belts would have felt comfortable with that.  There's a supposition of authority as a black belt, I'm supposed to know what I'm talking about.  But to my friends, I'm just myself--free to make mistakes, etc.  Do my friends challenge me to improve by not knowing me thourgh my status/accomplishments?  Or by forefronting my position, does it carry a responsibility to blog the best I can?

Heh, I bet you were all expecting me to answer that question.

i'm pretending it's sunday so this counts as last week's entry

Lately I've been thinking a lot about unobservables, which is completely a noun. They're a hot topic in the philosophy of science, because it's actually kind of hard to tell whether some very tiny things exist.

Take neutrinos for instance, which are a type of particle that are streaming through your body right now with no effect. They in fact can go through a mile of lead without reacting to it. But they are involved in some stuff, such as solar flares. Detecting them involves (I'm not kidding) a gigantic vat of cleaning fluid buried underground becoming slightly radioactive over time.

But what if neutrinos don't exist and this indirect observation of them is caused by something else? It's perfectly plausible: since you can't just point to a neutrino, maybe they're imaginary. Now, one obvious answer is to point to the success of science at this sort of thing. Scientists are pretty good at predicting phenomena they can't observe--only to have it confirmed later when the technology advances.

Another argument is to simply ask why we should care if neutrinos exist. All we should talk about is if this theory is useful at making predictions and such. It doesn't matter, in a sense, what these unobservable things are. Those of you playing along at home might be thinking to yourself: "hmm, isn't there something at kung fu we can't observe, but prove through its effects?"

Well good job, rhetorical device! We have, of course, chi. I know some people are uncomfortable with, or at least sceptical of, the concept of a mysterious energy (characterised by some sources a breath) that pervades all living things and the earth. But the wacky stuff that many of us are capable of and the utterly mind-blowing feats performed by masters around the world should at least let you know that something is going on.

If you're not sure what it is and don't like that fact, just relax, maybe chi exists, or perhaps it's neutrinos that gives people strength without using their muscles. Point is, whatever causes these things is, well, causing it—so calling it chi can be seen as a handy marker.

Not a very funny entry. I'll try and liven it up:
Tom was brushing his teeth one morning when he bumped into the sink. "Oh no, I've knocked over my toothpaste!" He said, crestfallen.

oi oi oi vs iss iss iss

Hey, look at that: blogging on a Sunday. I feel like I should go get streamers or something.

So I was talking with my roommate when a mutual acquaintance was mentioned. "Hey," he said, "did you know she used to be a neo-nazi?" Those kinds of people do exist in this city. While their community is (thankfully) not thriving like it is in Calgary, they are around. Going to punk and hardcore shows I occasionally see white power types, though not so much anymore--I'll get back to that later.

Apparently this girl, who I might add is a very sweet and gentle person nowadays, doesn't like to mention her past. When my roommate was at the beach with her and several people she kept her shirt on over a swimsuit, only taking it off to go swimming and then putting it immediately back on. That's when he noticed she had a few...unsavory tattoos, including a 1488--which is connected to a very nasty pledge regarding white power (14 words, 88 letters). When he asked her about it, she blushed and said, basically, "I was 14 and influenced by the wrong people, and I've kept these as a reminder to think for myself".

I have a little theory that everyone is an idiot until they hit around 17 or 18. Myself, your mom and Neil Armstrong included. At 14 we are all obsessed with being liked and finding some identity we can call our own. If I had happened to hang around some older kids at 14, 'cool' ones who made me feel liked, perhaps I would've ended up with a swastika on my shoulder. But I didn't, even at around that age I at least had an idea about critical and positive thinking.

Now, my parents--what with all their good, um, parenting--obviously had a huge influence on me, but once you become a dumb teenager their advice doesn't seem that great, plus you hardly see them: you're at school, or a friend's, or holed up in your room. It's also important to note that it's not like I wasn't directly exposed to that sort of discourse like many kids. I decided it was a bad idea because of two things: kung fu and loud music.

I said before that I hardly see neo-nazis at hardcore shows anymore. Why? Because we forced them out, told them they weren't welcome. When they got violent (as racism is, fundamentally, violent) we stood our ground and let them know we were not afraid. We didn't accept that hatred and violence at our shows, especially because of the community's diversity. In conjunction with an group of people formerly known as the 780 Anti-Violence Coalition, the hardcore scene is now one of the safest and accepting musical communities in the city. Punk and hardcore are about empowerment, making your own choices. They're also about resistance, not accepting the status quo, such as the polite racism that pervades many aspects of modern society. The best way to do this, we feel, is to create safe spaces where people, usually young ones, can thrive.

Most kids who self-identify as punk, or even regularly listen to the genre, are not popular. It may be by choice or accident, but they aren't-- and when you're in high school and stupid it seems to matter, even a little. I know kids in the scene who come from dysfunctional homes, some bordering on horrific. There are a large section of teenagers who don't feel wanted and if they fall in with the wrong crowd they go along with it. Gang violence is essentially the same thing. But this music, through its lyrics, activism and communities tell a different story: one where things like racism can be overcome, or at least shut out. More importantly, it also communicates an empowerment, allowing people to become who they want to be.

At Silent River it was more explicit. Since I was thirteen I've gone to that place 2-4 times a week to be told that I can achieve any goal and make whatever of myself I want to as long as I follow through. I get to be around other people who are incredibly positive because they know the value of their kung fu. In essence, I get to see and experience self-determination in action: people thinking for themselves and deciding their lives.

Joe Strummer and Dave Weinberg taught me to never stop questioning or shut up, to never sit down just because someone told me to and to respect everyone. Master Brinker taught me to always move forward, learn from anyone I meet, and walk whichever walk I say I will.

Because of that I don't have any racist tattoos. Oh, plus I was terminally broke as a teenager, so even I had been a neo-nazi I probably couldn't have afforded it. The first reason is a little more inspiring.

(anyone who knows who dave weinburg is without resorting to google gets 5000 graham points--save up a million and you can redeem them for a pony)

so unspooky

I posted this over at Silent River's digital Kwoon, then forget to paste it here. Whoops. Keep in mind this was supposed to be on Friday.

---------------------

I just remembered it was hallowe'en. I definitely knew this morning because I saw some people in costume, but the fact that I can get so absorbed in my studies in the span of 4 hours I forget is quite something.

Schoolwork over that past two weeks has been different. I've always worked fairly hard, but the decision to go to grad school has given me new found purpose. For the past two weeks, when I wasn't at kung fu I was studying at school, usually only coming home at 10 o'clock. But I feel so energised. When I'm slacking off is actually when I feel less relaxed, because I know I have no reason for it. But just losing myself in the things that interest me most, especially when I do it with focus and direction, gives me this deep sense of satisfaction that makes me appreciate what I can do.

This has got to be one of the most positive blog entries I've done. I should try balancing it out.

...after a few minutes on google I found a website called 'The Saddest Thing', where people submit things that are really sad. Go find it, read the top ten, then thank me for RUINING YOUR WEEK.

if anyone is wondering, i have the final answer to everything. you'll have to earn it though.

A friend of mine, who is an atheist, was recently bemoaning the fact that there are many people now who can be called 'atheistic followers'--just as closed minded and hostile as feels some fundamentalists are. He told me that he had always considered 'free-thinking' an atheistic quality, but now saw that there are, to put it simply, good people and jerks on both sides. He then jokingly said how he needed a new way to divide the world with him on the good side.

It got me thinking about how there is no truly satisfying way to do it. The problem is that people are never just one thing: there are fun, open minded people who are jerks; boring, ignorant types who are smart and nice, etc. etc.

I don't really see the point, myself, in trying to search for a quality to value above others. I think that people are a mix of contradictions, values, tastes and often enough, bad ideas. Just take people as they come, I say. I mean, I wouldn't want to hang out with a neo-nazi, that's obvious. But perhaps they still have something to say that could make me think--even if I passionately disagree with it. Seeing them as only ridiculous means that I commit the error of thinking I'm better than them, that I'm part of some elect group that really knows what's best. That sort of thinking is what lead to eugenics.

Point is, no matter what it is you don't like people to be: stupid, mean, ignorant, too nice, right-wing, left-wing, pro life, pro choice, feminist, misogynist, whatever. They're not going away. Yet many people (especially in the states) seem to think that if they happen to win a shouting match then their opponent will just burst into flames. Michael Moore and Bill O'Reily are the two best examples.

Master Brinker always tells me that to shove an idea someone's throat, you have to get them to open their mouth first. To change someone's mind is not to batter it until they submit, but help see the value and reason of your position. Furthermore, maybe the best idea isn't to change people's minds, but make sure they think about why they hold to something and encourage them to use empathy in order to entertain other positions.

Or we could all just kill each other. Whichever works best for everyone.

In other news, it has been a long week. I'm a little behind but that's what the weekend is for. I find it hardest to practice when my mind is tired. My body I can pull along pretty much under any circumstance, but after a paper that makes it feel like my brain has been deep fried all I want to do is stare at a wall. I can still do that during pushups, I guess. Anyhow, back to work.

beards and glasses everywhere--(1/10)

So I spent the weekend at the Western Canadian Philosophical Association annual conference, held conveniently right here. It was a fantastic time and occasionally over my head, but hey--I think I learned more in three days than over the past two months of school. I'm not going to get into many details because, well, most of you will find them boring. A while ago I wouldn't have recognized that and would've gone into a little story about contrastivism, I guess I'm growing.

Ok, now I have to at least sketch out what contrastivism is because I'm no fan of cliffhangers. It's the statement 'S knows p rather than q' as opposed to 'S knows p'. Basically, it's a claim that all knowledge is in relation to what it's not. So when I look at water, I know it's water because it's not cola.

This stuff is fun once you get into it.

Two things have happened as a result. Firstly, I've gotten off the fence and decided that, after China, I will go to grad school and become a philosophy professor. It feels nice to finally have made a decision about the direction of my life and while there will be a lot of work, the best of life requires it. Plus I already have a beard to stroke while pondering.

Side note: so many beards. At least half of the men there had one.

Secondly, I was also inspired to start my living heroes project with one of the few heroes that I've actually met. So here's Adam Morton.

Morton is a professor of philosophy at the University of Alberta. Before that he taught at Bristol and received his Phd from Princeton. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (a big deal), chairs the Canada Research Council on Epistemology (another big deal) and is a past president of the Aristotelian Society (a huge deal). The man even has his own Wikipedia page, much harder than it seems. Point is, he carries a large stick in modern philosophy and I'm fairly certain he's the cleverest man I've ever met.

Now, I said cleverest, not smartest. While I'm sure he's way up there in terms of IQ, what always impresses me more is his razor sharp logical facility and unending thirst for knowledge. He didn't present any papers at the conference, but instead was content to sit and learn.

Being in his sixties and with the reputation he does have, Professor Morton could easily rest on his laurels. Yet he is still publishing papers and writing books. I've only taken one class from him way back in my first year, but I've never forgotten his incredible thirst for knowledge and the sheer delight he takes in teaching and researching the same subject he has been for thirty or forty years. The awe and humility he approaches philosophy reminds me of how Master Brinker always insists (and exemplifies) that we should never get tired of kung fu and also never stop having fun with it.

He's also legendarily absent minded, probably because he has so much to think about. Plus the guy can unicycle, how cool is that?

Super cool, for those of you wondering.

dead (broken (dead)) robots littered on the ground, silicon a poor substitue for gore

My computer is dead. It lasted an impressively long time considering how many times it was dropped or knocked off my desk by a dog. Ah well, such is life. I still have ready access to a computer through school, but I'll probably only be on when I have to do some work. I have no plans to get another one. Sorry, I do have plans to get another one, just no money.

The reason I'm telling you all this is that as a result my kwoon talk/SRKF sifus postings and my email reponses will be at a snail's pace. Please don't take it for indifferance.

So I'm back

...though I would say I never really left. I have a paper journal full of entries from the past 5 months, so there. So why did I leave and why am once again posting here? I'll answer the latter later. That just rolls of the tongue: latter later.

Honesty is the best policy (though Woody Allen once pointed out that implies dishonesty is the second best policy) so I'll be straight: I'm publicly journaling again because I have to. Under Master Brinker, myself and several other black belts are student members in something called the Ultimate Black Belt Test, which is going to last until February 2010. Looking at the end date, I just realized how far in the future that is. 2010! If there hasn't been a robot uprising by then I'll be sorely disappointed.

I had a point, at one point. It was that as part of the UBBT I have to publicly journal once a week, most likely Sundays. I missed last week--here I am making it up. Now, just because my hand is being forced doesn't mean this won't be a positive thing. In fact, I'm pretty happy I got this kick in the pants to blog again.

I stopped blogging because my re-reading my posts annoyed me. As many of you know, I have a lot to say...er, write. Whatever. But this little slice of tube was a soapbox a mile high. I got sick of ranting instead of saying something. That's not a failing of the medium, it's of me. After all, it's easy to write an essay on how important DIY ethics are. They're everywhere here. What's hard is to convince people why they should care. I'm not even going to do that, though. I'm coming at you all sideways by doing something I hate: talking about my life, referencing all this boring social/philosophical stuff in how it relates to day to day stuff. It'll probably just little bits, but who knows, I may confess to some horrible crime on here--wouldn't you hate to miss that?

So stay tuned: bat channel, bat time and so forth.

so i have internet again

Actually, I've had it since the weekend, but I've been busy. You know how it is. Hurray for posting again!

What a day to do so, seeing as it's Bloggers Unite day (one would think I plan for these fantastic coincidences). Basically, bloggers all over the world are uniting to discuss one of several topics pertaining to human rights. This is a fantastic show of solidarity, as hundreds of thousands of bloggers and others today are talking and letting themselves be heard. Now, I'm tired and still have some exercises to do before I can sleep, so expect a longer post later about blogging/journaling as a whole, for now I'll just give an opinion.

Before I start that I just want to point out how much any word that is a derivative of 'blog' eats away at my brain. I can tolerate blogger but anyone saying 'blogosphere' within a 50 foot radius of me will get to see a real, live mental breakdown.

The topic I chose is the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. Most of you know the facts, if you want Amnesty's take on it check it out here. The story is everywhere on the net, so I won't go into detail about the alleged torture, sexual and mental degradation, and horrific conditions. I'll keep it simple: if you do not treat your enemies with respect then you're simply warring, not protecting people. If you subvert the very laws you allege that this 'struggle' is about, then they are worthless. Tear it down. It isn't our country but it is our world.

One of the major sticking points is Omar Khadr, a Canadian Afghani who was 15 years old (along with 3 other under 18 soldiers) when he was taken into custody 6 years ago. There is also a severe lack of evidence that he killed an American medic during a firefight, which is his charge. Yet Canada has not secured his release. We are the only industrialized nation which has not done so for prisoners with respective citizenship. That is a disgrace, so call or write someone who depends on your votes and tell them. Most of all, let none of us forget that those prisoners are human beings and should be treated as such.

i've got a secret for you: no truths

This was originally posted on Kwoon Talk, for posterity's sake I'm putting it up here as well. A movie came out in 2006 called "The Secret". It's a lazy piece of filmmaking that teaches further laziness. Here's why.

This purported 'secret', the 'Law of Attraction'
that has been kicking around for the past 30 years or so, is nothing
more than the quick-fix material culture packaged as spiritual
wisdom. For those of you who haven't watched the movie, the tenet is
that 'like attracts like'--if you think positive, good things will
happen to you. You want that promotion? Visualize it, believe it
will happen, and poof! There you are. The movie even claims it will
cure serious illness. The three steps are "ask, believe, receive".
In other words if you want something: wish for it, believe it will
happen, and then it will.

First off, if you have cancer, chemotherapy will do much more for it.
All the evidence around this 'law' is anecdotal, which means that even
if it were true, due to the positive self-selection effect this method
is on par with random chance. There is also some pseudo-scientific
mumbo jumbo about how it is based on quantum physics. This is so far
off base it makes my head hurt.

In addition, the movie puts forward that the law of attraction has
been suppressed by those in power (hence the movie title) , but there
have been 'secret teachers' throughout the ages who have achieved
success and in fact taught this. Some examples are Plato, Carl Jung,
Siddhartha Buddha, Issac Newton and Aristotle--who did not teach this
in any way, shape or form. They also take a Winston Churchill quote
out of context which makes him look like he supports such theories,
when in fact he's calling it nonsense. Oh, and apparently Beethoven--
an incredibly short tempered man who battled depression for most of
his life--was all about the positive thinking.

Like I said, I have no problem with positive thinking. But that is a
tool to help you go about achieving your goals. What this sort of
thinking does is tries to portray everything as so easy. In doing so
it places the blame of circumstance on the person. The 2 or so
billion people who don't get enough to eat every day? Why, they're
just not wishing hard enough! I also find it curious how the film is
so focused on material goods--probably due to the target demographic.
The numerous movers and shakers in history are mentioned for a very
specific reason, to take the blame of self off the person. I'm sure all Victor Hugo did was wish hard enough and believe that it would happen, then sat back and Les Miserables just popped out of nowhere. No thousands of hours of frustration and hard work. No doubt and confusion--it just went along easily with no troubles because he assumed it would. Ridiculous.

True positive thinking is extremely important, but doesn't ignore
reality. It also isn't lazy. You can believe all you want, but don't
put the work in and don't have the conviction of purpose, it won't
happen. Anything that promises a shortcut like this is a lie. Even
worse, it's a lie that people think they can get away with because
they assume those listening aren't going to bother trying something
significant. It takes the onus off the individual to actually do
something. No wonder I gave up the cello and now can't play like Yo-
Yo Ma, some person probably said to themselves, I didn't have this
secret. It had nothing to do with hard work or desire for excellence!

In life, sometimes you will be sad, other times happy. Nothing will
change that. Furthermore, if something is worth doing, it will be
hard and will take a long time. Along the way, at times, you will
have doubts and feel bad about yourself. Everyone does. But it's not
mindless, blissful ignorance of that reality that will see you
through. It is the knowledge that what you're doing is worth it and
the confidence that you can see it through. Assuming that blind hope
will make all your problems go away just sets you up for a bad fall.
Instead of believing that the cosmos will arrange everything so you
can just glide through life, believe in yourself and then prove it.

your pretty plastic skin, meant to look like porcelain, shines with the congealed grease of leftover dollars

So there has been a lot of talk about Dove's 'campaign for real beauty' and how laudable it is for taking a stand against portrayal of women in the media. I couldn't disagree more. I think that campaign is one of the worst things to happen to discussion of the female image in the past decade.

Portrayal of physical attributes (of both sexes) is a serious issue, especially with the rise of eating disorders. For instance, recent statistics suggest that France has upwards of 40,000 anorexics, most of them under 25. But encouraging people to be skinny is not the issue. If the standard of beauty was people who were overweight--like it is in some central African countries--then we would have teenage girls overeating to get towards that. Fashions in body types change almost every decade. Furthermore, people have individual tastes towards certain physical attributes. What I find attractive in a women will be markedly different from the next guy (or girl, if she's 10-20% of the population). While of course we should push for appreciation of the qualities that matter, physical attributes do exist, and outside of social constructions people will still have tastes--though they should be more divergent than we see now.

The real issue I have with advertisers is not they are encouraging a certain body type, it is that they are turning our bodies into products. It doesn't matter what body type they're pushing, it is simply the fact that they are constructing a standard which they can sell. We are being sold our bodies--being taught they are products, end results as opposed to constantly fluctuating processes. Own ownership of our own physical identity has been stolen.

So any beauty company is damaging because of that. Dove is even worse, the lowest of the low, because it doing more than the skinny models in magazines. Dove is not only making the body a product, but also politics. Critique of body identity, mostly pushed by feminist thinkers, has exploded in the past 30 or 40 years, and is reaching a fever pitch. So what does Dove do when this glimmer of independent thought begins to take shape, threating the very modes of thinking the company is based on? They peddle their stuff based on it! The people of Dove are not trying to redefine beauty, they're trying to get you to buy stuff by creating a false image that is palatable to your politics.

Here is a quick survey of the different types of products (usually 5-10 individual ones in each category) I found on the Dove website: day creams, night creams, cleaners, cleansing cloths, shower soaps, hand soaps, shower gels, facial masks, facial toners, body oils, hand oils, body lotions, facial lotions, hand lotions, and a shampoo for every conceivable type of hair. That sure looks like 'real beauty' to me. Empty wallets, too. If Dove really cared about redefining the standard of beauty to one more resembling reality it would have shut down by now.

Now, I'm not saying to not shower or get your hair cut. What I am saying is that to not think for a second that shopping at Dove does your part for the actual battle for physical identity. All it does is make that company money. Boycott these anti-aging wrinkle cream pushers--not just Dove, all of them. There are plenty of products out there that will make you smell nice and your skin soft without turning you into a patsy. Don't let yourself be lulled into a false sense of accomplishment while ignoring the real issue.

Anyone trying to sell you something is not on your side, simple as that. That includes products, religions, politics, and lifestyles. I'm not even on your side, I'm tying to make you come around to my way of thinking. It's even worse, though, when a company using a false image of social change to sell you things you don't need that contributes to the problem. Buying into Dove's lies only makes this problem worse.

As Desmond Tutu said, "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." Redefining the standard of beauty is not going to solve anything. We need to do away with the very notion that there is one beauty to move towards, and the first step is to make the people and companies who profit off of that fade away. Doing so will tear down a wall that has been put up by these people and one that has been standing far too long: the barrier between us and our bodies.

this one is probably too grave for an ironic title...too late!

So Sifu Edge has put forward an interesting question on Kwoon Talk about changing the world. You should go read the whole post, and if you don't know what Kwoon Talk is, I am shocked someone not from Silent River is reading this. How's life in the blogosphere? Is it irrelevant? It sure seems that way.

Basically, she sees a dilemma in how to live her life. Should she work to make the world a better place, or spend her time enjoying her life?

I'm going to be a real jerk and answer that question with an old story, one of my favourites. Those who have read Pirsig (which is many of you) will remember it. The famed zen master Joshu was walking along with a friend of his, who turned and asked "Can a dog attain Buddha-nature [enlightenment]?" Without breaking stride or even looking over, Joshu replied "Mu."

'Mu' is a Japanese term which roughly translates as 'neither yes nor no'. It means that the possible answers do not fit the question. That's exactly what I'm doing here. I'm muing. Mooo.

The way I see it, you work hard, do what you can, then go relax with your friends. People manage to combine work, school, hobbies, families, and friends--why should your outlook change that?

But at first glance it does appear to be a valid question. This is because there is another one implicit in this dilemma: can one really change the world? Or to put it another way: who's problems can be solved, mine or the world's?

It does seem like in order to go along that path, you can never really relax. You should always be thinking of the next issue, you should be too busy protesting to hang out. In all honesty, it can easily be a full time job. I spend a fair chunk of time just trying to stay on top of what's going on in the world, then I have to invest more time into trying to do something about it. That's the depressing part of all this. I could go out tomorrow and eradicate HIV, but there would still be a million other problems plaguing the world. There are so many horrible things occurring at this very second it seems like there is no point. Why bother trying to make a difference when you have all these things going on in your life?

I need to stress again that it doesn't have to hijack your existence. The outlook itself will do wonders, especially if you do your best to exemplify it. Yes, you will be inconvenienced, you will spend more money buying locally grown organic produce (that doesn't mean Planet Organic), no matter how much respect you treat those who disagree with you some will not give that back and that will depress you. All that has happened to me, and more. I spend a lot of my time thinking about problems and trying to help solve them. I belong to several organizations and donate time to some of them. But I still have a life, I still have friends and go on dates (well, not many of those--that's another issue though). Yes, I don't sit on the couch and watch tv or play video games all evening, but that's not something I miss. I do what I do because it's important and it does not come at a sacrifice to who I am.

We will not reach a utopia, ever. Simple as that. More than likely for a long time we will be in a society that necessitates a significant portion of the population to live badly. More than likely blind loyalty will still be masked as a virtue and many people will die for no good reason. Barack Obama, in his excellent speech on race relations, touched on this. He said he realized that one presidential term will not do away with racism, but it doesn't mean one shouldn't try. He said that his nation will never be perfect, but it can be perfected. That's true about the whole world. I know that I'm not able to tear down society and start all over again. I can push it in a good direction though--inch towards not a better future, but a better now.

The power of the individual is what matters, people getting together and deciding they've had enough have caused more drastic change than all the governments in history. We need to realize that we can make a difference, even just for one person. Need an example? Go to Free Rice, a simple vocabulary game that through sponsorship of advertisers donates rice to the UN world food program. Play that for 5 or 10 minutes and someone can eat for a day because of you. You are literally saving people from starving to death. There, that's change. Next time you discuss politics try and get to the heart of real issues, treat everyone with respect and genuinely present your views. Bit by bit a few people will start to care.

We don't need a few people ignoring their lives to sit and worry about the future, making grand statements about how things will be better. We need everyone to do at least a bit to make things better for everyone right now. Don't listen to people pointing at the sunset, listen to those pointing at the ground. Work towards now, helping those in need and challenging apathy. Make it part of your life and you won't have to give up anything for it. If you do that, keep the small victories in mind and help things inch along, more good than you can imagine will happen.

i'm chalking that last one up to april fool's

The 50's/50s issue keeps popping up in the course of my daily life. I keep going around in circles with it, all the while telling myself it actually couldn't matter any less. I in fact just deleted a long, extremely nerdy paragraph about the place syntax has in language. Writing it helped me decide that the possessive is a rhetorical device referencing the non-possessive 'occurrence' meaning, so while they're not completley equivalent, neither trumps the other.

That was the interesting version. Be glad I try to curb myself.

I actually want to talk about this article. That's right, Net Neutrality has come to Canada in a very bad way. Bell and Roger's (especially Bell) are now choke holding certain venues on the internet by controlling the transfer rates and access. This is partly due to Bell and Roger's having terrible infrastructure that can't handle the kind of exponentially increasing demands in terms of data transfer. Even with that in mind, since it's peer to peer transfer that is the issue, most notably Bittorrent, it looks mightily like these companies are just trying to muscle out competition. Bittorrent has many free (and legal) video downloads--CBC has even put a few television programs on it. This competes with Bell and Roger's video download programs, which you have to pay money for.

Net Neutrality is the idea that the user should have control over what they do on the internet and the provider should not be able to manipulate transfer rates or access. For more info go here. This is a ridiculously important issue, as the internet is the best tool for citizenship involvement in terms of activism, DIY, or just general information. That only works when it's completley open. There is a reason it's so heavily controlled in a place like China, where google and yahoo provide search records to the government. The internet is incredibly powerful, but not if someone with political or profit-minded interests is determining what or how we see on the internet.

Now, some of the more tech-savvy of you might object, saying that p2p (notice the hip lingo--that one was for you, tech-savvy people) is primarily a means for people to exchange pirated music or films. That's true, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. There are many legitimate uses for p2p that are finding a greater audience. I don't pirate, myself. The way I see it, most of the bands I listen to have day jobs and are simply doing it for the love of the art. Me buying the album helps them go on tour or make rent. And to quote the immortal Henry Rollins:
"[The major labels] can't get it through their thick, greedy heads that they've been overcharging people for music for so many years and have been cranking out so many alarmingly mediocre, tepid records where the only song you want is the one you saw the video of that looks somewhat interesting--the rest of the album is eeegh--so why would you want to pay 22.50$ in a strip mall for a J.Lo record? That's crime!"

Of course when he actually said it, there was more swearing and shouting. Point is, if you are only listening to music you don't want to pay for, find something you would. Where can you find music like that? The internet! See how I'm bringing it full circle? That's real blogging. Yeah. Or luck, whatever.

Search around at all the podcasts and bands releasing some music for free. Seriously, google "independent [your favourite genre]". You will find free samples of music within five minutes.

even without the irony, 50's slang is awesome

So a few people have taken my advice on 43 things, which is kind of weird because I just kind of assumed no one actually listened to me.

Also, discounted easter candy is the bees knees. I'm trademarking hollow chocolate bunnies for 2 dollars as the best thing ever.

This was a surprisingly effective tactic for wasting 10 minutes (five to write, five to decide whether "50's slang" needs an apostrophe. I've decided it means slang of the 50s as opposed to slang from the 50s) in my constant quest of procrastination. I promise I'll have something significant to say in the coming week. Maybe.

apologies for the overused ted stevens joke

So there has been a fair amount of talk about using these blogs for some accountability for oneself. If I post what I intend to do or what I stand for through these tubes, then I'm more likely to probably more likely to stick with it. Part of it is probably peer pressure, but the more important aspect is that until you write something down it can sometimes be unclear in your mind. If you don't know what you actually want, there you aren't going do actually do anything about it. Now, I've found that my blog has become more a venue for me to organize my thoughts and causes (extremely valuable in itself), and it hasn't done much to hold me accountable in certain areas.

I've found a website, 43 Things, which fits the bill perfectly. It's quite simple, you create an account and post up to 43 goals. You can set time limits, have mini-blogs for each goal, and encourage others. That's pretty much it. But after starting an account today, I've discovered what an amazing thing it is to sit down and write out all your goals. Now, 43 are quite a few, I'm at 35 or so myself, which forces you to be specific. For instance, travel is quite high on my list, but instead of the vague 'travel the world', I have seven separate goals for regions I'm going to travel around, as well as a few cities I intend to live in.

This has made me realize how important tangible goals are. "Travel the world" will never be ticked off, but "travel through central/south america: at least 5 countries" can. Writing it this way makes it real, and very achievable. Notice how I said 'going to travel' and 'intend to live in'? Before I would've said 'want', but now I've written it down and in doing so firmly deciding it's something I want to do. Plus, trying to think up 43 goals leads to ones I never would've thought of. One of mine is seeing a small show in 10 different countries, which I love, but never would've considered doing if I didn't have a long muse on my goals.

I've long planned and dreamed about what I'm going to do after I graduate. I've gotten more specific, and my plans have changed once or twice, but it always has remained a fantasy. But now it's only 13 months away, and it feels good to write down what I want to do, because it moves from a goal to a plan. I know I recommend many things, but this simple idea is an incredible tool for personal development. Even if you don't get an account, still sit down and write down as many goals as you can, long and short term. Be specific, and also make up new ones. Some people recommend rewards for yourself (such as "if I write that report tonight I'll have a huge bowl of ice cream") but I think the best course is just to take pleasure in the accomplishment and the experience itself.

So I almost copped out and didn't give my username. I mean, I am doing this for me, not for external validation, but I know of at least one person who would've nagged me for it. So: grahamr21.

your future dream is a shopping scheme

Amen, Johnny.

I've been thinking quite a bit about punk music, especially the beginnings of the era, and I'm convinced that we can all learn from this group of unwashed British kids from 30 years ago. Let me start out by identifying my bias, though: I love punk. In fact I love most kinds of music, so that's not a real shock, but to me punk is like horror movies: even when it's bad, and it often is, there is something special about that makes it oh so good. There are some things about early punk I don't like and don't want to encourage, but overall I find it a very positive environment.

Punk has evolved significantly since, some even say it's dead. I don't think so, and the evidence is in community halls and basements all around the world. The nice thing about now is that punk has become more diversified musically. There is still the old school thrashy style, but now there is post-punk, hardcore, metalcore, pop punk, melodic punk, slow punk, shoegazer punk, and a whole host of other subgenres. However, the essential ingredient to punk is that it's more than the music. There were quite a few bands that made it big a few years ago--like Blink 182 and Sum 41--playing a watered down version. Now, some people may apply 'walks like a duck' logic and call it punk. But most in the scene will say it isn't, because those bands aren't part of the community. Essentially, it's a movement, about friends and certain principles. Each subgenre tends to have it's own, and some are extremely positive. I touched on the hardcore community earlier, and it's the best example, there is even a very large portion (a majority in many cities) that are 'straight-edge': abstaining from drugs and alcohol (in many cases other things such as promiscuity or television).

The rub is in how this community came to form. The central tenet was, and to a certain extent still is, that if you want to make music, you pick up an instrument. Many punk bands are extremely incompetent but make up for it in sheer enthusiasm. For instance, Sid Vicious of The Sex Pistols was so horrible at bass that he didn't record on their studio album and his bandmates routinely unplugged him during shows to save the audience's ears. But their concerts are fondly remembered as life-changing. Now, keep in mind that punk is oftentimes wonderfully written and executed, and can be very complex. That being said, the notion of rarefied talent is not there--of the 'star' being on stage, separate from the audience, something you could never achieve.

That's the lesson that I feel everyone should apply to their life: wanting it. I've heard many complain that they don't have the talent for black belt. That they're too old, too out of shape, too uncoordinated. I've heard others in the outside world worry that they aren't smart enough for university, or fast enough to be good at soccer. Some guitar teachers tell students that their fingers aren't long enough to master fretwork, and some drummers fret (ha, ha) that they don't have enough natural rhythm. When those doubts surface, and they always will, you have a choice. You can go home bitter and watch tv, or you can do it anyway. Ignore the people who want to put you down and instead listen to those who encourage you, push you to always do better.

Punk rockers will be forever playing in basements and small venues, and most of us will never be Bruce Lee. But if you're doing this for you, not for validation or the cotton you tie around
your waist, then it doesn't matter as long as you're doing it. So, take my advice and learn from punk, learn from people who do things because they love it and don't back away. Like my good buddy Mohandas said, be the change you want to see--but also listen to Joey Comeau and occasionally be the trouble. If you want a black belt, or to learn a new language, or to ask that person the next cubicle over on a date, go for it. Whether you can is irrelevant because you will if you just do it with everything you have.

Don't people with mohawks seem less scary now?

loaf.

It's nearly 1:20 and I need to get up at 7:30, so I should probably go to bed. However, this has got to be one of the most charming short films I've ever seen, and I just had to share it. It's completely surreal (there is a monkey with a balloon for a head, for instance) but just go with it and it'll make a unique kind of sense.

Things like these are why independent art, and the general DIY (do it yourself, in terms of art and media) spirit is so important. This never would've been made by a Hollywood studio, because it is a labour of love. Movie studios, record companies, publishing houses--once these get too big, the profit motive tends to take over, as people with no real interest in the art form join up, or buy the company out. There is no (or very little) potential for moneymaking with this film. It's only 5 1/2 minutes long, and not exactly conventional. When someone is in the business of profit, then conventional is pretty much all they do.

6 of the 10 top grossing films of 2007 were sequels (Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Shrek 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, Harry Potter 5, National Treasure 2) and 3 were remakes (I Am Legend) or based off established franchises (Transformers, Alvin and the Chipmunks). Oh yeah, and the last, 300, was based on a graphic novel. That is to say, none of them were actually original ideas. No Country for Old Men, which won best picture at the Oscars, which must count at least for a bit, came in 37th.

Now, I don't have a problem with people going to see sequels or big budget movies. I saw 6 of the top 10 myself, though I only really considered 3 of those worth my money (hint: none of them were Spider-Man 3). You want to see Matt Damon drive along with copious amounts of shaky cam, that's fine, I do too. Plus, I realize that many people who work for large artistic companies do it because the love that art form. A guy like Steve Spielburg would probably be making movies even if he didn't have multi-million dollar budgets, and there are many recording engineers, book editors, and screenwriters who are just happy to do what they love, regardless of who they're working for.

That being said, the 5 1/2 minutes of Marvellous, Keen Lonny Bin were more entertaining that the combined 6 hours or so of those 3 bottom movies on my list. And I saw it for free on the internet, and if the woman who made it were a local filmmaker, it would've cost me 5 or 10 dollars at a film festival, as opposed to the nearly 35 it cost me to see the other 3. It was smarter, funnier, and generally more interesting than the messy, sprawling plots or big budget special effects of many Hollywood movies. It's because someone did it solely because she wanted to. We often hold the profit motive up as some kind of lofty ideal, but I'll take artistic drive any day if it produces results like this.

DIY media is about subverting the normal channels. In the face of mediocrity, most people simply just shrug and accept it. Others decide that they could do better, and then do it simply because they want to. Often they have day jobs due to such a small community, but still persist. A good example is the hardcore punk movement, which is strongly DIY. Often the concerts are in community halls, and the entrance fee is going completely towards the rental. 100 people showing up is considered a fairly large crowd, but I can guarantee that if even a handful are there, they will be far more enthusiastic and appreciative (in terms of thanking the bands and making touring artists feel welcome) than an arena full of of Britney Spears fans. After the show numerous people pitch in to help clean up, violence is rare to the point of nonexistence (compared to numerous fights and possible stabbings that happen at your average Motley Crue concert), and everyone works their hardest to help that community thrive. DIY is not only about the product, but also the audience and everyone getting along.

There are literally a few hundred thousand people across Canada involved in this process, and the more people that come to the fold by supporting independent music and movies, or even creating them, the more we'll see more amazing movies like this, and generally push along the quality of art in this country.

Wow, it's now 2. This was supposed to be a paragraph and a link. Oh well, it's important. Culture is where we spend the majority of our time, and shifting the focus of mainstream art towards independent media and away from the profit motive is a fundamental step in the road to a more egalitarian and just society.

officially frozen

So after reflecting on my last entry I've decided to address something. That post, you might see, was less than three hours ago, not the norm of two weeks. I've become one of those people, and nothing can help me now.

That post was probably the first entry that discussed my personal life in any degree. The previous ones have mostly been my opinions and maybe an obvious attempt to change your mind. Considering the atmosphere in which we all started these blogs (sharing experiences and such) I feel a bit dishonest. I mean, I see most of you once a week, several more than that, yet all you've gleaned about me from this is that I enjoy graphic novels and that I straddle the line between 'amusingly eccentric' and 'dangerously unbalanced'.

Some of you perhaps might see arrogance in my wish to discuss myself, but my reason is that I'm curious about you. When I looked at Sihing Prince's profile and saw Iron & Wine under his favourite bands I not only high fived him in my mind, I also found it endlessly interesting. What he listens to in his spare time has never crossed my mind, and I think that's a bad thing. So I've posted some favourites in my profile. Delight in my potential lack of taste. Woo!

As you can probably tell, I'm removed from the world by about four layers of irony and cynicism, and refuse to take most things seriously, except for the really important things. Now, this is horrible for relationships and funerals, and I do my best to curb it when needed--with little success. As a result I'm uncomfortable discussing myself. That's ok, because beyond some tibits that fill me out as a person, none of you are here to be my internet friend. I'm not going to dye my hair black, get it cut asymetrically and vent about how bad I am at talking to women. I have issues, but so does everyone, and this isn't the forum for it.

However I know that I, along with everyone else here, have something to offer in terms of my training experiences. I still don't want to. Part of it is my attitude that if you want to know about my training, we can step on the mats--but that's a sidestep (or helix stance?). I can't self-deprecate with a coy smile when it comes to my failures and triumphs. It has to be real or it isn't worth anything.

While testing for second degree in November, Master Brinker noted that my forms are lacking in expression. I believe the term he used was something like "shouting in binary". As I've struggled to bring more artistry into my forms, I've slowly realized it is my attitude. Let me get this straight: I love kung fu. Quite a bit. I think that's obvious, if I didn't I wouldn't be showing up. I also have no trouble expressing myself artistically in other venues (and I'm not discussing discussing that. Waxing poetic about my work is just the most pretentious thing evarz. What I will say is said work has taught me about being genuine). The problem was I removed myself from kung fu like I do with everything. It's very easy to insulate yourself with wit, but going through life like that--while hilarious--prevents me from really giving myself over to kung fu. Being genuine is the hardest thing in the world but if you want to do something worth anything it's necessary. It can be even more difficult with kung fu, since you have an audience whether you like it or not, but that makes it even more important.

So yeah, that's that. I'll try and get a little more personal with my opinion pieces so I'm not coming down from on high too much. One last thing--and it should show how disarming I'm being--I swear. I know I look clean cut, and I don't in public, but by myself or privately with friends it happens, and is quite creative. Look at this sharing, it's intense. I feel like we're all growing.

da da DAA, DA da daa (it's the spider-man theme song)

So I haven't let my tastes invade into this blog too much. These infrequent posts have been mostly focused on social issues. While I would love to rave about bands that you should really check out (the weakerthans) because while they have found a measure of fame here in Canada (the weakerthans) if there was any justice in the world everyone would know about them (the weakerthans). That seems to be the function of most blogs in the world now, and considering the fact I'm not a music/movie/book critic, I don't see why you should care about what I enjoy.

That being said, there is one thing I feel obligated to talk about (no, it's not the weakerthans--but seriously, go listen to that band right now). It's not a single band or book, it's in fact an entire medium: comics. It's my opinion that everyone needs to open their eyes to an incredible way of storytelling that is largely ignored. I'm not talking about Spider-Man--and I'm sorry if someone is hurt after having their expectations raised by the title--though I fully admit to growing up on Marvel and still occasionally reading superhero comics, but rather...grown up ones. They can be serious or humorous, and some involve fantastic elements, but most of them are stories of everyday life. Some people call these comics 'illustrated storytelling', which is a pretentious mouthful to me. The other term you'll hear is graphic novel, which is for longer works--pretty descriptive, actually.

To properly illustrate (ha, ha) my enthusiasm, I'll say this: if I liked drawing and could do anything other than stickmen, I would be all over this. Illustrations are another language that can be used to help along a story in fascinating ways. A good example is Maus: A Survivor's Tale by Art Spiegalman. It's a story of a Polish Jew during WW2, told from the point of view of the man's son. In it, every nationality is an animal--Americans are dogs, Poles are pigs. Most notably, the Nazis are cats, and the Jews mice. The way in which some people/animals are drawn is a fascinating commentary on racism and identity that wouldn't be possible with a normal book. In short, it's really good. In 1992 the Pulitzer committee, finding Maus so hard to classify, invented a new category solely to honour it. Yeah. I've even studied it in a university English class.

I'm not going to push much, but one of my favourites is Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth, which I've mentioned previously. Also, there is an another amazing one available for free on the internet. It's called Papercut and is drawn by Michael Cho, go here to read it.

When most people hear me talk about 'comics' they ask if I've left my parent's basement. If you just push past that stigma you'll find a treasure trove of some truly wonderful stories. So go read them!

so, could you pass me that oar, n-word jim?

So the Canadian Library Association just released it's survey of challenged books for 2007. In other words, these are the 42 books and movies people tried to get pulled off the shelves in libraries across Canada. The full story and the report can be found here, but I'll fill you in on the important bits.

Most of the entries are novels that contain sexually explicit material, and I think you all know my opinion on that. It's ridiculous, a waste of time, sexuality is a right etc. etc. The highlight here is the 2007 film adaptation of Oliver Twist by Masterpiece Theatre. Yes, the Masterpiece Theatre, a pillar of the bland highbrow community. The nature of the complaint: some violence and a graphic birth scene. A birth scene. You know, the kind of thing that every person in history has gone through, and one that many women will experience twice. This natural human function--which I might add, many people film when it happens to them--got the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of Oliver Twist reclassified as 'Adult'.

There are a few other gems, such as a three books whose sole complaint against them was that they contained homosexuality, including one with the additional charge of 'same sex parents'. Furthermore, a book entitled 'Open minds to equality: a sourcebook of learning activities to affirm diversity and promote equality' was challenged by what the CLA tactfully calls an 'interest group' largely due to it's portrayal of homophobia as a negative thing. Thankfully, none of these books were pulled or had changes in status, except for the diversity book--which was taken out of school libraries and is now solely in public ones.

Another book was challenged because it contained slang, which apparently is damaging to children. It's a picture book called 'Yo, Jo!', which is about two brothers in a downtown neighborhood, I'm guessing New York because that's where the author lives. It's a sweet story about how everyone on the block has a different way of saying hello, such as 'yo!'. I've only read excerpts from the book (yay for the internet) but it seems most of the 'damaging slang' is simply examples of African American Vernacular English, a perfectly legitimate manner of speaking. I'm not charging this complainer with being racist, I'm just pointing out that the English language is far from standardized.

I have two major bones to pick though. The first is a challenge against Chris Ware's incredible alternative comic 'ACME Novelty Library', since it contains references to the occult as well as sex scenes. Now, there is no doubt this is intended for adults, it's a sophisticated series of slightly nihilistic and wistful stories, with disappointment and thwarted affection the order of the day. Now, before you dismiss this as just a comic book, I consider the collection 'Jimmy Corrigan, the smartest kid on earth' (which was serialized in this comics, and is actually about a grown man) one of the greatest books of all time. Book, not comic book. However, some feel that because in this absolutely brilliant work they mention witchcraft and occasionally have non-explicit sex it should be pulled from libraries.

Secondly is the increasingly popular His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullmam, mostly due to the fact that the first book, 'The Golden Compass', was made into an absolute mess of a movie--which proves any press is good press. These books were challenged multiple times due to the book's 'religious viewpoint'. For those who don't know (or who have seen the movie, in which most of that material was removed) this book details, through a child's eyes, a man's war against a God. The title of the trilogy is actually a reference to Milton's 'Paradise Lost', and it is a similar concept, except in Pullman's books the good guys are the one's rebelling. This is a children's book--well, young teens probably--yet sits proudly on my shelf, because it's simply amazing. J.K. Rowling eat Pullman's dust amazing. It presents some fairly tough questions about religion in a way that a thirteen year old could discuss them. Should it be banned? Of course not! It should be celebrated for encouraging children to think. Frankly, if a person's faith hangs is so precarious they are afraid of what a novel is going to do to themselves or their children, they need to reexamine the basis of their relationship with religion.

Right now we're in Freedom to Read Week, and I encourage you all to take the time to consider the effects books, and by extension all art and entertainment, can have. I'm all for happy endings and lighthearted romantic comedies. But it's just as necessary that our novels, music, movies and art depress us, offended us, and more importantly challenge us, forcing us to question ourselves and enviornments. Growth and self-discovery means stepping outside your comfort zone, and that can mean doing a few more pushups or to keep running after you thought your legs would give out. It also means entertaining thoughts that you don't accept, asking tough questions about the world you live in and how you go about your daily life. A sex scene that shocks you can lead to an examination of your own sexual values by exploring why you found it uncomfortable. Shielding yourself in a bubble of comfort is the surest way to stay exactly how you are, and where's the fun in that?

galavanting through the gutters on either side of the street

I'm going to perhaps state the obvious here.

I'm pro same sex marriage. I'm also for more funding of education and am a strong supporter of universal medicine, as well as for restructuring the global economy and reigning in multinational corporations. I vote NDP.

Wait, hold up, press the delete key if this wasn't just a rhetorical device. That last one doesn't belong, I'm not talking about politics.

Political issues are how to spend the surplus, debt payments, foreign policy (within reason, whether a nationalized energy company would serve the public better. In essence, political issues are how the run the country, public servants--and I know this is a radical suggestion--doing something that even resembles serving the public.

So why isn't same sex marriage a political issue? I mean, there are votes about it and Stephen Harper gets that charming little vein in his forehead every time he says "civil union". It is not the business of politicians because it is not the business of any of us. To paraphrase Dolly Parton, what Adam and Steve get up to behind closed doors is no concern of yours unless you'r e in there with them. It has nothing to do with running the country, and would have absolutely no impact except for the fact that people insist on talking about it.

Issues like this, or other fundamental rights like education and access to health care, are hijacked by special interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum in order to win or maintain power. Whipping up controversy is the surest way to gain votes, especially when it demonizes the other side. Alternatively, there are many people who seek the unfairly and unethically profit from such issues and by bringing it up in a political context the situation is more easily manipulated.

Many people seem to forget that no matter who wins the election, the other side doesn't go away, that is to say we all run the country together, and each party just gets to take turns wearing the big boy pants. Politics is supposed to be a reasoned discussion on the best course for the people, not about the profit or advantage of select groups. I'm sick of being lied to and the real issues being distracted from. The citizenry is stuck in the middle of a smoke and mirrors funhouse that prevents anything from actually getting done--just feigned moral outrage and unnecessary invasions for the purposes of media spin. So don't worry about Adam and Steve, they're the least of our worries.

constant hunger has robbed me of all identity

Fifty points for whomever gets the reference.

I actually want to talk about censorship, though I am hungry.

Now, my preferred method for approach censorship would be to write down, in very large capital letters, a certain four letter word. I'm not going to do that, however. If I do, I'd probably offend some people, damage my reputation (and more importantly, the school's) and so forth. I'm not looking to hurt anyone's feelings, which is certainly possible with the usage of words like, well...that particular one. In some ways I'm out to offend people, but that's another story.

However, just think about it, whichever four letter word sprung to mind. Look left and right, and then say it very quietly to yourself. See if the world ends. Take a few seconds, I'll wait.

Back? Good.

Well, I'm still here, which leads me to conclude the world in fact did not end. I even went onto BBC's website and haven't seen any disasters pop up in the last thirty seconds. So I think we call all agree that speaking such a word did not, in fact, hurt anyone. Those playing along at home will be quick to point out that I said strong language could hurt someone's feelings. The word 'hurt' is right in there, after all. Maybe it does, but it certainly shouldn't, and like most things, change starts in the individual.

Think of something that really offends you. Maybe it's people who talk in the theatre, or gay marriage. Maybe it's people who get offended by gay marriage. Just turn it around in your mind, get really worked up about it. Now, stop thinking about it. Think about chocolate cake, and if that's what offends you, think about ice cream. You're anger has probably disappeared already. Point is, if you're offended by something, there is no imperative for you to sit around and be offended by it all day. If you're watching tv and you see something that you feel is inappropriate, turn it off. Problem solved. If you're in a situation where you can't ignore it, then put into practice one of the lessons of kung fu: tough it out, and realize what's important.

Life is far too short, and people whose hobby is outrage are making this mortal coil less appealing. Language, like I said, can either work for us or be used as an agent of control, which makes censorship an incredibly dangerous thing. It is, of any kind, very subtle brainwashing, as the standards of 'decency' direct society in a very meaningful way. I'm sick of strong language or a breast on television being the end of the world, because it isn't--especially when there are several other ends of the world to choose from. Landmines and lack of food distribution are indecent. The use of torture also is. Words aren't if we choose to control them for ourselves.

chattering away the world

"[The general public] react to waves of expert truth which continue to wash over them with a sort of mute indifference. An uninvolved outsider might interpret this as the first stages of a purification rite. Indifference is often the manner behind which humans consider change. Given our history, it should be possible to decipher our intent. We are trying to think our way out of a linguistic prison. This means we need to create new language and new interpretations, which can only be accomplished by re-establishing the equilibrium between the oral and the written. This is a situation in which dictionaries should again be filled with doubt, questioning and considerations. They can then be used as practical weapons of change."
-John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion

The power of language is one of my chief obsessions. Granted, one of many, but still. Language has been used as both a tool of oppression and revolution. In England after the Norman conquest of 1066, whether you spoke French or not determined your social prospects. What counts as a word can have drastic consequences. 'Bling' being included in the Oxford English Dictionary a few years back caused quite a lot of controversy, but it did help legitimize what's known now as African American Standard Vernacular. Thanks to actions like the bling inclusion, what's heard in a place like Harlem is now a recognized dialect of English, and I believe this was a huge step forward for racial equality. Some even argue that what language we use controls how we think; language preceding thought, so to speak.

So why should we care? Well...we speak it. We also write it, read it, and listen to it. Pretty obvious, I know, but stop all those activities for a day and see how far you get. We need language and we need it to be working for us as opposed to an agent of control. The above quote mentions the balance between oral and written language, and how important it is to maintain that. Oral is flexible and fluid, phrases and constantly invented and dialects spring up like...springs...in a faulty mattress...faulty mattress springs. Nevermind.

The written, by contrast, is static. It defines the language, attempts to control it. Now, you can speak the written and write the oral, it's more a method of approach. The written, in short, is boring. Dan Rather is the written. He doesn't speak, he communicates--he conveys information and nothing more. How we approach language determines, again, whether we can use it or if others can use it to control us. We're cut off from each other by specialist language, each profession having such a highly evolved dialect and a slavish devotion to it that it's become impossible to actually talk to each other.

It goes back to my previous post, with having all the answers. If you seek to define language in an exact way, become an agent of the written, you have all the answers, and we're up the creek. Take delight in how words are used, I say. Keep language flexible and surprising. Free how we speak, and let it be interesting.

Oh yes, and leave comments. I have doubts whether anyone actually reads this, and even less confidence that I'm making any sense, so I wouldn't mind a bit of validation at least on the former.

it's all been done before

Most of you have heard of Aristotle. A great guy, by most accounts. Greek, born around 384 BCE. He was a philosopher, literary critic, scientist, doctor, and a host of other things. Even today his theories continue to inform and challenge scholars. I'm not going to talk about how great he was, instead I'm going to discuss what his most dubious and unacknowledged achievement: the European dark ages. Now, it's hard to pin nearly a thousand years of thought on a single person, and he obviously isn't solely responsible, but he had more to do with it than any other person.

Let me begin by pointing out that, while he was right about a lot of things, he was wrong just as often. Take, for example, his insistence that the heart was the centre of thought and that the brain was simply used to cool the blood. Before you get up all in arms about how everyone was wildly guessing about science back then, I'd like to point out that by this time both atoms and evolution had been proposed and largely accepted in that very same society, among others. He had seen the insides of corpses and how the nerves functioned, but went with his heart theory anyway. There are many other instances of things like this.

The Roman Empire fell in 476 CE, an event hard to imagine nowadays. Picture the Federal Government just stopping over the period of a few years, leaving the provinces to fend for themselves. It is more extensive than that, as the Roman Empire at that point was all there was to the West. Around five or six major civilizations were flourishing at this point, but contact was limited, so the Empire was it. It didn't happen overnight, of course. The decline began to snowball around a hundred years earlier. At that point there was a massive social upheaval with the transition to Christianity (made official by Constantine in 300 CE). As with any movement on such a large scale, there is the need to reject the old. The French Republic guillotined Louis XVI, and a large Christian mob burned the Library of Alexandria. The knowledge was seen as blasphemous, and much of it was pagan, but the fact of the matter is that by 476, a vast majority of Classical knowledge had been lost. If it were not for the Arabic empire in North Africa we wouldn't have any of it today. I'm not blaming Christianty, or Romans, or whomever. This is just what happened.

Individual states sprung up in the power vacuum, but a significant portion of it was filled by the Vatican. It held significant political sway and culturally speaking, it was the absolute word. However, the Church was, obviously, more concerned with spiritual matters and not fit to govern many aspects of day to day life. The fall of Rome, along with the general rejection of Classical knowledge, meant that the Vatican needed a new approach to day to day life, a new philosophy of earth, so to speak. Instead, they just went with an old one. Scholasticism is the term for this: Aristotelian philosophy and science mixed in with Christian metaphysics.

So yes, Aristotle was brilliant, but both he and those around him made the mistake of assuming he had all the answers. What followed was a millennia of "keep your head down, go about your work, don't worry about anything because we know everything". The investigative force, the will to question, all but disappeared. There was certainly a lot going on, but in terms of scholarship, it all but dried up in Europe. It took until the 16th and 17th century for things to pick up again. Galileo (the telescope guy), in a letter to a friend, recounted a public autopsy (performing any action on a corpse besides burial, especially cutting into it, was illegal during the middle ages). The man performing the demonstration discussed how the nervous system worked and drew attention to the large bundle of nerves going from the brain, and the one nerve thread going from the heart. Another man, quite learned, stood up during the demonstration and said something to the effect of: "What a fine demonstration, and if I weren't an Aristotelian, I would wholeheartedly agree with you".

So, when you have all the answers, what happens? Everyone goes to sleep, lulled by the false sense of security. So don't listen to Aristotle, don't listen to the guy who claims to know everything. Listen to Socrates instead. He lived a century before Aristotle, and was an extremely rude man who went around annoying people. He did it by asking questions, and always claiming ignorance. He knew nothing, he would constantly point out, but asked questions to those who said they did. He usually demonstrated they didn't know what they were talking about it.

So let's not have another dark ages, which is what I fear we are in right now. We're fed bright, shiny, entertaining answers from 24 hours a day news networks. We're saturated with information that has no use, bombarded with hidden agendas and opinions that are handed to us. We've forgotten what it's like to look someone in the eye and tell them they're wrong. So let's do that, let's listen to Socrates and have the questions instead.