Whose day is it anyhow?

Merry Christmas (smiling warmly and shaking hands with love); God bless you and your family (beaming with joy and sharing a hug); May the peace of Christ be with you (looking deeply into one anothers' eyes). Those are some of the ways we share our emotions following the annual Christmas Eve candle light service; we feel great; we feel the love of friends, of family, of the Lord surrounding us and filling our lives. It is a wondrous time.

And here is thing: I feel good sharing my good feeling with people that I meet in shops or at the CO -OP, or at work--just wherever I am. And I hope that people will know that I am expressing a sincere best wish to them in words that are most meaningful to me. At least that is how I used to feel. Now, I am hesitant. I haven't changed: I still want to share what I have in my heart, but now the word is out that I am being offensive to some people of different beliefs. Now, I really do care about the integrity of belief, and I have the greatest respect for how everyone deals with their spirituality. So, I hesitate to offer greetings and end up mumbling, "Happy holidays." And then I feel as if I have let everyone down by being insincere.

To solve my problem, and that of anyone offended by cheery Christmas greetings, I have a proposal. Lets' abolish extended vacation time associated with religious celebrations. No more Christmas holidays, no more Easter holidays. Instead, let's take mid-term breaks in the fall and in the spring semesters. we can still focus the break on the grade school year. The rationalization of the dates would benefit the education system providing opporunity for balanced semesters and exams at the end of the instruction period (with no intervening Christmas holiday, for example). But the big pay-off is in terms of equal recognition of all religions.

In this system, everyone gets an entitlement to four days of religious celebration time. So, the Christians can choose time at Christmas and at Easter; the Muslims can choose Eid and Ramadan; the Jews can choose Passover and Hanukah, for example. Or they can anme whichever religious festival they prefer. The atheists can go to work and feel righteous! God won't mind their use of a religious term. The point is, every world religion has days that are important in the calendar of their worship year. Observants should be accorded the dignity of their faith by our society. For all I know, there may be a "There is no God Day" and a "I believe nothing day" so that such folk could gather and curse rather than pray.

The point surely is, if Christians deserve time away from work to worship, so to do beilevers of every faith. And, just think of the benefits to Christians of not having everyone else taking time off for our festival days. We won't be complaining about hypocrites nearly as much; we won't whine about commercialization or about nobody recognizing the "real message" of Christmas. all of us who are celebrating Christ's birth are doing so because we really get that message. And anyone who wants to come and share our joy will be welcomed with open hearts. And wouldn't that feel good?

Then, if we really get into the spirit of equality that is at the heart of most religions, we might just decide that nobody will get a recognized religious festival time off. Because we are faithful, we will live it every day and special celebrations will be part of our routine day. After work, we will go home or to church and celebrate, just like people of faiths other than Christian do now.

Then, what we believe will be revealed through our actions and not just a repetition of something that our society does every year at those times in order to boost retail sales.

Older and grumpier

What a ridiculous week! Political excitement roared across the country followed by the anticlimactic whoosh of wind from all of the trial balloons. There is still lots of buzz, but but the low pressure zone is gone; the entropy of the hi has prevailed. Meteorologically speaking, it is as if nothing has happened. A moderate front has passed through, but there was more agitation in the clouds than on the ground. A few dead autumn leaves whipped about for a short time, but now all is placid, calm, boring. So why am I grumpy, I wonder?

Here it is. Canadian politics are a useless waste of time and money. We have people whining all the time about "tax payers' money." So why do we not do something about it instead of just whine? Are we a lazy-minded lot content to do like feeble-minded Lennie wanted in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men to "live of the fatta the lan'?" It sure looks that way. We surely have no interest in looking for new and imaginative solutions to problems that we have.

So, maybe we get the politicians we deserve. They sure seem to have no ideas worth pursuing. The Prime Minister put the country through an election that only he wanted so that he might better deal with the economy, he assured us. Well, in the seven weeks following that election, he and his government came up with nothing on the economy except the news that Canada is in pretty good shape. Well, that is clearly not so; thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs every day. Today's lead stories, ahead of the political nonsense, are about bankruptcies and job losses in November. If Mr. Harper was unaware of the situation, it is an even greater condemnation of his worth than is his inaction.

On November 16, after the G20 Washington meeting, he said, "Look, it there is a worldwide agreement, then we will engage in sufficient stimulus to do our part in carrying global economic demand," he said. "We will fulfill our part of that agreement." OK. That is clear.

However, as reported in today's Globe and Mail, Robert Fairholm, director economic forecasting of the Centre for Spatial Economics, one of four firms the Department of Finance depends on to provide thorough economic forecasts upon which the government's budget track is based, says the government is not fulfilling anytyhing of the sort. He says, "The only way to break the credit logjam is for fiscal policy to leap into action, and boost the economy." Mr. Fairholm added that his analysis of the situation is shared by the IMF and was signed on to by leaders at the Group 20 summit in Washington last month, including Mr. Harper.

Well, proroguing the House of Commons is a leap alright--out of the way of the bus that would have run Mr. Harper down. He was the fool that released the park brake on that bus with his ridiculous decision to destroy the opposition parties by suspending their funding. How on earth did he have time to think that up when the economy is crashing. I guess everyone has personal priorities.

I don't like Stephane Dion; I don't like Jack Layton; and I don't trust the intentions of Giles Duceppe. But Stephen Harper is a dangerous man. He wants absolute political power--a majority government, and he is willing to take unconscionable risks to get it. How many people will suffer because of the three months of inaction by his government since the last election? All he has done is to bait three foolish politicians into trying something they have neither the wit nor the public support to pull off. He really has destroyed the opposition. Will he now force another election to get his majority?

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Well, for the sake of my children's future, I deeply hope that we are in the third of those times.

Kick a thinker

I am still troubled by the whole spin-out of the "kick a ginger" debacle.  Perhaps the most troubling is that quite a few people actually did it.  What a horrible irony it is!

The problem with satire, or with any subtle form of humor, is that many, perhaps most, people just don't get it.  So South Park's satire on stereotyping and bullying was take by some to be a suggestion.  "Go out and kick a red haired person." So, they did. 

The corrective purpose of the satire was lost, overwhelmed by an unimagined (I should think) response from the lumpen. 

Surely any sensible mind would recognize that it is just dumb to single out people on the basis of hair color. Then that small recognition could apply to other equally silly stereotypes so that social interaction would improve.  It didn't work out that way.  On a whole other level of irony, people are muttering about suing South Park.  Well, there you go; someone is always wanting to play whack-a-mole.   Maybe it serves the creators right for raising up their heads against cruelty and rudeness. Perhaps trying to correct human folly is just a futile effort.  

I should like to think not.  Pessimism is so dreary. Today is the beginning of Advent, that time marked by the four Sundays before the 25th of December.  It is a time of preparation for the Christmas celebration.  Today, we lit the candle of hope, the first of the four in the Advent wreath.

Today was joyful at church.  The music for the season is profoundly beautiful; we shared Communion.  In such a place, hope for a better world seems a sustainable dream.  Still, most people don't get it.  They believe that faithful people are deluded folk, inhibited in their lives by a bunch of unnecessarily restrictive rules.

The point of the law--religious law--is to provide sensible principles for having a successful life.  That is what the ten commandments are about, especially the last six.  Acting contrary to these simple rules will break the social contract among people and lead to chaos.  The same holds true for the seven deadly sins.  Indulging in those forbidden activities cannot but lead to personal disasters; gluttony--obesity, lust--degredation, pride--egocentrism, avarice--materialism, and so forth. 

The treat of eternal damnation belongs, perhaps to the Church which could use it to ensure faithful filling of collection plates.  To be sure, lots of religionists have used these laws as dogma, a way to cancel thought and understanding.  Small wonder they have fallen into disrepute.  Still, life would be significantly happier is everyone agreed to live according to those basic principles.

Viewed through the lens of Jesus' life, the law is all about living a successful life, seeking heaven on earth, right now.  It is all about care and love for self and others.  "Love one another as I have loved you."  Love one another.  It is a question of moving "I" from the center and putting "you" in its place.  The hardest thing in the world is putting others first; everything in our experience tells us to take care of number one.

The problem with that way of life is that it is desperately lonely, and nobody wants to be alone. Perhaps it is in that pride inspired loneliness that we find the root of meanness and bullying.  We group together with those who look and think like us, and we push away those who are different, who are thereby less.  So then with our friends, we can kick a ginger; with our friends,  we can put on white hoods and torture and murder blacks; with our friends, we can put on the uniform of righteousness and attack a country full of brown Muslims.  No matter what we try, we are still alone.

Perhaps we could get the South Park satire and choose a different way.  Perhaps reaching out the hand of friendship and support will make us feel good.  What a hope.  Today is Advent. 

Guilty Pleasures.
This by way of confession—I have been told that it is good for the soul. Shirl and I watch “Dancing with the Stars” together on Monday nights. Right, no shame. Students tell me that it is lame and that “So you think you can dance” is so much better. But here is the truth of it. Shirl and I like to ballroom dance: waltz, foxtrot, jive, quick-step, a little (darn little) tango and rumba. These dances have form and elegance (well, I try); they have actual steps that a couple can do together. And if I can waltz, I can waltz with most other partners too. It is social dance; it doesn’t need choreography, just a shared knowledge of the form.
Urban dance is freeform, all individual and very athletic. It really has no social component; much of it is pure aggression. Krump?? I suppose it is just another grumpy old mannerism, but I haven’t got past the silent c in rap music. I am bemused by all these middle-class white kids fancying themselves gangstas. All the rappers must laugh and laugh as they roll about in their gold jewelry.
This summer, out of a sense of duty to those students who praised the show, I did watch some “So you think you can dance” shows. Indeed, some of them could. But for the most part, it really was not very interesting. The mc and the judges were the most fun. I have caught a few minutes of the Canadian version. I have the impression that these kids are better dancers than the Americans of the summer-time show. They certainly are a whole lot more, um, smokin’. Maybe the reason I haven’t watched a whole show is fear. A big jump in blood pressure could cause an aneurism.
But I don’t like DWTS any more. They have done something unpleasant this year. Cloris Leachman just made me cringe; she is a caricature of an elderly woman. I have friends in their 80s who are lively, lovely, elegant women who are beautiful on a dance floor. But Cloris made me cringe. I abhor people who patronize others, and there was a lot of that going on while she was still on the show. It was a relief when she left.
But the patronizing still goes on. There is huge Warren Sapp, shuffling and bobbing, ducking his head and rolling his eyes as if to say,” It’s only me, bit ol’ cuddly Warren.” The studio audience stands and cheers, and the judges praise. Neither they nor the man have a shred of dignity left. Now, I know that it may be dangerous to say such things because Warren Sapp is a mighty mighty man. Still, he is pretty bulky, so I think I can run faster scared than he can mad. The only thing I have to watch for is a hit from the blind side after the play is over. Or maybe I shouldn’t have brought that up??
Anyhow, I don’t much like to watch that show anymore. I sit there mostly to be companionable, and I try (usuccessfully, you can guess) to keep my gums from flapping. Maybe I just need to take Shirl out dancing, formally, elegantly, and with class. No booty shaking, I can promise.

Lists

List are fun, but more fun still is having something of my own to say about the items that I post in the lists. Consider movies. We rented a Jodie Foster movie on Saturday. We were looking through the relatively small selection of BlueRay movies at the local blockbuster and spotted The Brave One, starring Jodie Foster.

The title is not at all promising, but Foster is a fine actor, so we rented it. Sure enough, her performance was mostly up to her usual standard. It is an action sort of film dealing with revenge in a way that many "justice" people will find most satisfying. The good bit is the angst of the main character in trying to deal with what her life has become.

The bad bit is that the ending is terrible, all right out of a fairy tale: they lived happily (sort of) ever after. I realliy admire Jodie Foster's work, but the writers and director sure let her down this time.

There, that feels better.

Blame the media

Rant: Yesterday in church, the lady speaking from the pulpit blamed the media for a particular social malaise--in this case, the millions of dollars spent on Halloween candy. I prefer Flip Wilson's character Geraldine (you know, the one who first said "What you see is what you get"), who excused her bad behaviours saying, "The devil made me do it."  Geraldine had sass.  Blaming the media is just dumb.

The media follow; they don't lead.  It's not the media that convince us to buy anything.  Sellers use media to make us think we need their product.  Advertisers buy media products for their clients who have something to put on our faces, on our backs, or in our mouths.  What the media do is sell time and space, not Halloween candy.  So if I put my loonies in the candy box instead of the collection box, I 'm delusional to blame the media.

In fact, it's infantile to say that the media are at fault.  We just need to take responsibility for what we do.  Anyhow, I'm willing to bet that more Halloween candy gets eaten by the householders than by the kids who come around in costume, knocking on doors for "Trick or treat."  Many of those $4 mil of treats get gobbled up by greedy guts who want to point the finger at someone else.  "The devil made me eat up all the candy bars before the kids came, so I had to shut off the lights and pretend that nobody was home."

I am grumpy about the Federal Election. I vote. It is just something I do, have always done. I'm grumpy because it makes no difference whether I cast my ballot. Only rarely has it made a difference, yet I trudge off to the polling station every chance I get.

Does that make me a fool? am idiot? Maybe. Busybodies tell me, "If you don't vote, you can't complain." I am sure the failure to vote never stopped the mouths of many complainers. Anyhow, what earthly good is complaining? For me, all it does is remind me that I am grumpy.

It is astonishing how pleased I am when the person I vote for wins the election. Three times I have voted for the person elected, all for civic government. Maybe I should just vote for the candidate most likely to win. But I expect that would leave a foul smell in the voting booth--a vote fart?

So, I vote according to the principles I hold dear. And then I grumble. I really wish for a form of proportional representation so that I and most other Canadians might be more accurately represented in the halls of political power. It won't happen, however. The process is controlled by the winners, and they have no motivation to change what made them rulers. Alas.

Still, I will vote and vote and vote, and then be grumpy.