THIS is Stephen Harper

Typically I'll write a blog, or I'll create a video. Guess which one this is!

thump (n): The muffled sound produced by or as if by a blow with a blunt object

It seems that there are people in this world who believe that if they adjust or reinterpret translations of the Holy Bible that they will be able to beat those people over the head who are disinterested in what it says. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version) reads as follows:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Assuming the words are accurate, let's examine Leviticus. Now, based on the film The Ten Commandments (or so it seems), many believe that God spoke only to Moses through the burning bush or when giving him the Torah on Mount Sinai. The Jewish faith tells us that Moses was but one leader amongst a nation of Jews who heard the word of God. Christian religions are based on the Old Testament (or Jewish Bible) and then the New Testament(s) that came after the birth of Jesus Christ – yet there is disagreement on who heard the voice of God. Now where were we...

In the King James Bible, 18 Leviticus 22 is translated: "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination." More contemporary translations have broadened both the scope and interpretation of the statement by the gender neutral statement that homosexuality (rather than the implied sexual activity of men and heterosexual men) is an abomination. Of course, this statement is preceded by a long dissertation on your father being the only person allowed to see each and every female member of his family naked. In fact, it seems the only women he can't take a naked gander at is his daughter-in-law. Presumably because she is your wife and her nudity is for your eyes only. Also your daughter and any other female in the family save for your own daughter-in-law.

Now, if you follow EVERY line related to human relationships then men are permitted, and encouraged, to have as many wives as they want. So an alternate interpretation is to only have ONE male partner, and many female partners because you would not be lying with women as you laid with men since your numbers are different. It just goes to show that translating ancient Aramaic is open to everyone, though it is clearly not an exact science. Of course, you should also know the history of the "scripture" you adhere to with such steadfast certainty. Society has changed in the last 5000 years of recorded (recorded, remembered, or invented?) history. Luckily, its rules have not.

According to 18 Leviticus 29, “Whoever commits such abominations shall be cut off from among their people.” We still do that one. Check out the statistics on today's prison populations. And in 19 Leviticus 15, “You shall do no injustice in judgment” we clearly have a perfect system of laws and a perfect system of jurisprudence. Innocent people have never been sentenced to prison and the state of prisons is perfectly humane. Right? And today we are free to marry multiple wives. Women who are unfaithful are still ritually slaughtered while men who are unfaithful aren't really unfaithful at all. Polygamy is endorsed by our laws. Isn't it?

But let's get back to the LGBTQ community. 19 Leviticus 19 tells us that “A garment of mixed linen and wool shall never come upon you.” Somehow, I don't think the gays invented poly-blends but I'd have to study fashion history. I wonder if Tim Gunn is busy?

20 Leviticus 13 is more difficult to refute. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Here's my response. Don't lie. I try to be as honest as possible – with men and women. But, this is just a rehash of 18 Leviticus 22 with the added death penalty. See above.

This brings us, then, to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah: two cities destroyed by God when the angels he sent to investigate the cities were not turned over to the Sodomites by Lot who wished to “know them.” “Know them” has been reinterpreted in the New International Version to state “have sex with them.” It must be said that if I knew my neighbour was hosting a couple of divine beings in his house, I would want to meet them – to know them, if you will. It may be out of jealousy, or out of a selfish need to experience the divine. That being said, I don't think I would be particularly aroused by the idea. In fact, I would be scared out of my wits. Fear and sexual arousal rarely go hand in hand. Rarely.

Anyway, I am beginning to feel like this diatribe has been rather biased in terms of gender. 1 Romans 26-7 states that “God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” While it mentions women being contrary to the natural order, it really only damns men with any specificity. And yet, these are men who refuse to believe Paul, an apostle of Christ, preached the word of God with any authority. They essentially said, “Paul, I know the word of God as well as you do.” Then they went about lusting after same sex partners. Well, if someone calls you an idiot there is little chance you'll speak well of them. It sounds like Paul's version of “That's so gay.”

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Fundamentalists have used this statement to suggest that God sat down and wrote the Bible – or at least controlled the hands which wrote it down. And I quote: "Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Our sense of morality, and the metaphorical texts which permeate our understanding of divinity, is inspired by the divine. But if we follow the fundamentalist interpretation, the words are literal and unalterable. It is highly ironic that these same fundamentalists have revised the Bible according to their own contemporary belief structure almost generationally.

So, I, and others, have done your homework to ensure you are better armed to deal with the fundamentalists who seek conflict in order to further an agenda of hate and cruelty. Do with it as you will. I do urge you, however, not to seek the conflict. Simply be prepared to respond. If I have learned one lesson in this life, it is to let the offence initiate their own defeat. Remain grounded and focused and simply reorient and redirect the vitriol being spewed in your direction. Eventually, the offender will talk her/himself into a corner.

WTF?

What does it mean to be straight-looking or straight-acting? If a person is romantically interested in their same gender, can they ever be straight-anything?

Some might argue that the use of such terminology suggests a desire for a more masculine male or, perhaps, a more feminine female. Granted, some homosexual people don't fall into the stereotypes of man and woman, or masculine and feminine, that the media both idealizes and spoofs.

Let's look at the evolution of the most successful, gay-oriented network television shows of all time: Will & Grace. The title cast features a gay male. At first, there was a great deal of opposition to the idea until we met Will. He wasn't effeminate. His voice was even and deep. He walked like a man. He talked like a man. Obviously, he was a man. But according to whom?

As the series progressed, his wacky friend and neighbour Jack became an audience favourite. Jack was effeminate. His voice was uneven and higher pitched. His wrist was more than a little limp. And the audience loved him. And we loved his partner-in-crime, Karen – whose alcoholism and drug use arguably mirrored another stereotype of the gay community: if it isn't a sex partner, it may as well be a chemical dependency. According to the pre-Will & Grace mainstream media, the gay community was little more than a drug-induced harem of STI-infected sexual deviancy. Queer As Folk anyone?

But I've gotten sidetracked. As the series progressed, Will became more in touch with his gay self and so, too, did his mannerisms. He drank a bottle of water with his pinky extended. He squealed when he was excited. He wore women's jeans and sought out the perfect pair of shoes to go with his attaché. Will evolved into the publicly-embraced gay caricature that was epitomized by Jack.

His voice was still reasonably masculine - until he got excited. But the network found ways to being out the Jack in Will whenever they could. I surmise that the Nielsen families liked to see the gays they recognized - the evil, twisted gays. You see there is safety in familiarity. Even when that safety comes from a perceived danger.

If you are/desire a masculine male, say that. If you are/desire a feminine female, say that. But requesting or suggesting a "straight-acting/looking" person is little more than self-loathing and internalized homophobia. Because we must ask ourselves: what is "straight-acting/looking?" I know heterosexual men who care more about their hair and clothing than some homosexuals that I know. I also know some of the most feminine lesbians I ever expected to meet. I'll be honest, I fell victim to the expectations that the media stereotypes propagate. Are those heterosexuals who fall short of the male/female idealized archetypes "gay-looking/acting?" I believe their heterosexual romantic activities would negate that suggestion. Does a desire to appear well-groomed and maintained a sign of femininity? Or is it just a superficial desire to appear well-to-do? It is the connotation that an assumption of heterosexuality is the definition of manhood or womanhood.

Yes, there is a metrosexual term that came to bear during the Queer Eye For the Straight Guy craze a decade ago. Five gay men, whose pop cultural know-how turned around the dress, decor, and grooming of the typical jock, accomplished little else but suggesting to the world that feminine men are two things: gay and fabulous. But that is connecting fashion and cleanliness with sexual proclivity. And the two are almost entirely separate. As I recall, South Park commented on a gay resistance to the metrosexual appearance because it has caused gaydar malfunctions. However, this amusing episode that mocked the metrosexual still underscored the assumption that all gays are Jack/Mr. Garrison/Carson Kressley.

I suppose that a large part of my issue came from a moment when I was called a homophobe for speaking out against the overt sexualization of the gay stereotype (I had the audacity to suggest that a Pride parade should be more than drag queens and seniors in leather chaps). I am assumed to be heterosexual because I do not personify the gay stereotype. It is ironic that some of my students assume I am homosexual because I correct them when they use phrases such as "That's so gay" in the classroom. As an educator I want my students to see gays as more than stereotypes.

I support Pride because of what it started (a Civil Rights movement) and as what many communities have allowed it to become (an expression of unity, a reminder that the fight for equality for all isn't over, and a family-friendly reminder that the LGBTQ community is more than the bedroom). There is the need to define the other if only to define ourselves by our difference from the other. But the worst part of it is when that definition diminishes ourselves by assigning more importance to the other than to one's own uniqueness.

As I have recently been reminded, education is the foundation. This is my method. What's yours?

'Cause I gotta have faith?

The most insidious thing about hate speech is that it often contains just enough superficial truth for the audience to buy into it. I recently received a forwarded e-mail that I found particularly worrisome because it uses numbers and facts and twists their relevance to make it sound conspiratorial. The numbers, I might add, are wrong and the facts (though not scientific, they are certainly commonsensical) are true of any cultural presence in a community.

The email starts as follows...

"Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components."

Mistake #1: Islam is a religion. However, it tends to become a wider social force for the more strictly faithful. And this is true of any fundamental religious sect. We have seen the ideological differences between Judaism and Islam spawn a centuries old conflict over land (which has become little more than indoctrinated racism). By the way, Hasidic Jews share the facial hair social moré with fundamentalist Islam. And what about the Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? Selective memory often excludes balanced, unbiased facts.

You have to understand that groups like the Taliban use the fundamentals of the faith to take advantage of the under-educated faithful. This is why we see the coalition forces trying to build schools and housing which will support greater education for the youth in both urban and rural communities. Suicide bombers are often the children of impoverished families from outlying areas who are told that if they commit to the jihad (or holy war) and carry a bomb in God's name (can they ever verify that this is what God really wants before committing to the act?) then they will go to heaven with dozens of virgins and their families will be financially secure for decades. What then happens is the family gets a little bit of money (which is quickly spent, in part because they are promised more that never comes) and someone who doesn't vote and can't read (or otherwise contribute to the advancement of the Taliban regime) is wiped from their future responsibility while also achieving their goals without loss of their own lives. And then the family asks the same of another child in hopes of additional support for the rest of the family. And what dutiful child would deny their family's well-being?

Now, if you take the origins of the Big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, & Islam) back to their roots they are the same religion born of the same roots in the same part of the world. The only difference is the first people to carry it to their communities. One guy believes that women should be covered from head to toe so he adds that personal belief to the shared philosophies and tells his friends who share that opinion. Over time it is indoctrinated into the religion and, thus, society. The tenets of Islam are born. Another guy thinks that the guy who told him about these philosophies assumes the message could only have been delivered by God - made flesh by some miracle. Christianity comes to pass. And the same is true of Judaism. Maybe the bush burned, and a man sitting in the overheated desert heard a voice. Mirage or miracle? A few fundamental differences grow over time into a variety of ideological differences based on human, and society's, evolution over the centuries. I am reading a book called A History of God that explains it in much greater detail. Suffice it to say, religion has been used by different leaders to sustain authority and power since humanity began to walk upright.

RELIGION is why we are seeing increasing warfare in the middle east and less obvious conflict (look at the Vatican's latest propaganda - we believe in aliens, we're sorry for letting priests molest kids, lower attendance in church is a sign of the antichrist, etc, etc, etc.). Those people too afraid to take responsibility for their actions in life externalize that responsibility. "I'm poor because I'm a sinner." "If I kill others, God will ensure my place in heaven." But it is also people using those who have no access to education as pawns in their political will to rule the world. The Vatican has, quite literally, billions of dollars in cash and artwork and yet each parish (community of church attendees) has to pay for the priest that the Vatican moves to a new community after they were caught diddling the altar boys.

It is all about power. They spend money on their own needs (promote the Church in places that have no access to international media - tribal Africa, rural Central and South America - and limited access to education) and ignore the needs of the faithful. One can believe in God without clinging to someone else's definition of what God may or may not want us to do in our lives. We are on this earth to do one thing - leave it better than we received it. That's it, that's all. Life is designed to evolve. Fundamental religion is contrary to that because it refuses to evolve with our understanding of the very being that is humanity. The tirade about Islam (briefly quoted above) is one person's paranoia that their religion (you see this by their quantification of Islam in comparison to other world religions) may be losing its place in the world. Islam won't take over the world, although it may be one of the last ones to leave it.

We're seeing it kicking and screaming as we speak.

It's all in the delivery

   As an educator, I find myself increasingly concerned with the messages I convey to my students. Communication is more than speeches or lectures. It is engagement. It is posture, eye contact, and gestures. And it is a passion for the subject matter we are discussing. One thing that can make all the difference in engaging students is in how we, as educators, present our lessons. Every moment is a potential lesson. And every student - EVERY student - is a potential leader of our future world. 

   One of the challenges we face is ensuring that our curriculum is meeting the needs or tomorrow's leaders. Today we find our society changing ever more quickly with an increasingly globalized technocracy. Students are so tech-savvy that they have come to see the world through the rose-colored glasses of instant gratification. We reheat food in the microwave in less than a minute. We send and receive messages across the globe just as quickly. Technology that used to take up a room now fits on a desktop in our home office. And yet, the basics of education are essentially the same. So is this a problem, or an opportunity to evolve?

   As educators, we are left to wonder how we will impart a world's worth of information to students who don't want to have to sit still and read a book. Even if the information is presented in an online format, academia has become the bane of youth rather than the opportunity to improve oneself and progress toward a successful future. So the problem becomes finding a way to engage the online student. Teachers have to be well-versed in today's technology-driven multimedia tools. As educators, it is our responsibility to share in our students' capabilities as well as the social networking tools that drive much of their extra-curricular lives. Relating to students has to reach beyond knowing the popular magazines and television series. It is great if a teacher has read the latest fad-fiction - from Harry Potter to Twilight - but we must also be aware of how these fads are shaped and changed by worldwide online activities.

   We can read a novel. But that novel may be produced as a film. Our students will be passionately connected to the actors who portray the characters with whom they have made personal connections. A video game may extend or alter the existing storyline. In the case of Twilight, the novel may be rewritten from the perspective of another character and published as an online work. And what of the YouTube generation who share and exchange opinions through the video blogosphere? Although we see a great deal of subjectivity projected through the medium, there is also an increasing level of theoretical data being converted into something more media savvy for public consumption - a process that began with Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.

   The point is that we, rather than our students, must learn to embrace the evolution of information from the printed text to more dynamic deliveries. Our students are growing up in a digital world. Teachers must become more than discussion leaders. We must become entertainers to a certain extent. There are teachers who will stand at the front of the class and talk at their students. And while it is a student's responsible to be engaged in the educational process, it is a teacher's responsibility to make that process engaging.

That's So Gay

I want to point out that I have not received official or professional advice. There has never been a representative who has suggested I should work from the closet. The advice has come from peers who have been left with the impression from others that being "out" can delay career aspirations. The reasons are irrational, but logical. The suggestions make sense, in a completely irrational and irresponsible way, but it makes me feel marginalized. And it makes me wonder, what are we teaching youth by being closeted?


I was reminded this evening about the internal struggles of teens and their sexual orientations. Both men and women, during adolescence, spend a great deal of time and energy trying to figure out where they lay on Kinsey's scale.

Am I heterosexual? bisexual? homosexual? omnisexual?

The reminder came in the form of an intelligent, mature, young man working his way through about a half-dozen permutations of that very struggle before my eyes. He asked questions. I offered insights. He made statements, all of which were painstakingly phrased to ensure nothing was revealed and very little commitment was made. He wanted answers that I could not - or, rather, would not - give.

Now, I could offer some grandiose rationale for not giving him the answers he was crying out for - in his own silent way. I could suggest that we must all live through our own trials. That we cannot become fully actualized adults without enduring the challenges inherent to high school or, more broadly, adolescence. I could say that by giving him my answers, I might change his own natural reactions to any number of stimuli. I might unintentionally alter the choices he would make without my interference. I might have a hand in changing the very direction of his life by making him reconsider his own inclinations in favour of the voice of experience. Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened. It isn't what seems to keep happening...

You see, it has been suggested that I should keep my mouth shut where my sexual orientation is concerned. I should pass because I can. But, the way it effects me is something I am willing to endure. It is the way it effects those who are looking for a role model - the kind of thing their peers take for granted - that I find most troubling.

Adolescents who are struggling with their sexual identities need to know that there are adults who have shared their strife and have excelled. It isn't enough to read success stories or to see media representations of the ideal outcomes. People need to see real life examples - people they meet and know - in their real lives. Of course, I know that it is not my place to lead someone to a conclusion or decision, implying one way is the way things are or should be (that's the job of organized religion). And I am at a loss. I don't know what I am supposed to be feeling.

It is laughable that people think homophobia is on the way out when their peers are openly encouraged to suppress their sensibilities. My comrades live their lives without regret or concern over the potential discomfort of others. They do not have to internalize the possibility of misunderstanding or try to pass off homophobic remarks as "a different generation" or "not knowing any better" all for the good of the hypothetical overreaction to openness and honesty.

So I am still at a loss. And I could use some advice. Any takers?

Do you see what I see?

So my Dad got Lasik done a couple of weeks ago. He used to have super thick glasses and now wears nothing at all. I mean, he owns some of those WalMart reading glasses but I've only seen him use them once. It's kind of bizarre but it has worked quite successfully for him. So far, I don't need glasses but since I am the only one left in the family without them, I suspect it's just a matter of time. So why am I telling you this? Well...anyone who happens by my blog knows what I look like so I want to gauge public opinion. Should I get glasses? Or Lasik?

Stahl Eye Center

The Catholic "Church"

   Is the entire Church guilty of pedophaelia? Of course not. But the reality is that when Church elders heard of priests committing acts of abuse they gave them a stern talking to, suggested they pray (prey?) and ask God's forgiveness, and then moved them to a new parish (at times even a new country) where the root issue isn't really addressed.

   Gays are villified in the Church - priest or not, even though the gay priests are as celibate as any other. Today, priests are subjected to rigorous psychological profiling just to determine their sexual orientation, and yet I've heard of nothing of the same battery of testing to determine their predilection toward atypical sexual deviances. The Church has addressed the disease without treating the symptoms. Unless something more than a financial payout is done, the Church is going to crumble. And that's a shame because there are so many good people who see their faith as a sign of strength and comfort, and yet are turning away because it has become a representation of much of what is wrong in this world.

   When you see how many priests and bishops have been incriminated for sexual abuses and kiddie porn charges you have to wonder how many criminals are able to hide within the Church. The Church says ALL gays are sinners and must live celibate lives to be considered "acceptable" children of God. Interesting that statistics show that the VAST majority of sexual predators are heterosexual. According to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (1988), the typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children (most of whom do not report the offence). That's the average...which means it can be more (or less).

   So I should be celibate while priests will break their vows of chastity with innocent children - who are never the same. I've seen priests getting drunk at bars and yet they lead AA groups. I am sick and tired of the Church getting away with gross hypocrisy just to maintain an image that may never have truly existed. I can't sit back anymore and watch this kind of thing happen without speaking out. How the Church treats me is one thing, but when the most innocent of all people (children) are being manipulated and abused I refuse to be silent on the issue. You must understand that this is a commentary driven by frustration and anger at an institution that refuses to acknowledge a need for overwhelming reflection and change.

"For some sexually undeveloped priests, sexual abuse of a pubertal boy may have signified sexual merger with a male perceived to be a psychosexual peer of the abuser. In addition, it may have represented an unconscious act of hostility toward a boy who otherwise could look forward to a sexual life closed off to the priest. In other words, the abuser, who could have entered a minor seminary at age 14 or 15, may have unconsciously attacked his victim’s sexuality at the same age he was when he entered the minor seminary, symbolically castrating the victim as he himself was symbolically castrated. Finally, clinicians working with Catholic priests say some priests define celibacy as refraining from sexual relationships with women and thus could convince themselves that sex with minor males did not jeopardize their celibate status. Vatican officials, in their search to blame the sexual abuse scandal on someone or something external to institutional and doctrinal failings of the church itself, conflated sexual orientation with psychosexual maturation and with criminal behavior." (Frawley-O'Dea, Mary G. "Experts on sex offenders have news for Vatican: Abusers’ behavior does not stem from orientation, studies show" from National Catholic Reporter. Fall/Winter: 2005. 9.3.)

   Priests should be able to get married. That kind of change would encourage more men to take their vows because unrealistic expectations would not discourage them from following a path to God. And if priests take their vows for the right reasons, there might not be an opportunity for those who pursue it for the wrong reasons. Women should be able to lead a congregation. Many men have proven themselves incapable of doing it with honor or faith. Gays should be just as welcome within ALL of the precepts of the Church as any other Christian. Not just gays who deny much of what makes them human. God loves us all - male and female, gay and straight. He created us ALL in his image. An image of inclusion and love. And until the powers that be come to terms with that very fact, they will preside over the destruction of that which they allege to hold most dear.

Peace One Day

I wanted to create a short film to enter into a contest put forth by Peace One Day - an organization devoted to working toward creating peace in our world. I don't know if I'll win. Hell, I don't even know for sure that I am eligible. But when I saw Jeremy Gilley's devotion, I wanted to be a part of it - no matter how small.

Where do we go from here?

   Every now and then I’m reminded why I still need to be a little angry, why I still need to be outspoken. Today, even in a nation where gay marriage is recognized and perfectly legal, children are still struggling to find that sameness that everyone else takes for granted. Children are still struggling to find hope. And we need to give them that hope. Without it, many will not survive the struggle to persist through their tumultuous teenage years into adulthood.

   In 1981, Harvey Milk was murdered for being openly gay and for fighting for gay rights in the city of San Francisco, California. There have been times in my life when I have found myself speaking out against my peers who wear their sexual orientations on their sleeves. Personally, I think my sexual orientation is just about the least interesting thing about me. And yet, I still find myself worried about the reactions of others when I walk into a public environment – a bar, at the beach, and the workplace. So while I am not externally identifiable as gay to most, I have found myself wondering when and where it is appropriate to self-disclose my sexuality. As an educator, is it not my responsibility to offer my students the benefit of my experience? But what about principals who won't hire an openly gay teacher for fear of a public backlash from homophobic, uneducated parents? It's a pretty big question mark...

   So I find myself wondering what the right move is for me and for my peers, students, friends, and family. How can I best represent the interests of all of the people around me, while representing the very truths that underlie my own needs and wants? Usually I'll write a blog with many of my own conclusions. In this instance, I am really hoping for some input. I don't have all of the answers, and the ones I do have lack the same level of certainty that I typically possess for my conclusions. Man, I hate uncertainty.

Lessons Learned

   I am a teacher. I have always been a teacher. From the moment I wake up until the moment I go to bed at night, I am a teacher. Teaching is a calling. Many people think you decide to become a teacher. You want holidays and summers off. You want a pension. You want a certain level of job security. You go to school and get an undergraduate degree. You either have a double major or a major/minor (you need two teachable subjects). Then you go on to a professional degree (the Bachelor of Education), and perhaps some graduate level work if you are looking to specialize. But I digress.

   When I graduated high school I was expected to move on to university right away. After five years of hard work, and two undergraduate degrees later, I was a journalist. I had a yearning for knowledge and to share that knowledge. Journalism seemed to fill that desire…for a time. There is something inherently corruptible in a field that depends on “keeping the sponsors happy” or requires an editor to determine the validity of your articles, rather than limiting themselves to ensuring grammatical precision. Over the past ten years I have worked in retail, in a call center, and as a payroll practitioner. In retail I quickly moved into a leadership role and became responsible for training new hires. When I moved on to working in a managerial role for a call center, I took on mentorship roles on over a three-month period developed a training curriculum which included written documentation, scheduled dates and times for mentorship between senior and junior associates, and evaluative scales. I was a mentor at the payroll company too. No matter where I was, or what position I held, I was a teacher. At every step in my career, I have taken on the role of teacher.

   I have been accused of many things in my life. Most recently, I was accused of being heartless. A teacher. Someone who wants nothing more than to contribute to the world. To instill a thirst for knowledge and to inspire ambition and wonder in the minds and hearts of those he encounters. This is the majority of teachers. There are always exceptions to reinforce the standard.

   I am heartless because I am pragmatic? Admittedly, this does get me into trouble more often than I like. Let me give you a scenario (Please note – this scenario is entirely fictional. Any similarities to actual persons or situations is entirely unintentional.):

You’re dating someone for a little less than a month. You know that at the end of that month, this person will be moving away. You choose to enjoy the time you spend together, remaining entirely realistic that any relationship that develops will be primitive, at best, and do not want to allow yourself to get so invested that the ultimate end – however long that end may or may not last – will be all the more painful. On the second date, you clarify that when you part ways you will “do your own thing.” This appears clear. When the time comes, this fact is reiterated. Nothing is said to discount the statement. What follows is initially amicable text messages and emails that soon degenerate into restating what you thought had already been stated, only somewhat more final. Following that you are insulted, your intelligence is questioned, your consideration is discounted and your every attempt to remain practical and mature is twisted. And then you are called heartless.

   Now…I am many things. I am logical. I am well-read. I am passionate. I am self-conscious. I can be arrogant, at times. I am a perfectionist. I find it difficult (though FAR from impossible) to accept that I am wrong unless it is proven with factual arguments. But I am by no means heartless. In fact, I tend to lead with my heart. I do not hide my feelings well. If I am feeling happy, I am visibly elated. If I am feeling sad, I emanate doom and gloom. If I am angry, by God you’ll see it in my expression. So what am I saying?

   Is it possible for a teacher to be heartless? Well, few things in this world are impossible. Let’s just say it is highly unlikely. Do I need to learn to get over a hurt from a year ago that has left me jaded and overly guarded in emotional considerations? Absolutely. Is this a conscious act? Of course not. If we could consciously control our emotions every moment of every day there would be no crime. There would be no greed. There would be no violence. Mind you, there might be no art, or theatre, or any real passion at all.

   To make a long story short (too late, I know), life is a journey. We are never done learning or maturing or changing. We are different from one moment to the next. So while I hated to be called heartless, I have learned something from the experience: Don’t rush to the destination. Enjoy the journey.

Where was I?

It has recently come to my attention that I may periodically give the impression that I am anti-development. Nothing could be further from the truth. So let me clear things up a bit...

My issue is with sustainability, or lack thereof. Our world is in the midst of an ecological crisis and our government is doing its letter best to sell tar sands petroleum products to as many countries as possible. I wouldn't go so far as to call it oil, because it is far less refined than your typical crude. There is growing resistance to Alberta Tar Sands products due to the energy and water resources that are used to extract the petroleum - a fundamentally different type of oil than that found in conventional oil sources. For every barrel of oil produced in the Alberta Tar Sands, four to five barrels of water are needed to force the oil to separate from the sand in which it lies (not to mention enough natural gas energy to heat a home for four days as well as the destruction of acres of natural habitats for, ultimately, displaced animals). And what is done with this "used" water?

Many of you likely know about Sydney's Tar Pond. Considered to be one of the world's worst ecological disaster's, cleanup of the Tar Pond site has been "in progress" for over 20 years. Any number of cleanup methods have been suggested, evaluated, and rejected over the years in favour of the present method: encapsulation. Let's be honest, this is a cover it up now and let someone else worry about it in a few decades when the seals on the area ultimately begin to break down and signs of new contamination rear their ugly heads. So why am I bringing it up?

There are, quite literally, billions of litres of waste water being dumped back into Northern Alberta's groundwater and natural ecosystems every year. Animals that have managed to sustain their lives in their natural habitats are consuming plants that absorb the toxins produced by the tar sand extraction process. They are drinking the water that contain the toxins directly. The Tar Sands Project has been trying to sell itself as environmentally responsible at a time when the very creation of new fossil fuel sources is a contradiction of such policies in and of itself. Companies are spending marginal amounts toward investment in green technologies when a factor of ten is spent on producing new carbon-producing, methane-releasing, dirty-burning (get my point?) fuel resources at the expense of our children, not to mention our very species.

It isn't just animals that we need to be concerned about. It is also the people who work on the tar sands projects. A media blitz is underway to change the perception of the Tar Sands developments. The oil companies and their contractors want to show how responsible they are and how they care about the environments in which they work. Touching sound bites and visuals featuring employees who are impressed by how much their employers work to take care of the many wild animals they impact and the landscapes they decimate. Of course, the landscapes they show are at the outer borders of the lands on which they work and the animals they show are either inside a captive preserve or, again, live outside the work zone. It is nice that they try to take care of them, to a certain extent, but it is little more than a hollow gesture meant to curry public support. But I digress. We're talking about the people who work there.

Often we hear politicians claiming to be environmentally conscious, and yet when partisanship comes into play we see them damning one another's green policy in order to garner power and influence over making the best decision for our nation and our world. Remember Stephan Dion'sGreen Shift (you'll note that the link points to the environmental concern largely responsible for Dion's policies and research, rather than the Liberal site itself)? Well, it had a number of recommendations. First and foremost was a national green policy - not something that would be regionalized and altered as special interests might request.

The Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party criticized Dion's Liberals for the economic impact of such a plan. They argued that taxing carbon/methane polluters would create an unreasonable burden on big and small business alike. The irony is that if the average voter did their research they would realize that a large part of the Green Shift involves teaching businesses how to be environmentally responsible. It means short term investment in learning how to make green choices an advantageous and profitable part of the business model. Unfortunately, Dion's weak English translated into a lack of charisma and an inability to respond to more challenging questions as quickly as the "instant gratification" audience would like. Also unfortunately, this is a weakness that the other party leaders were able to exploit. And they exploited Dion right out of office. The ensuing weeks were spent with the Liberal Party in a flurry to find a new leader...which helped the minority Conservatives deflect criticism of their lack of environmental policy, and the NDP gained new ground in the polls as a result.

The answer, it seems, lies with homegrown political will. For every voter, there are about a dozen non-voters who whine about policy while refusing to exercise their right to impact it. One of the most shocking groups of apathetic non-voters are the 18-25 demographic. Marketing executives try to garner favour with this group because of their spending power and dynamic will. But politicians largely ignore this group because they do not vote. If today's young adults, tomorrow's leaders, want politicians to take their concerns seriously they need to exercise their right to vote. Having a right is fine, but exercising that right is making the statement that you have a voice and an opinion that matters. Until our young adults learn this important fact, we may continue to lag behind as one of the world's largest "per capita" polluters. Food for thought...

The next step

     I figure that it's time to get back to where I started.  This weblog was started so I could take the time to trace my steps into agoraphobia.  And hopefully, to map my path out of it.  So the next step in my journey was that same winter in grade two...

     It was a long weekend my parents decided to take to visit a family friend (Wilna - and, no, it's not a typo) in New Glasgow.  She was a kind, older lady who always had fun games to play and never insisted that a child sit and listen to old stories about things that never entered your mind before your teen years.  She was also very aware that children can quickly grow bored in a house filled with adults that hasn't seen a toy in a decade or more (her children were grown and had started families of their own by this time).  So, being as thoughtful as she was, Wilna had anticipated our desire for toys other than board games and playing cards.  She had spoken with friends who lived about six houses down on the other side of the street.  They had children close to our (my brother and I) age and offered to have us over for a couple of hours.

     Now, as I've already established, snowfall seems to increase my anxiety.  It presents itself as a barrier to my escape from any anxiety-provoking situation.  And it also slows the approach of help when it is called.  I mean, really Matt?  Really?  Ugh.  But I digress.  I do that from time to time.

     So my brother and I got all bundled up in our heavy socks, and snow pants, and heavy winter coats, and heavy winter boots.  Personally, I always felt a kinship with the Michelin Man in the winter months, but it's all about layering isn't it?  Anyway, my brother was off on his way when my last boot was being laced by Mom (I was unable to bend over due to the amount of clothing at this point).  I remember the initial pangs of panic seeing him venture across the yard toward the sidewalk before I had even opened the door.  And then when I tried to open the door I noticed significant resistance.  In fact, Mom has to open the door for me.  At this point I asked her to let me stay home because I was afraid of how windy it was.  She told me I would be fine and to catch up with my brother.  Well, I let the wind take me to my brother more quickly than I might have caught up otherwise and the anxiety diminished...until I tried to stop next to him and found myself unable.  I continued to try, hopelessly, to slow myself down and dig in my heels but the wind continued to overpower me.  My brother called after me that we had to cross the street and that I was already going too far down the street.  I looked up the street and found no cars and began to cross - finding that the street itself was even more slick.  And then it happened...

     "HEEEEEELP!  Aidan, heellllp!!" I cried.

     At first I thought he hadn't heard me.  I was unable to stop and with the blowing wind, the snow was blinding me.  I didn't know if he was even paying attention to me at this point.  I cried harder and harder.  I was blinded by my tears and thought all was lost.  What's worse is that Wilna's house was at the top of a rather steep (at least in 8-year old terms) decline and I figured I would be blown from the face of the earth.  I was in ultimate panic mode at this point.  I couldn't make sense of my surroundings and had basically shut down.  And then I felt a tug, which made me panic all the more, only to find that my big brother had grabbed my left arm and was yelling at me to listen to him when he is calling to me and that I wasn't allowed to go anywhere without him.  He was blissfully, frustratingly, unaware that I had no desire to venture off on my own.  And his chiding only made my upset all the worse.  I screamed at him that I couldn't walk against the wind and that I was going to blow away and that I was scared and to save me and help me and not let me go.  He held my sleeve tighter and dragged me to the door and rang the doorbell.

    "Calm down.  They're gonna answer the door in a second.  Stop crying!" he said.  Aidan was nothing if not reassuring.  (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)  In his own way my brother was being protective, but at the same time he always made sure to put his best foot forward...regardless of how club-footed I might be feeling at the time.  I guess that's one of our key differences - I lead with my heart, he leads with his mind.  It explains his career geared toward math and sciences, while I'm a writer and artist.  And yet, I always wanted to be like my big brother, regardless of how little he wanted me to emulate him.

       Wilna's friend answered the door and let us in and noticed my upset right away.

      "What are all these tears for?" she asked.

     That was it.  The floodgates were opened.  I bawled and tried to relate my horrible ordeal through shaking and crying.  Aidan was long gone to find the playmates and scurry away from me as quickly as possible.  

      She rubbed my back and said, "It's okay.  You're alright now.  Do you want to go play with the kids?  They're in the bedroom.  C'mon, I'll take you in."

       To be honest, I had been looking forward to playing with some real toys.  But I am shy by nature, and back then I was painfully shy.  The anxiety that hadn't yet subsided, coupled with the still being suppressed crying, added to the anxiety of meeting new people brought it all up.  And by it, I mean my breakfast - and perhaps previous week's meals.  I threw up everywhere.  First on the carpet in the bedroom.  Then in the hallway as I was hauled to the bathroom.  Then partially on the bathroom floor until the toilet seat was lifted.  And as soon as I thought I was done, I was bundled in my clothes and driven the six houses away.  I don't think Wilna ever lived that one down.  I'm not sure who took care of the carpet cleaning but I am sure it was either costly, labour-intensive, or both.  But that was the next step in a series of events in my life that seemed to cement my continued irrational fear of abandonment, being alone, and other insecurities that have since developed in the years following these unfortunate, and all too common, trials.

Take a look...too funny...

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Control is fleeting?

     I know what you're thinking...where's the video? Well, when the mood strikes I have to get my thoughts down and I don't have my camera with me. Also, it's just a little more human this way. I plan to get back to the roots of my agoraphobia but I was inspired and I tend to go where my inspiration leads me. Good or bad, you be the judge.

    Any system or method of control neglects certain factors, and gradually the pressure of what has been neglected increases sufficiently to topple the system. Only by leaving room for the unknown and for change is there a chance for success.  It was true of the Equal Rights Movement that saw women gain the right to work and vote, it was true of the Civil Rights movement that saw blacks gain the right to vote, marry, and take part in any number of social institutions that were previously denied them.  It will be true of any number of communities in the years to come.  But why does it take pressure to overcome the status quo?  How do we as a people decide who has permission to do, or think, something a certain way at a certain time?

    I guess I find myself puzzled at this because of what is going on in California.  It likely occurs to me because I live in a society today that is inherently different than the one that oppressed women, or tried to suppress blacks.  Mind you, neither of those communities is fully realized to the extent that they had hoped, and continue to hope.  Legislating "equal pay for equal work" was only passed in the United States in the last decade.  And even now, women across the continent tend to get raises less frequently than their male counterparts, and still see less frequent promotions into positions of power.  And in terms of minority communities, not only is the same true, but many find themselves resented for legislation that tries to essentially force equality.  But can equality ever be validated when it is forced by the state?

    I guess that is the larger issue for me.  When does it stop being called equality?  When does it become merely existing?  Being a queer guy is about the least interesting thing about me. It really is.  I don't run around with a sign and I don't introduce myself as "the group homo" or whatever because I deem it necessary to label myself right away.  That being said, my blog, my vlog, and my life has been largely consumed with all things gay lately.  I'm disgusted that I live at a time that sees that as necessary. I'm disgusted that I should have to feel this way - not for myself but for my queer brethren.  It is exhausting to be outraged all the time.  It really is.

   All anybody asks is to be treated with respect.  And the lack of respect is rarely an issue until it is denied verbally.  Marriage pretty much never occurred to me after I came out.  I could have a long-term, committed relationship that defied boundaries or classification.  But then someone spoke out.  Someone in the queer community wanted to get married.  I thought, "Well good for them."  It never occurred to me such an institution as marriage - largely a legal formality more than anything (the Church only got involved when they found out they could charge for such things, and made it an issue of morality to look to the King for marriage rather than God - I mean, how many people have to be ignorant of this in order to be rationally offended by the idea of gay marriage?) - could be denied.  But then it was denied.  Fundamentalists around the world cried out, "Homosexuals are an abomination (as described in the revisionist chapters of the Bible, not in the gospels)!"  Then there was the Federal Marriage Amendment in the United States that would go so far as to legally define a word to protect their faith (a faith so apparently feeble that it cannot stand if gays can legally - not religiously, it never truly was...the Church doesn't sell those licenses or insist about the notarization of the documentation - marry).  Deny a population, and they will cry out for justice.  And even if that justice is denied in the short term, activism will see that change happen in the long term.

   So I've decided to be active.  It is exhausting to be outraged all the time. It really is.  But it is better than the alternative.  As an agoraphobic, I have let fear command much of my life.  I missed out on a lot in my youth because I was afraid to face that fear - I was afraid to conquer that fear because it was all that I had known for so long.  I have chosen to be a conquerer of fear.  Not just for those who cannot fight.  Not just for those who don't know how.  Certainly for me but, just as certain, for all of us.

World Vision

     There are still people in the world who fear difference.  The great irony is that we are more alike than we are different. Sexual orientation is fairly trivial when it comes to difference.  The sex drive is the same.  The emotional state is the same.  It is just the gender attraction that differs.   But rather than try to find common ground outside of those trivial differences, people lash out in a very reactionary, thoughtless way.  The religious right is so desperate to hold on to the power they wield in this world, that they are trying to polarize the faithful against a perceived, though unreal, enemy.  America has already taken a step forward in its social development.  It'll just take a little more time for the next steps to come.  Don't be afraid, America.  Someone else's love will never take yours away, and it will never force you to love any differently.

Yes, we can.

     After watching tonight's election coverage on CNN, there was little I could do but smile.  A friend asked how I was feeling and all I could say was, "I'm so excited.  I can't even begin to tell you how excited I am.  I don't think I'll sleep tonight.  It's like today is Christmas, and Santa brought a better world for me."  I sat in a friend's living room, flipping from CNN to Comedy Central.  The differences between a Wolf Blitzer/Anderson Cooper anchor team and a Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert duo are mind-boggling.  But I have to be honest, Stewart and Colbert seemed to have a lot more fun.

     Over the last year (and then some), I have watched eagerly to see who would win out in the Obama-Clinton debacle as they vied for the Democratic nomination.  And in the last several months, I have followed the American election much more closely than even the Canadian election (an election in which I had a vested interest, being Canadian).  Senator John McCain fought valiantly to prove himself to be the better choice.  Senator Barack Obama proved himself steadfastly as the only choice.  McCain has war experience, and deserves to be honored and respected for the sacrifices he suffered for his country.  But Obama has charisma. McCain has a running mate who is both female, and young. But Obama has a running mate who is both engaging, and daring.

     More than that, Barack Obama offers America something John McCain can never bring to the table: hope.  Where McCain offers a brave front in the war on terror, Obama offers an opportunity to build a truly global community.  Where McCain brings the the wisdom of time and experience, Obama brings the wisdom of focus and determination.  And what's more, Senator Obama has done in one year what American Presidents throughout the ages have failed to do while in office - he polarized an entire country.

     You see, that is Barack Obama's special gift to the United States of America and, perhaps, the world.  Male, female, black, white, gay, straight, younger, older, liberal, conservative and every person in between have come together at a time when not only a nation - but a world - are looking to a leader to finally take a stand and say to the world, "Yes, we can."  Yes, we can be a community of different people who embrace diversity and share in both difference and similarity.  Yes, we can find common ground at a time when politics, economics, and religious beliefs succeed only in dividing us when a love of country and a love of spirit are shared by us all.  Yes, we can work together for the betterment of a nation...for the betterment of our society.

     The election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America is historic not because he is a man of colour.  It is historic because he is a man of principle.  It is historic because he wants to lead with his people, rather than direct his people.  It is historic because he was a man that no one thought could be President: a young, bi-racial Illinois Senator with bright eyes and lofty ideals.  His lineage was a footnote to the challenges he faced simply for being younger than the average presidential hopeful.  His skin colour was ultimately irrelevant to the challenges he faced simply for lacking the same length of time in political office.

     Some would say this is the dawn of a new era.  Some would say no one can live up to the hopeful expectations that lay in wait for President Barack Obama when he is inaugurated on January 20, 2009.  I say yes, we can.

As I was saying

     So the next event that I believe helped shape my agoraphobic self happened in the winter of grade two.  I remember this day vividly as I had gone to bed the night before hoping for the snow storm my parents had spoken of after supper.  Mom and Dad had been trying to figure out who would pick up our nanny before work, should the weather be too bad for her to arrive by walking, as normal. 

     Well, when I woke up to my father's standard "wakey, wakey" I knew that school had not, in fact, been cancelled.  So, as usual, I slowly but surely began getting ready for the day.  I ate peanut butter toast and frosted flakes (oh, so healthy), washed my face, brushed my teeth, pulled out the first clothes I saw and went to school.  My morning was uneventful.  Spelling test, English lesson, recess, health lesson, social studies, and lunchtime.  

     Grace made Kraft Dinner for lunch that day.  Mind you, it was my favorite so it is fairly certain that Kraft Dinner would be the lunch of choice at least twice per week.  Sometimes Grace would even let me have peanut butter toast with Frosted Flakes.  Not often though.  More often than not we had to have something with nutritional value - fish sticks, or chicken, or my most hated of foods...soup.  But I digress, as I often do...

     I returned to school after lunch and enjoyed the flurries along the way.  I didn't linger too long though as, while I liked the flurries, they also made me nervous since they often meant wind.  I missed another one.  Well, next blog.  The wind in the willows blog.  Well, the wind in New Glasgow blog.  So where was I?  Right.  I got back to school and we were in the midst of our science lesson, or maybe it was math, when the Principal announced on the PA that classes were cancelled.  Mrs. Hennessey told us to pack up our books and get ready to go home.  

     Everyone seemed really excited but my thoughts were filled with concern over whether or not Mom would be home, or if Grace would know to have returned to my house.  This concern continued as I put my mittens on and slipped into my snow pants and winter jacket.  This concern continued as I walked home with Robert, my fears getting louder and louder the more the wind and snowfall increased.  The closer I got to home, the more worried I had myself that no one would be there and I would have nowhere to go and nothing to do but fall apart.  

     When we got to my house I ran up the front steps and rang the doorbell.  I turned to note that Robert was a few steps further away now.  I opened the screen door and pounded on the inner door.  Robert had reached the front walkway of our neighbour's house now.  I looked in the window next to the door and saw no stirring.  And then I turned and saw that Robert was just about beyond the neighbour's hedge.  He had just about passed the point when I would be able to see him.  And then it happened...  

     "ROOOOO-o-ob-BERRRRRT!" I cried.  Literally.  I cried the name out at the top of my lungs.  He turned and started running back calling out to me.  

     "What's wrong?" he asked.  

    "Nobody's home," I sobbed, "and I don't know what to do.  I'm too scared to stay here alone."  

     "Can you get into the house?" he asked.  

     "Yeah, there's a key hidden for the back door," I cried.  "But I'm afraid to be home alone."  I began to sob more strongly.  

     "I'll stay with you if we can go in.  We can play Nintendo or something.  Your Mom will be home soon." he said.  I began to feel better almost instantly.  Robert was braver than I.  And I always felt he was stronger than I was.  There were many summers when he and I ended up on the outs for some reason or another.  I was always petrified to go out.  I remember at least three summers that I spent in the house for fear of confronting Robert and being beaten up.  I felt safer in the house.  I felt safer with Mom.  And yet, here was Robert making me feel safe.  

     We played Nintendo for about half an hour when Mom arrived home calling out to see if I was there.  The school had not notified anyone that classes had been cancelled and Mom did not hear about it on the radio for about half an hour after I had already arrived home.  She kissed my head and then picked up the phone.  She left an angry message for the principal on her answering machine.  Mom was not impressed.  She wondered aloud how many other children came home to empty houses.  Mom placed her Block Parent sign in the window in case anyone needed a place to go due to working parents.  

     I was just happy that she was home.  Robert went home for supper shortly thereafter.  Mom called his grandmother to let her know Robert had been keeping me company because I was scared.  It was a good thing too, because she had been expecting Robert home shortly after the radio had announced the school closure and had been both worried and upset that he had not yet arrived home or called her.  I was just glad that Mom was home.  I was glad that Robert had stayed with me.  After that day, Robert was just about my favorite person.