Not unexpectedly, you behave like an authoritarian, stern parent who believes that to spare the rod is to spoil the child.  You beef up law enforcement in a time when crime is on the decline.  You criminalize minor offenses in spite of the fact that your cousins and neighbours who have made the same poor choices and suffered the negative consequences try to tell you that your are making a mistake.  You act in a way that imposes your own socially conservative values on an even larger portion of the population, because you know best in spite of whatever popular poles may say.  (And so you try to eliminate the popular poles.)

This is the paradox of conservatism.  While championing smaller government and individual rights, it’s really only for their friends.  Those of us who don’t share their values deserve more regulation and restriction, in the name of what’s right.  -Even if all the evidence points to them being wrong.

And if we have no way of knowing then news show interviews of the reactions of people on the street are ridiculous.  How can the public pretend to have an opinion on this point without all the facts.  It’s an example of shoddy reporting and sensationalism.

Not too many workers on the street would sit back complacently if they were suddenly asked by their employers to take on extra related or unrelated duties designed to unnecessarily reduce staff.  Would you, if you didn’t have to or if you weren’t constrained by fear?  Forming an opinion or conclusion at this point is unwise.  Without the proper background information, which can’t be that difficult to supply, this story is a waste of time.

Personally, I never use the 407.  The one time I did, in order to get to Hamilton more easily, I got a bill for $36 which was not only the regular fee, but the processing fee for a first time user.  Who does that?  When I go into a store to make a purchase, do they charge me extra the first time for the privilege of shopping there?  (Not unless it’s COSTCO.)  After paying the ridiculous amount for driving my car on “their road”, I continued to receive notices for payment for over a year, some of which were threatening letters.  No, I’ll stay away from the 407, thank you very much.

In Sisterhood of Dune, the Butlerians are a group of religious zealots who, after the overthrow of the AI despots which had cruelly ruled humans for centuries, campaign to destroy all forms of technology, condemning them as evil.  This is reminiscent of the Luddites who operated in England in the early 1800’s.  Angry at the rise of technology in the textile industry after the Industrial Revolution, with that technology resulting in the loss of many unskilled jobs, the Luddites rose up against the factories, burning and destroying them in protest.  They regarded technology and progress as being evil.  The movement spread to agriculture, with workers smashing farm machinery such as threshers.  Rather than raising themselves up to meet a new challenge, these unskilled workers chose to rebel against progress to protect their own ignorance.  The movement ended up clashing with the British military and “machine breaking” became a capital offence.  In 1813, 17 Luddites were executed in London.

In modern times, Luddite behaviour has switched from anti-industrial to anti-technology and anti-intellectual, and is seen clearly in the more extreme elements of right wing, conservatism.  It is seen in Santorum’s disdain for universities and the conservative disdain for intellectuals in general.  It is seen in the rejection of the scientific proof for Global Warming and for evolution.  It is seen in the fear of stem cell research and other medical research.  One has little trouble seeing religious zealots swarming a laboratory or research facility and smashing it in the name of God and Jesus.  Hasn’t happened yet, but it doesn’t seem to be out of the question.  In order to protect a world view that is vulnerable to the common sense of modern progress, these conservatives rant against that progress, hoping that the noise and fuss they make will eclipse the truth.  Certainly we see the same kind of thing in the anti-western paranoia seen in some Muslim nations.

(This is not to say that all progress is good.  Clearly, an argument can be made for the fact that we are losing some important, fundamental values and social structures in the name of progress.  Moving ahead blindly is never a good idea.  However, there is an old saying that applies well here:  Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.)

Conservatives who are anti-intellectual often cherry pick their objection, making choices regarding which technologies they accept and which they protest.  The same science that disproves creationism is the one which allows them to turn on a TV set.  The same science that confirms Global Warming is the one that allows them to fly from city to city in their campaigns. There is usually a self-centred, self-serving, self-righteous hypocrisy underlying their protests.

I’m not an Ayn Rand fan, but her theme in Atlas Shrugged of the intellectual elite being offended and marginalized by the ignorance of the masses is strangely applicable here.  Oddly, it’s aimed at conservatives (-other than Ron Paul-), not liberals.

This film traces the development of Kevin from a baby to just before his 16th birthday when he unleashes his evil.  This film focuses on the mother, played magnificently by Tilda Swinton, who senses that there is something wrong with her son from the time he is a baby.  The audience is always wondering if the problem in innate in Kevin or a result of the mother’s mixed emotions about the child, bringing forward the nature/nurture theme within the film.  Kevin, played by several actors through the film, only shows his disturbed side to his mother, and so the father never understands or supports the mother.  Each incarnation of Kevin masterfully captures the sly malevolence and sets the hair on the back of your neck on edge.

I found the first half of the film a bit slow, intrigued by the mood, but feeling that it wasn’t really going anywhere.  The great acting and the dark mood just wasn’t enough to fully carry the film.  But by the half way mark you are hooked on the characters and the psychological drama soars.

I would give this film an A-.

Currently the Canadian Federal government is proposing the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act  which will facilitate the ability of law enforcement agencies to track e-mail and cell phone use without a warrant.  When opposition parties stood up for individual civil rights, they were told by the Justice Minister and Conservative officials that to oppose the Bill is to support child pornographers.

Taking a page from the most ignorant branch of U.S. right wing politics, the Canadian Conservatives are trying to use fear as a vehicle for compromising our civil liberties. Such a simple minded dichotomy comes from either a very narrow minded or very manipulative mind.

Life would be much more secure and crime perhaps more easily controlled if law enforcers were able to read our mail from our mailboxes at will or enter our homes for inspections without a warrant.  If you’ve got nothing to hide why would you object to that, or to them listening in on your phone conversations, or being able to inspect the contents of your computer, or having access to your bank account statements.  It would certainly make their job easier.

And yet I’m willing to bet that most people would find that at least an uncomfortable infringement on personal privacy and freedom, if not an alarming step away from democracy.  Most people would notice the potential abuses that our far from perfect law enforcement agencies would find tempting.  Most would be concerned that a government with that much power would able to rationalize the scrutiny of dissenters and radicals in society, in the name of the “public good”.

Checks and balances exist in our democratic system for a reason.  I have no objection to lawful, court overseen warrants being issued to get private information in cases where the police have a viable case against an individual.  For the most part, that exists now.  A warrant can be obtained to enter a private residence or tap a phone.  This is as it should be.  To give this power to the police without the need for judicial oversight is to remove a layer of checks and balances, and my confidence in law enforcement agencies to do this unilaterally is not strong.

Even a law stating that Internet Providers must be required to retain a record of transactions is not out of line.  Businesses are often required by law to hold records for a given number of years.  Even individuals need to hold financial records for a number of years in case of a tax audit.  However, imagine that you were required by law to keep all of your personal letters for a number of years, in case they may be needed in a criminal investigation.  This is the other side of the law facing providers, and it is not as cut and dry.

I’m with Ben Franklin.  Law enforcement has a difficult job to do, but making it easy for them by sacrificing civil liberties is never the right road to travel.  It tends to be a down hill road and a slippery slope.  Trying to compare defenders of civil liberties to supporters of child pornography is a cheap, emotional and fear laden shot which I hope most Canadians are too educated to fall for.

That being said, I really wish that we had a similar process up here in Canada.  I know that a lot of people feel that the American process is a long, drawn out, useless process, but I don’t agree.  In Canada the leadership races for the political parties go almost unnoticed, and as a result we sometimes end up with some real bone headed outcomes.  The elections themselves are over too quickly, with the party leaders often getting away with saying almost nothing about the issues and hiding some of their true agenda.

Stephen Harper in particular is famous for being uncommunicative with the media.  He’s figured out that the less he says the better off he is.  You would never have a situation in Canada where religious convictions would be brought into the fray, and in one way that’s a good thing.  Religion, in my opinion, has no place in politics.  The display in the States is a mockery and, whatever the Right claims about the “Founding Fathers” and the Constitution, the original intention was very clearly meant to be a separation of church and state.  But that’s what makes what’s happening in the Republican race valuable.  With some candidates, like Gingrich, the process allows voters to see the extent that he is willing to pander to the religious right.  And with other candidates, like Santorum, we see the naked truth of his total obsession with a religious perspective, and can proceed with the appropriate caution in spite of his claims that he can remain politically objective.

No such opportunity exists with Prime Minister Harper who has, for example, stacked his Cabinet with anti-abortion Conservatives, who has discretion in appointing Supreme Court Judges, and who can fine tune funding budgets for Canadian organizations that depend on financial support.  While religion should not play an important role and should not be worn on the sleeve of a politician, it also should not be a hidden agenda, going unnoticed because there are few opportunities for laundry to be aired in the Canadian political process. That would be far less likely to happen in the U.S., where the process and the media shine a bright light into every dirty corner, …well, I know, not all of them, …but more than up here.  (I think our media is just too polite.)

Whether a politician believes in Creationism or Global Warming or the misinterpreted sexual puritanism of Leviticus, actually matters in a leader.  These things need to be well known to voters, not silenced so that they can become part of a quietly reactionary agenda.  This is why I think that the American process, as full of hot air and as narcissistic as it is, and as negative as it can become at times, still matters greatly and fulfills the needs of a proper democratic election.

And it’s pretty funny to watch, too.

It is so ironic that these people who think that any kind of sexual activity must be for the purpose of procreation (and Santorum has stated that fact categorically on several occasions) and even tell their children that touching themselves to get pleasure is evil, seem totally preoccupied with talking about the topic.  They’re obsessed with birth control and abortion and sex education and gay marriage at a time when their country might benefit from some attention to the real political issues.

The current round of sex talks centres on the issue of contraception, brought up by a badly mismanaged move by the Obama administration regarding contraception coverage by medical insurance.  I say a bad move because it was poorly explained and, I think, totally misjudged the implications to Catholic organizations which would be forced to pay for a service that contradicted their values.  It was bad PR and the fix may have solved the problem but not the political damage.  Some people have said, why include contraception in insurance packages at all, as it is a minor expense.  The answer to that is that it is a preventative measure that insurance companies actually like as it reduces claims in the long run.  It speaks to education and counseling, which social conservatives also want to stifle (’cause we can’t talk about sex even though that’s all we seem to think about).  Also, there is the lesser known fact that a lot of birth control pills are prescribed for medical reasons which don’t involve contraception.

To be clear, Santorum has stated that while he has not voted against the existence of contraception, he is personally strongly against any kind of contraception which encourages sexual activity without the possible consequence of conception.  In simpler terms, he not only thinks that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, but also inside of marriage where the purpose is not to make babies.  He hasn’t stated it, but if he’s true to form he undoubtedly thinks that masturbation is evil as well.  Fortunately, there’s no legislation that seems to work on that.

While politicians like Santorum can’t openly ban contraception in our society, they no doubt wish they could.  They accomplish it by defunding Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations.  One of the candidates, and I don’t remember which right now, stated that they would remove funding to certain committees of the United Nations because of their support of China’s “one child” policy.  Imagine discouraging contraception in China, of all places, where their rampant population growth is a serious threat not only to them but to the rest of the world.

We’ve seen this unfold here in Canada, where Prime Minister Harper has repeatedly backed away from overtly dealing with any issues like abortion, gay marriage or contraception. Instead, partly becasue he is very sly and partly because we don’t have a system where policies undergo as much scrutiny as they do in the States, Harper has waged a quite, covert war on women’s rights groups and the government funding of organizations which contraception counseling.  While Santorum claims to respect the political integrity of contraception, his own extreme views would lead to the same kind of back room policy making in the U.S.

And then there’s Speaker Gingrich, who obviously deserves our sympathy and condolences.  His current wife was his mistress for years while he was “cheating” on his very ill, previous wife.  During those years of extra marital contact (and in the time since, even after they were married) there was no pregnancy.  If Newt is truly a pious believer in Catholic doctrine, as he would have us think, then either they didn’t have any sex during that entire relationship or one/both of them are impotent or sterile.  Perhaps we should pray for them.

Santorum, on the other hand, at least lives his madness.  He has a large brood of children.  He accuses Romney of being out of touch with the poor while encouraging families to end up with lots of children like him.  He can afford it.  One of his children has a physical disability.  I’m sure there’s a nanny/nurse at home to look after Bella while mom and dad are on the campaign trail.  -The point here being that it is hypocritical for a wealthy man to take a position against contraception, thereby encouraging the poor to end up with large, unmanageable families which they can’t support and which will lead to increased financial and psychological stress.  Ether that or forgo sex, -oh, and of course we can’t talk about it or provide education about it.

It seems like a neurotic way of looking at things.  But, of course “neurotic” is an intellectual word and social conservatives tend to be anti-intellectual as well.

What complete rubbish and what a naked expose of the right’s disdain for education and intellectuals.  Could it be, Rick, that people emerge from universities having re-evaluated their beliefs because they’re smarter?  You do realize, with respect, that you sound a bit like a paranoid schizophrenic…

Thank you Rick Santorum.  With your neurotic puritanism, and those scenes where all the religious leaders are surrounding you and laying on hands in prayer (like some kind of weird rekei treatment) I’m sure you will help to drive all sane moderates into the Democratic camp, fleeing the religious orgy of sanctimonious crap.

His comment was in reaction to the overturning of the Gay Marriage Ban in California and demand by Obama that birth control and abortion counseling be part of all publicly funded medical programs, including those in Catholic institutions.  He said that this was un-American and that the original immigrants to America were people who were fleeing government persecution in Europe, coming to the shores of the U.S. so that they could enjoy religious freedom.

In saying this, he’s tripped over his own forked tongue and done a face plant into a steamy pile of horse manure.  The people who fled the America to avoid religious prosecution were fleeing the dominant churches of the day and only the government insofar as they were a puppet theocracy controlled by those dominant churches, -which, by the way, was primarily the Catholic Church!!  It wasn’t so much that they weren’t allowed to practice their religion but rather that they didn’t practice the dominant religion.

That Gingrich would point to the overturning of Proposition 8, which attempted to ban gay marriage in California after the legislature had made it legal as a similar kind of religious oppression, is the height of irony.  This spectacularly spotlights the hypocrisy of the religious right.  What is really happening (whether you agree with Proposition 8 or not) is that you have a religious group that is trying to dictate its will and values onto persecuted minority, just like it did in Europe, forcing those people to flee to America in order to find freedom.  Gingrich has the shoe on the wrong foot.  It is not religious America that is being persecuted.  They are the persecutors.  They are the religious thugs wanting to impose their will.  The only way that the religious right is being victimized in this situation is the same way that the theocracy in Europe was victimized; they’re outraged that everybody doesn’t want to be like them!!

The abortion issue is similar, although a little less black and white.  Notice that in the abortion controversy one side is called anti-abortion and the other side is called pro-choice.  Yes, I know that after pro-choice became the popular term the opponents saw the need to frame their cause in a more positive way and came up with pro-life.  The point still remains that the term pro-choice is very interesting and still speaks to the question of individual rights.  Nobody is forced to have an abortion, but in some places people are forbidden to have an abortion, or are forced to undergo painful humiliation before they can have it.  Once again, whether you support abortion or not, the persecution still falls squarely on the side of the religious interests.  The state isn’t telling religious people what to do, but the religious people are telling the non-religious people what to do.  Who is the persecutor and who is the victim?

The current issue with the Obama decree forces all workplaces, regardless of religious affiliation, to offer the same rights to all of it’s workers.  What an un-American idea!!  Once again we see right wing hypocrisy at work.  The decree is plugging the loop hole that would allow organizations and companies to claim a religious affiliation and then use it to deny some of their workers the benefits that are mandated by law.  If they find that distasteful in any way then they have the right to defer that to another party, but they still have the responsibility to offer it.  There are many arguments where something that is distasteful has to be endured in order to protect the idea of freedom and equality.

Thank you, Newt, for drawing such effective parallels.  I hope you didn’t choke on your foot

We have a number of separate selves that make up our personality, but some selves are buried and ignored.  Some of our interests and impulses are contrary to strongest interests and become repressed.  For example, if one is a successful business executive, one may have to bury some gentler elements of one’s personality, or even some family concerns and priorities.  When we disowns these parts of a personality then it is like caging an animal in the basement, neglecting feeding it or paying any attention to it.  When the opportunity arises or the cage door is left unlocked it’s either going to cower in fear or lunge out and bite you.

This is most commonly manifested when you have a strong emotional reaction to someone or some event which doesn’t seem entirely based on legitimate reasoning.  When you snap at someone or have a prejudice or an obsession with a particular idea.  These kind of reactions point to the unresolved shadows within yourself and are a good starting point for self examination.  It is often said that the things you hate most in other people are the things in your own personality that you dislike about yourself or that you are repressing.

It is seen very clearly in communities where strict religious beliefs lead to denying the need for any kind of informative sex education.  These religious communities disown and repress their own sexual impulses and feelings.  It is obvious that social conservatives are preoccupied with sexual Puritanism, seeing as most of their crusades have something to do with sex.  You see examples all the time of the fire and brimstone preachers who spout sexual purity from the pulpit, and then are caught with hookers in the evening.  The understandable and unfortunate consequence is that this denial gets transferred to education.  Abstinence becomes the only acceptable form of sex education, -abstinence being just another word for denial.  Even though it hasn’t worked well for many of the adults, the assumption is that burying sexual impulses in youth will be effective.  Sometimes it is buried by just ignoring it and sometimes it is buried by piling on other activities (such as athletics) in hopes that it will be sublimated.

It doesn’t work.  The states in the U.S. which have the most rigid restrictions around sex education and mandate abstinence as the only form of birth control which gets any attention, also seem to have the highest levels of teen pregnancy.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they also had the highest incidence of access to pornography.  That would be an interesting study, and in fact there are a few out there.  They fall into two categories.  The first says that religious teens are less likely to visit porn sites and more likely to visit religious sites.  I have a problem with this one as it depends entirely on what the teens were willing to report to the researcher.  The other category of studies suggests strongly that use of porn sites plus the urge to use porn sites are strongly magnified by a sense of need to control sexual impulses.  That fits the model.  Certainly we know from historical evidence that periods which exhibited the strictest social morals overtly often had the most debauchery behind closed doors.  The Victorian period is notorious for this , with everyone prim and proper in public, but lecherous in private.

Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that burying sexuality by only allowing the discussion of abstinence only leads to repressed urges which are going to be expressed somehow.  Owning and acknowledging the problem more openly would relieve that repression and help youth better come to terms with sexuality.  The end result would be a more healthy attitude in which abstinence may actually be a more frequent choice for many.

I feel that the same thing is true about drug use.  I have seen many examples in my days as a teacher of teens who are the product of very controlling and restricting parents, who, at the first opportunity, burst free into excessive indulgence and end up with problems.  Youth that is constantly told that they have to be the epitome of goodness bury the impulses that most kids have to experiment in their lives.  Especially in today’s world where media has demystified the world of drugs and sex, urges to be a little wild are natural in teens.  (And I don’t believe that media has exacerbated the situation as much as we may think, as I feel that there have always been social taboos flaunted and compromised.  Take for example old Christian monasteries or modern Catholic churches where doctrine demands the repression of sexuality but it still finds outlets in whatever opportunities and forms, twisted or otherwise, that may present themselves.)  Whether it be alcohol or drugs, the urge to be a little wild and to risk experimentation exists inside a vast majority of youth.  I remember well.  To deny it and disown it is to risk volatility.  But to own it does not mean to embrace it.  One can acknowledge an impulse or a side of one’s personality without acting it out or repressing it.

If teens have a “wild child” inside them, it can be acknowledged and owned without giving it reign.  As I pass the convertible sports car with the keys still in the ignition, I can acknowledge the impulse to hop in an take it for a joy ride.  I don’t have to do it.  I’ve read lots of studies about LSD which have made me think that it would be an exciting and perhaps even consciousness expanding experience.  That doesn’t mean that I indulge.  In the case of the car, I can recognize that there is a part of me that is looking for a little excitement, and maybe I’ll go to a car dealer and take a sports car for a test drive, dream about buying one, and perhaps even indulge myself by making an actual purchase.  With the LSD, I can acknowledge that I have an interest in consciousness expansion and maybe look into a variety of avenues to fulfill that need.

For the teen who sees his friends drinking or doing drugs and feels a tug towards more risky choices, acknowledging the feeling may lead them to ways of having more fun or engaging in more risky social activities that still allows them to remain within their values.  Having considered all sides is always going to  result in better results.

I always used to say to my students during Health classes that there was one big reason why people did drugs.  It was a fun experience!  Taking heroin, for example, is reportedly (as I’ve never done it) a huge, positive rush.  If they made you sick or feel bad, drugs wouldn’t get much traction or attention.  The problem is that, like many short term rewards, the long term consequences are far worse than the short term benefits.  To ignore the short term benefits is also to ignore the long term benefits.  A proper evaluation of the whole situation is not possible without both.

I have seen many cases of “good boys” who are the ideal sons, the devout deciple, the helpful,  considerate and polite child, who has clearly buried any thoughts of wildness, disowned them and shut them away in a dark cage within their sub-conscious, only to have them explode, -usually when they hit college and move away from home.  I can think of at least four, identical, classic cases of exactly this happening which I’ve encountered in my career as a teacher and youth worker.  I’m sure there are many more.

The concept of Shadow is very important, and is ignored by those who strive to “protect” youth, -usually from the things that the adults themselves are afraid of.  Sexuality, when disowned and buried, is far more likely to rear an ugly head.  The desire to cut loose and have fun is a strong need for youth, and comes bundled with desires to experiment with new experiences.  When disowned, this leads to desperate and uncontrolled experimentation rather than reasoned or balanced decisions.

I know that subways are far more expensive and take longer to construct, but that’s an issue because there wasn’t enough foresight 20 years ago.  Now we either have to pay for it or settle for what can only be a second rate transit system in what is supposed to be a first class city.

Subways are far more long lasting.  Look at the existing ones.  They’ve been in operation as long as I can remember, and that’s a long time.  They free up the surface (-although certainly not while they’re being constructed-) and are just far more efficient at moving people quickly.  I remember trying to get back to my car at the Finch station late one night and finding that I had to bus it from Eglington because of night maintenance.  It took an extra hour, even at 2 a.m. in the morning.

If only it weren’t so hard to support a Ford proposal.  If only I weren’t suspicious of his motives, wondering which of his friends may be lining their pockets with public money as the cost inevitably inflates.  If only one could be sure that he wasn’t planning on boot stamping some unsuspecting neighborhoods in the process.  I honestly don’t have enough understanding of the Miller transit plan and how it compares to the Ford subway plan, but it’s high time that some long term decisions are made.  The problem, of course, is that this may not be the most opportune economic climate to make decisions about big, expensive projects.