I enjoy sports, always have. I have always enjoyed playing sports and there are many sports I have enjoyed watching, particularly ice hockey. As I age, however, I find my interest in sports waning. In particular I find little joy in watching sports on TV anymore, and my interest in participating in team sports has all but disappeared. This is not a result of a middle-aged beer gut (I don't have one) or of slowing down too much to be competitive (I think I can still outperform most young people in their physical prime). Part of the loss of interest, at least in sports on TV, is the constant barrage of marketing, something for which I have no time in life. Marketing is so pervasive on sports broadcasts these days that it is unavoidable. Gone are the days when you could walk out of the room for a refreshment or bathroom break when the commercials come on. Now, television, and particularly sports broadcasts, include marketing at every turn. The playing surfaces, and even uniforms in some cases, are littered with corporate logos. Every instant replay is sponsored by a corporation. Each half-time or pre-game show is "brought to you by" someone who wants you to buy their product. Marketing is a big turn off for me, so I've largely tuned out sports on TV. But there is another, more important factor that turns me off sports both on TV and in real life, and that is the unsportsmanlike conduct that is now often considered the norm. In the past, my perception of sports was that a set of official rules governed the game, but there were also a set of unofficial rules that governed the conduct of the players. It was understood that you were in competition to find out who would win within the set of rules. Now, the only thing that matters is winning. Now, most athletes, both professional and recreational, would rather cheat and win, or act in an unsportsmanlike manner and win, than act professionally and courteously and lose. Coaches who subcribe to this philosophy abound. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing," is a well known quote in professional sports (which likely originates from Henry Russell Sanders but was made most popular by Vince Lombardi. Really though? Winning is the only thing? Would you really rather win and see four or five opponents (and teammates perhaps) end up in the hospital, than lose and have everyone walk away at the end of the game and go home to their families? My personal philosophy on this is the exact opposite of this quote. Sportmanslike conduct is everything. Winning within that conduct is very important.
I am no fan of C.S. Lewis's Christian writings, but his children books are generally well-written. In the last of his Narnia Septet, there is a scene in which Eustace Scrub, a young boy caught in a sword battle, yells insults at his enemies after they perform a particularly dastardly act. His leader, King Tirian hushes Eustace, and explains that an honorable warrrior has only two forms of communication with his enemies: courteous words or hard knocks. I have always felt that is an appropriate approach to the sporting arena as well.
Ice hockey is my sport of preference. It is a highly skilled and fast-paced sport. It requires teamwork, good skating skills, and a deep understanding of tactical skills to be successful at. But, there is a darker side to hockey as well. For some reason, likely historical, the culture of hockey in North America condones violence as a means to resolve conflict. Fighting is essentially allowed in ice hockey, with some relatively light penalites for the combatants. Fighting has always had its place in hockey and, while I think it does not belong in any sport, it has seemed to fit into the culture more respectfully than one might imagine. The players have typically understood that there is a time and a place for a fight, and that fighting demands accountability for generally clean play. But lately, an even nastier, dirtier, and more violent side of the game has reared its ugly head. Plays made with the intent to injure an opponent have become commonplace. Coaches have subscribed whole-heartedly to the maxim: "Winning is the only thing." If an opponent ends up in hospital, or having to take significant time off due to injury, or even having to prematurely end their career then, oh well, so long as we won the game it's just fine. An example of this was the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals, the culmination of two months of playoffs that results in the crowning of the Stanley Cup, hockey's holy grail, which hockey players spend a lifetime pursuing. Last season the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks faced off in the Stanley Cup Finals. One of the themes that emerged from this series of seven hockey games was Boston's willingness to do anything to win, even if it bent or broke the rules, and certainly if it involved unsportsmanlike conduct. Several players did end up in the hospital. At least three or four Vancouver players required surgery, including one for a broken back. In the end Boston won. I'm sure they figured it was worth it. I'm sure other teams in the league that watched from the sidelines figured that their model of play was one worth eminating if it resulted ultimately in victory. I didn't. Had I been a Boston Bruin fan or even a player, I would have felt that I had cheapened the sport. I would have felt unsportsmanlike. This is not all to say that only the Boston players behaved unsportsmanlike. Many of the Vancouver players also did so, but that is not my point in this example. My point is that winning was worth behaving that way for the Boston players. Nothing else mattered, so long as they won. I would have felt like my family was disappointed in me, not proud for me winning. I would much rather lose gracefully than win through unsportsmanlike conduct.
I find there are many analogies between sport and politics and this shift seems to also be occuring in politics. I firmly believe that democratic political systems, when they were originally established, where intended to give everyone an equal voice, and then to make decisions based on the majority of opinions, assuming that everyone who cast their voice did so in an informed manner. Playing within the rules, and within the bounds of politicalmanlike (is that a word?) conduct. More than almost anything in life, I value the opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard. I hate scenarios in which people are cut off mid-sentence by someone who can shout more loudly. Inclusiveness is key to democracy. Opposition voices are an important part of the process. Not just to be heard and then disregarded, but to be heard, debated honestly, and then to contribute to the overall process of decision making.
That process never happens in politics anymore. In Canada at least, decisions are made based on party-loyal vote casting. Members of Parliament (MPs) are often asked (told) to vote along party lines to match a decision already made by the party leader, before any debate has taken place in the House of Commons. Why have the debate at all? (Indeed, I worry that that is a step we may end up taking in our political system).
An example of this approach is a decision that will be made in the coming two years here in Canada. There is a proposal, by a corporate oil giant, to build an oil pipeline from Northern Alberta to Northern British Columbia to ship Albertan oil to Asian markets (i.e. China). Currently, a process of hearing both sides of the debate on this controversial project has begun. A government body will, for the next two years, hear voices from both sides of the table. On the one side, the very well funded oil corporations will lobby the government for the economical benefits this project will undoubtedly bring. On the other side, poorly funded environmental groups, Aboriginal peoples, and local communities will lobby for their voice to be heard on the issues of safety, health, and environmental destruction. What is interesting in this process is that, already, before the process has even begun, both the Prime Minister of Canada (Stephen Harper) and one of his cabinet members, have spoken out against those with an agenda to stop the pipeline project from happening. The Prime Minister has said that those with an environmental agenda have "hijacked" the process. His cabinet minister has essentially said that those who are against the pipeline are "radicals." So where is the debate? How can the government have made a decision, in the best interests of all Canadians (not just those who voted for the current government), without having heard one day of debate from either side of the table? The decision is already made. Mark my words. The pipeline will be built, no question about it. Billions of dollars of money will win out over clean water, potential oil spills off the coast, and the destruction of Aboriginal culture everytime.
The process is rotten. Voices are not being heard. Unsportsmanlike conduct is the rule of the day in the modern political arena. What is most alarming about the above example is the classifying of one set of voices in a debate as "radical" or as having "hijacked the process with their agenda" as though they have no right to be heard in the debate. You can almost hear King Tirian scolding the Prime Minister now. But, the distinction I would draw that I suspect most of my fellow citizens would not, is that I don't believe all politicians fall into this category of win at all costs. Indeed in Canada, I would even go so far as to say that I find the win at all costs is relatively specific to the Conservative Party. In one of the leadership debates in the most recent election in spring of 2011, Stephen Harper kept referring to the bickering of the opposition parties in the House of Commons everytime his government took any action. Finally, in frustration, Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada at the time, told Harper that it is not bickering it is democracy. Sadly, he sounded like a tired old man whining and complaining, and it only served to illustrate to voters what Harper was saying. But, the point is, Ignatieff seemed to understand that there was a process that should be followed, that debate and dissent were part of the process. As much as he wanted to be Prime Minister, he didn't give me the impression that he would sell his own mother to do so. But even more noteable in his respect of the process before his untimely death was the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, Jack Layton. Layton spent a long time as a city councillor in Canada's biggest city before becoming elected to parliament and eventually becoming leader of the official opposition. I suspect the council type approach to decision making had a profound impact on his approach to politics. City councils tend to run much more like democracy should, with voices being heard and then decisions being made, than do federal politics in which the leader typically decides everything based simply on policy or party agenda. Jack Layton seemed to really have the interests of Canadians at heart. Unfortunately, perhaps because he was such a genuine person, he was attacked harshly by other parties, notably the Conservatives, as someone who was only interested in raising taxes on Canadians. Again, smeer your opponent with untruths and win at all costs.
Winning is the only thing. That is a scary proposition. The only thing. That is not to say that it is the most important thing, that somehow, if you could add up all the other things, they might be of equal value in their summation as winning is. No, it is the only thing. The other issues not only don't matter, they don't even exist. Nothing else matters at all. Hearing the voices of your opponents does not matter because it might interfere with you winnning the next election.
I dream of a government and political process that would respect the process more than winning. A party that would prefer to see the process of democracy continue in its best form than gain power themselves. A leader that recognizes that mis-representing another party's leader in an attack ad is actually counter-productive to the process of democracy, effective though it may be.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Is proper taxation finally coming to the church?
As we all know, the church enjoys a special position when it comes to taxation. Churches do not pay taxes in the same way that other organizations do. No politician will ever touch this issue, for although it would be nice to increase one's tax revenue in this manner, the political pushback would be huge, especially in places like the United States where the religious hold significant voter influence. But, a new possibility may be slowly emerging on this front.
In 2001, Canada conducted a census. There was a small grassroots movement afoot at the time to encourage people to tick the "other" option on the section dealing with religious beliefs, and to fill in the word "Jedi" as one's religion. The movement was based on the premise that, if enough people in Canada claimed a specific religion, then the religion would have to be officially recognized. In that case, the motivation behind the movement was mostly for entertainment purposes, but there may be some groups that are starting to see the light, so to speak, when it comes to having themselves declared a religion.
Recently in Sweden, a group of people have organized a religion around the practice of file-sharing. The smarts behind this move is that religious practices are, of course, protected by law. Therefore, the abilty to continue file-sharing legally would be protected by law if one can get the practice declared a religion. Smart. The other factor, of course, is that taxation would have to fall under the church rather than corporation structure for any file-sharing company. It looks like, at this point, this concept is still not ready to take off. But it will. How long before groups who are traditionally non-religious start to eye up the goodies and exemptions that religious groups get, and try to join the party.
This issue promises to make for some interesting discussions in government. Perhaps most amusing of all, Canada's new Office of Religious Freedom would be legally bound to protect the human rights of such groups! The whole issue might spiral into a legal complexity the likes of which are hard to imagine. Maybe, just maybe, if that were to start happening more, the solution would be to treat religious organizations in the same manner as every other group: with proper taxation and having to play by the rules.
In 2001, Canada conducted a census. There was a small grassroots movement afoot at the time to encourage people to tick the "other" option on the section dealing with religious beliefs, and to fill in the word "Jedi" as one's religion. The movement was based on the premise that, if enough people in Canada claimed a specific religion, then the religion would have to be officially recognized. In that case, the motivation behind the movement was mostly for entertainment purposes, but there may be some groups that are starting to see the light, so to speak, when it comes to having themselves declared a religion.
Recently in Sweden, a group of people have organized a religion around the practice of file-sharing. The smarts behind this move is that religious practices are, of course, protected by law. Therefore, the abilty to continue file-sharing legally would be protected by law if one can get the practice declared a religion. Smart. The other factor, of course, is that taxation would have to fall under the church rather than corporation structure for any file-sharing company. It looks like, at this point, this concept is still not ready to take off. But it will. How long before groups who are traditionally non-religious start to eye up the goodies and exemptions that religious groups get, and try to join the party.
This issue promises to make for some interesting discussions in government. Perhaps most amusing of all, Canada's new Office of Religious Freedom would be legally bound to protect the human rights of such groups! The whole issue might spiral into a legal complexity the likes of which are hard to imagine. Maybe, just maybe, if that were to start happening more, the solution would be to treat religious organizations in the same manner as every other group: with proper taxation and having to play by the rules.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Democracy in Action
It's easy to look at the craziness happening in the Republican primaries in the U.S. these days and to be critical of the candidates and everything they stand for. And, indeed, I will be critical of them in a moment. But first, let me be critical of the preposterous process.
Yesterday was the first primary in Iowa. Iowa will send 28 of the 2,286 delegates to the Republican convention in the summer. That is about 1.2% of the total. The insignificance of this, in terms of real democracy, is evident. In a democracy the way it was supposed to work, Iowa and its delegates would have a tiny impact on the outcome of the Republican nomination process and even less on the eventual presidential election. But, of course, it doesn't. It has a very large impact on the process. Mitt Romney, the lunatic Mormon "businessman" who seems likely to eventually be nominated to compete for the presidency with Obama, "won" Iowa by eight votes. That is not eight delegates (of the 28), but eight votes of the people who choose the delegates. Statistically an insignificant result. In reality, and statistically speaking, both Santorum, another lunatic in the race, and Romney both won Iowa. Yet, this morning the news is full of Romney's victory. It is all about "on the New Hampshire" and how this will spring-board Romney into the leading candidate, full of momentum. Indeed, we didn't need to wait until this morning to have the media frenzy surrounding the results. Media outlets were buzzing with predictions barely a couple of hours into the proceedings, certainly well before the polls had closed.
This system is utterly broken. I have written before about how I think a beneficial change to democracy would be to ban the reporting of any results until an election is over. This would be a benefit on a national scale but also in these smaller preliminary rounds. In the end it is the media, not the voters, who choose the nation's leaders. Is that in the best interest of voters?
Romney, with his overly coiffed hair, his mid-winter orange skin, and his ivory white teeth, was all smiles this morning. Surely God has ordained that he win Iowa and eventually the presidency. But wait, Santorum was on the radio this morning saying that God is with him in this election. I'm so confused. Does God support them both? Perhaps the Mormon God and the Christian God aren't the same deity after all?
I took at look at the news online this morning and saw a picture of Mitt Romney and his family. I looked at the group of them and I honestly thought to myself: "There is not one person in that photo that I would trust with anything I value in my life." How can voters not see that? Maybe they do. Maybe there's a good reason why no one bothers to vote in America.
If nothing else, the next eight months might be entertaining. I just saw on the news a few minutes ago that Michelle Bachmann has quit the race. Too bad. She was always good for a laugh.
Many people think it makes no difference whether a Democrat or a Republican is elected in the fall as they are both just puppet organizations run by very, very big money. In many ways I agree. But, as a non-American, I have to say I'd rather see a Democrat in the president's office for one simple reason. As much as the Republicans tend to beat the drum of isolationism and America being able to solve all her problems without involving the rest of the world, when elected they tend to do the exact opposite. Democrats, for the most part, seem to go about the business of governing America, whereas Republicans, for the most part, seem to go about the business of governing the world. Ronald Reagon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, all had profound effects on the world at large. As a non-American, I'd rather that America just keep to itself and stop invading people all the time. I think that is much more likely with a Democrat in office.
Yesterday was the first primary in Iowa. Iowa will send 28 of the 2,286 delegates to the Republican convention in the summer. That is about 1.2% of the total. The insignificance of this, in terms of real democracy, is evident. In a democracy the way it was supposed to work, Iowa and its delegates would have a tiny impact on the outcome of the Republican nomination process and even less on the eventual presidential election. But, of course, it doesn't. It has a very large impact on the process. Mitt Romney, the lunatic Mormon "businessman" who seems likely to eventually be nominated to compete for the presidency with Obama, "won" Iowa by eight votes. That is not eight delegates (of the 28), but eight votes of the people who choose the delegates. Statistically an insignificant result. In reality, and statistically speaking, both Santorum, another lunatic in the race, and Romney both won Iowa. Yet, this morning the news is full of Romney's victory. It is all about "on the New Hampshire" and how this will spring-board Romney into the leading candidate, full of momentum. Indeed, we didn't need to wait until this morning to have the media frenzy surrounding the results. Media outlets were buzzing with predictions barely a couple of hours into the proceedings, certainly well before the polls had closed.
This system is utterly broken. I have written before about how I think a beneficial change to democracy would be to ban the reporting of any results until an election is over. This would be a benefit on a national scale but also in these smaller preliminary rounds. In the end it is the media, not the voters, who choose the nation's leaders. Is that in the best interest of voters?
Romney, with his overly coiffed hair, his mid-winter orange skin, and his ivory white teeth, was all smiles this morning. Surely God has ordained that he win Iowa and eventually the presidency. But wait, Santorum was on the radio this morning saying that God is with him in this election. I'm so confused. Does God support them both? Perhaps the Mormon God and the Christian God aren't the same deity after all?
I took at look at the news online this morning and saw a picture of Mitt Romney and his family. I looked at the group of them and I honestly thought to myself: "There is not one person in that photo that I would trust with anything I value in my life." How can voters not see that? Maybe they do. Maybe there's a good reason why no one bothers to vote in America.
If nothing else, the next eight months might be entertaining. I just saw on the news a few minutes ago that Michelle Bachmann has quit the race. Too bad. She was always good for a laugh.
Many people think it makes no difference whether a Democrat or a Republican is elected in the fall as they are both just puppet organizations run by very, very big money. In many ways I agree. But, as a non-American, I have to say I'd rather see a Democrat in the president's office for one simple reason. As much as the Republicans tend to beat the drum of isolationism and America being able to solve all her problems without involving the rest of the world, when elected they tend to do the exact opposite. Democrats, for the most part, seem to go about the business of governing America, whereas Republicans, for the most part, seem to go about the business of governing the world. Ronald Reagon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, all had profound effects on the world at large. As a non-American, I'd rather that America just keep to itself and stop invading people all the time. I think that is much more likely with a Democrat in office.
Monday, December 26, 2011
I have written in a previous post about the similarity between religion and some sports cultures. I have always enjoyed sports. As a child and teenager, playing sports was all I ever wanted to do. I was a pretty decent athlete too, usually one of the best players on whatever team I played on and usually the fastest or second fastest runner in my grade. As I grew older, though, I started to migrate away from team sports and towards more individual sports. At the time I started to become fed up with what I perceived as some of my teammates complaining all the time and others not pulling their weight or putting in the full effort. A few times I remember being downright embarrassed by my teammates actions in a game, and wanted nothing to do with them. This happened whenever a teammate of mine showed no respect for opposing players or even referees. I hate trash talking. When I played sports I kept my mouth shut and played hard.
Ice hockey is an interesting sport. It is a game that requires a huge amount of skill to play well. Not only does a player need to have all the technical, tactical, and strategical skills involved in most team sports, but in addition the game is played on skates. You can have great hand-to-eye coordination and a fantastic ability to read plays in sports, but if you can't skate well then you'll be a lousy hockey player. The finesse, speed, and skill of the game are fun to watch. Sadly, though, in North America there is a culture surrounding ice hockey that I see very few positives in. From a young age players are taught to be "tough", to never show any pain or emotion of any kind other than anger at opponents, retaliation for an intended or accidental slight by an opponent is a must. If someone accidentally trips you, then make sure you slash him across the wrists with your stick next chance you get. Hockey is a physical game. Part of the game is using your body to check someone and take the puck away from them. Knowing exactly when and how to hit someone to body check them effectively takes some skill. But in hockey culture, if someone effectively body checks you (legally) then you are encouraged to take offence, remember their number, and get them back later in the game even if it means stepping outside the rules of the game or the normal conduct of sportsmanship. This payback can often take the form of a fight, a pervasive part of ice hockey in North America. The penalties for fighting in hockey are minimal compared to most sports. Indeed, one could argue that fighting is encouraged in many ways. Traditionally, each professional team would have an "enforcer" or designated fighter who would make sure that anyone who hit a star player was challenged to a fight. As with any such system that uses force to discourage violence by an opponent, an arms race develops. In the case of ice hockey, each team has an enforcer, so often all that ends up happening is the enforcers fight each other ultimately having little to no effect on the intiiation of hits against star players. Thus, the whole system of fighting in the game is entirely futile. There is no question that if hockey leagues properly officiated their games, then star players wouldn't get targeted for dirty hits because opposing players would know that their season or their career would be over.
So, with that background, I recently read the autobiography of Bob Probert, an NHL enforcer (fighter) who played professionally from the mid-1980s to 2002 for Detroit and Chicago. I won't make this post a general book review, the book itself is far to poor quality to deserve an actual review, but I will make a few comments on the sad and pathetic life of Bob Probert. Probert grew up playing hockey and, as a big man or 6'3" and 225 - 230 lbs, he was probably destined to be a fighter if he ever made it professionally. He knew his role, and one can't really fault him for playing his role in the sport given the money on the line. But, Probert's life was a tragedy. A raging alcoholic and drug user, throughout the first two thirds of his career he was drunk most days. He never took his training seriously, and often stayed up all night partying before a game. Somehow he managed to keep playing at a hight level. But, as expected of someone who can't control their drinking urges, he was caught numerous times driving while drunk. He was also arrested several times with cocaine on him, once while he was trying to cross the border from the United States into Canada. The man's life was a disaster zone. What surprised me about the book was not the number of times he was in trouble with the law, but how irresponsible he was towards everything and everybody in his life. In his autobiography, he never takes any responsibility for any of his massive foul-ups. He always blames the cops when he gets arrested, the reporters when the story appears in the papers, his teammates when they tire of his antics and say they expected him to get in trouble again, his coaches when they demand accountability from him. In short, anyone whom he perceived to stand the least between him and a lifestyle of pure unadulterated fun with no accounatabilty. Probert recounts going into rehab at least half a dozen times. Most of the time he was in rehab he treated it like any overgrown adolescent would: with an attitude that simply betrayed his disinterest in changing, but rather simply going through the motions to pacify the authority figures in his life. At least twice in rehab he had sexual relationships with staff or others going through treatment. His sole objective during rehab appeared to be to find a way out and get another drink. Countless times in his book he talks about being clean for a few days or weeks and then caving the moment anyone asked him if he wanted a drink, as though it was their fault for failing to keep the alcohol away from him. As far as the reader can make out, he was unfaithful throughout his pre-marriage relationship with his future wife, and throughout their marriage as well. When his wife confronted him with infidelity his response was to more or less shrug it off and blame the booze. In short, there is no other conclusion to come to than that Bob Probert was a first class asshole who happened to be good at playing hockey and fighting while standing on ice skates.
And yet...he was revered by the hockey world. Fans adored him. Teammates generally respected him as one of the "good guys". When he died, at the predictably young age of 45, in July 2010, the hockey world paused and mourned the tragic loss of this great man as though none of them could have seen it coming. It is simply stunning, given his reckless approach to life, booze, drugs, women, and driving, that he made it past 30.
So why do people in the world of sports get so revered? If Bob Probert had not been a professional hockey player, I am convinced he would have been considered a collasal foul-up and loser. He would likely have ended up in jail long-term. (As it is, he did a significant stint in jail, and faced huge legal problems which were only handled in his favour because of the large financial backing involved in professional sports). In his book he must recount, in passing, driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs dozens of times. How many hundreds of other times did he drive drunk that he doesn't mention? He was staggeringly lucky to never kill anyone while driving drunk.
To me, the cultures of sports and of religions are interesting. I find many similarities in the cultures. There are unwritten and written codes that one must follow for no particular reason. People are blinded by irrational thought.
Had Bob Probert not been a hockey player and had instead orphaned some kid during one of his countless episodes of impaired driving, he would be remembered only as a total loser. The fact that he was lauded and rememberd as a "good guy" by all of the hockey world at his funeral and in multiple media stories only illustrates the insane, irrational thought processes in the world of sport. Sport is a religion, plain and simple.
Ice hockey is an interesting sport. It is a game that requires a huge amount of skill to play well. Not only does a player need to have all the technical, tactical, and strategical skills involved in most team sports, but in addition the game is played on skates. You can have great hand-to-eye coordination and a fantastic ability to read plays in sports, but if you can't skate well then you'll be a lousy hockey player. The finesse, speed, and skill of the game are fun to watch. Sadly, though, in North America there is a culture surrounding ice hockey that I see very few positives in. From a young age players are taught to be "tough", to never show any pain or emotion of any kind other than anger at opponents, retaliation for an intended or accidental slight by an opponent is a must. If someone accidentally trips you, then make sure you slash him across the wrists with your stick next chance you get. Hockey is a physical game. Part of the game is using your body to check someone and take the puck away from them. Knowing exactly when and how to hit someone to body check them effectively takes some skill. But in hockey culture, if someone effectively body checks you (legally) then you are encouraged to take offence, remember their number, and get them back later in the game even if it means stepping outside the rules of the game or the normal conduct of sportsmanship. This payback can often take the form of a fight, a pervasive part of ice hockey in North America. The penalties for fighting in hockey are minimal compared to most sports. Indeed, one could argue that fighting is encouraged in many ways. Traditionally, each professional team would have an "enforcer" or designated fighter who would make sure that anyone who hit a star player was challenged to a fight. As with any such system that uses force to discourage violence by an opponent, an arms race develops. In the case of ice hockey, each team has an enforcer, so often all that ends up happening is the enforcers fight each other ultimately having little to no effect on the intiiation of hits against star players. Thus, the whole system of fighting in the game is entirely futile. There is no question that if hockey leagues properly officiated their games, then star players wouldn't get targeted for dirty hits because opposing players would know that their season or their career would be over.
So, with that background, I recently read the autobiography of Bob Probert, an NHL enforcer (fighter) who played professionally from the mid-1980s to 2002 for Detroit and Chicago. I won't make this post a general book review, the book itself is far to poor quality to deserve an actual review, but I will make a few comments on the sad and pathetic life of Bob Probert. Probert grew up playing hockey and, as a big man or 6'3" and 225 - 230 lbs, he was probably destined to be a fighter if he ever made it professionally. He knew his role, and one can't really fault him for playing his role in the sport given the money on the line. But, Probert's life was a tragedy. A raging alcoholic and drug user, throughout the first two thirds of his career he was drunk most days. He never took his training seriously, and often stayed up all night partying before a game. Somehow he managed to keep playing at a hight level. But, as expected of someone who can't control their drinking urges, he was caught numerous times driving while drunk. He was also arrested several times with cocaine on him, once while he was trying to cross the border from the United States into Canada. The man's life was a disaster zone. What surprised me about the book was not the number of times he was in trouble with the law, but how irresponsible he was towards everything and everybody in his life. In his autobiography, he never takes any responsibility for any of his massive foul-ups. He always blames the cops when he gets arrested, the reporters when the story appears in the papers, his teammates when they tire of his antics and say they expected him to get in trouble again, his coaches when they demand accountability from him. In short, anyone whom he perceived to stand the least between him and a lifestyle of pure unadulterated fun with no accounatabilty. Probert recounts going into rehab at least half a dozen times. Most of the time he was in rehab he treated it like any overgrown adolescent would: with an attitude that simply betrayed his disinterest in changing, but rather simply going through the motions to pacify the authority figures in his life. At least twice in rehab he had sexual relationships with staff or others going through treatment. His sole objective during rehab appeared to be to find a way out and get another drink. Countless times in his book he talks about being clean for a few days or weeks and then caving the moment anyone asked him if he wanted a drink, as though it was their fault for failing to keep the alcohol away from him. As far as the reader can make out, he was unfaithful throughout his pre-marriage relationship with his future wife, and throughout their marriage as well. When his wife confronted him with infidelity his response was to more or less shrug it off and blame the booze. In short, there is no other conclusion to come to than that Bob Probert was a first class asshole who happened to be good at playing hockey and fighting while standing on ice skates.
And yet...he was revered by the hockey world. Fans adored him. Teammates generally respected him as one of the "good guys". When he died, at the predictably young age of 45, in July 2010, the hockey world paused and mourned the tragic loss of this great man as though none of them could have seen it coming. It is simply stunning, given his reckless approach to life, booze, drugs, women, and driving, that he made it past 30.
So why do people in the world of sports get so revered? If Bob Probert had not been a professional hockey player, I am convinced he would have been considered a collasal foul-up and loser. He would likely have ended up in jail long-term. (As it is, he did a significant stint in jail, and faced huge legal problems which were only handled in his favour because of the large financial backing involved in professional sports). In his book he must recount, in passing, driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs dozens of times. How many hundreds of other times did he drive drunk that he doesn't mention? He was staggeringly lucky to never kill anyone while driving drunk.
To me, the cultures of sports and of religions are interesting. I find many similarities in the cultures. There are unwritten and written codes that one must follow for no particular reason. People are blinded by irrational thought.
Had Bob Probert not been a hockey player and had instead orphaned some kid during one of his countless episodes of impaired driving, he would be remembered only as a total loser. The fact that he was lauded and rememberd as a "good guy" by all of the hockey world at his funeral and in multiple media stories only illustrates the insane, irrational thought processes in the world of sport. Sport is a religion, plain and simple.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Definition of Hypocrisy
Joseph Ratzinger, known by some billion people as their spiritual leader, today stated: "Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season, and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light" in this story.
One would be hard pressed to think of a person who appears in public less "glittery" than the pope. One would be hard pressed to think of an organization (one can hardly honestly call it a nation) that is as wealthy as The Vatican. And this man encourages the rest of us to see through the superficial glitter?
I'll tell you what, Mr. Ratzinger, I will do just that. At this time of year, I promise to see through all the fake glitter that your organization represents and remember Christmas for what it really is, which is to pause and celebrate the winter solstice. We are through the darkest part of the winter and, although there are many cold days and nights to come, the light of spring at the end of the tunnel is beginning to be in sight. And so another growing season will begin.
One would be hard pressed to think of a person who appears in public less "glittery" than the pope. One would be hard pressed to think of an organization (one can hardly honestly call it a nation) that is as wealthy as The Vatican. And this man encourages the rest of us to see through the superficial glitter?
I'll tell you what, Mr. Ratzinger, I will do just that. At this time of year, I promise to see through all the fake glitter that your organization represents and remember Christmas for what it really is, which is to pause and celebrate the winter solstice. We are through the darkest part of the winter and, although there are many cold days and nights to come, the light of spring at the end of the tunnel is beginning to be in sight. And so another growing season will begin.
What is Atheism part V: Don't shine your light in my face please.
In the contemporary "battle" that seems to be going on between traditional religions and what seems to be a popularizing of atheism, one of the more common sticking points is the argument about pushing your beliefs on other people and into society. As an atheist, I hold the position that personal freedom when it comes to religion is an important thing to protect in society. I believe that everyone in society should be able to believe whatever religion they wish, so long as their beliefs and practice of those beliefs doesn't infringe on other people's rights to be free from them. To me, this is the only reasonable approach to a society in which everyone has religious freedom as well as freedom from religion if they so wish. However, this is a very difficult concept to put into practice.
The difficult part seems to be helping the religious understand how to avoid having their beliefs infringing on others' rights to be free from them if they so wish. As an atheist, I believe I have the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from religion. I believe this just as strongly as I believe that a religious person has the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from someone else's different religion. This sounds like a logical and respectful position that most people would agree with, but it is amazing how difficult it seems to be to put it into practice. Most religious people, on the face of it, would initially agree with my position. After all, how many Christians really want some of society's laws to be based on Muslim Sharia law? Most open-minded religious people can understand the mutually respectful position of this position, and that it benefits everyone to not be subjected forcefully to someone else's religion.
I would be quite happy to leave it at that, but the catch seems to come when you introduce atheism into the equation. And, let me be clear, it is the religious who do so. I have no need to force atheism into society in any manner. What I do feel the need for is to protect the above position that religion should not be forced into society. There is a very significant difference. The religious will tend to get defensive, when asked to keep their religion out of the courts, the schools, and other public institutions, and almost universally insist that atheists do the same and keep their atheism out of public institutions as well. On the face of it, some people would think this sounds like a fair arrangement, but it actually represents a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a religion.
I find that I often think in analogies and I think one here might be helpful. Imagine that each religion is represented by a different coloured light. Imagine that, instead of religions we are talking about various groups of people who like to decorate society with lights of their favourite colour. And imagine that you find offensive lights of differnt colours. Imagine a large group of people who love shining red lights around, another group who loves to shine green lights around, and another who likes blue. Also imagine that the group who likes red lights finds it offensive when they see blue lights or green lights shining in public. Wouldn't the solution appear obvious? Shine your coloured light as much as you want in your own home or even in your own private club of same-minded people, but don't shine it around society and everyone else will agree to do the same. That should take care of any offensive lights being shone in public, but equally protect your individual rights to enjoy your own coloured light whenever you want. You can even walk around in public thinking about your red or green or blue lights as much as you like. Just don't ask to hang one up in the courthouse, the school, or the legislature.
Now, in my analogy, the atheist is represented by someone who doesn't feel the need to enjoy lights of a particular colour. We don't mind you shining your red or green or blue lights in your own home or in your private club as much as you want. But we don't like coloured lights hanging all over town. So, we ask that you don't do so. In my analogy, the religous attitude towards atheis is represented by someone responding by saying: "Yeah, but you're asking us not to shine our red lights around town while at the same time you are trying to shine your dark lights around town." Doesn't make any sense, does it? How can you shine a light that makes things dark? You can't. If you don't like coloured lights then all you can do is request that others don't shine their coloured lights. There is no dark light you can shine that overpowers the coloured lights.
This is all we as atheists are asking for. Don't shine your coloured lights in our faces. Don't bring them into public institutions. We have no intention or need to "bring" atheism into the public institutions either. It only appears to the religious that we do when we ask them to put out their coloured lights.
Of course, the problem with this analogy, and with the reality of religion in society is that everyone thinks that their particular colour is right and everyone else's colour is wrong.
The difficult part seems to be helping the religious understand how to avoid having their beliefs infringing on others' rights to be free from them if they so wish. As an atheist, I believe I have the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from religion. I believe this just as strongly as I believe that a religious person has the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from someone else's different religion. This sounds like a logical and respectful position that most people would agree with, but it is amazing how difficult it seems to be to put it into practice. Most religious people, on the face of it, would initially agree with my position. After all, how many Christians really want some of society's laws to be based on Muslim Sharia law? Most open-minded religious people can understand the mutually respectful position of this position, and that it benefits everyone to not be subjected forcefully to someone else's religion.
I would be quite happy to leave it at that, but the catch seems to come when you introduce atheism into the equation. And, let me be clear, it is the religious who do so. I have no need to force atheism into society in any manner. What I do feel the need for is to protect the above position that religion should not be forced into society. There is a very significant difference. The religious will tend to get defensive, when asked to keep their religion out of the courts, the schools, and other public institutions, and almost universally insist that atheists do the same and keep their atheism out of public institutions as well. On the face of it, some people would think this sounds like a fair arrangement, but it actually represents a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a religion.
I find that I often think in analogies and I think one here might be helpful. Imagine that each religion is represented by a different coloured light. Imagine that, instead of religions we are talking about various groups of people who like to decorate society with lights of their favourite colour. And imagine that you find offensive lights of differnt colours. Imagine a large group of people who love shining red lights around, another group who loves to shine green lights around, and another who likes blue. Also imagine that the group who likes red lights finds it offensive when they see blue lights or green lights shining in public. Wouldn't the solution appear obvious? Shine your coloured light as much as you want in your own home or even in your own private club of same-minded people, but don't shine it around society and everyone else will agree to do the same. That should take care of any offensive lights being shone in public, but equally protect your individual rights to enjoy your own coloured light whenever you want. You can even walk around in public thinking about your red or green or blue lights as much as you like. Just don't ask to hang one up in the courthouse, the school, or the legislature.
Now, in my analogy, the atheist is represented by someone who doesn't feel the need to enjoy lights of a particular colour. We don't mind you shining your red or green or blue lights in your own home or in your private club as much as you want. But we don't like coloured lights hanging all over town. So, we ask that you don't do so. In my analogy, the religous attitude towards atheis is represented by someone responding by saying: "Yeah, but you're asking us not to shine our red lights around town while at the same time you are trying to shine your dark lights around town." Doesn't make any sense, does it? How can you shine a light that makes things dark? You can't. If you don't like coloured lights then all you can do is request that others don't shine their coloured lights. There is no dark light you can shine that overpowers the coloured lights.
This is all we as atheists are asking for. Don't shine your coloured lights in our faces. Don't bring them into public institutions. We have no intention or need to "bring" atheism into the public institutions either. It only appears to the religious that we do when we ask them to put out their coloured lights.
Of course, the problem with this analogy, and with the reality of religion in society is that everyone thinks that their particular colour is right and everyone else's colour is wrong.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
It Takes Religion to Make Good People Do Evil Things
I read this story this evening about a man who attempted to circumcize his four-year old son on the kitchen floor for religious reasons (to get "right" with God). Apparently the unnamed child was born premature and circumcision was not possible at birth. Once the boy was four years old his father decided it was time to cut off a chunk of his genitalia, against his will. The poor boy was not admitted to hospital for another four days following the trauma. Can you imagine how awful those four days would be for that young boy?
I have to say, this story actually made me feel sick and heart-broken at the same time. I would hope that most people who have children of their own (and even those who don't) are appalled at the thought of taking a knife to the private parts of their four-year old son. Sometimes changing a diaper on a child is a huge battle of wills. Often getting them into the bath requires some significant coaxing. But can you imagine how hard your child would be screaming and kicking and writhing if you pinned him down on the kitchen floor and took a knife to the most sensitive skin on his body? Can you imagine the fear and life-long trauma that would result from seeing your own father, who is supposed to be your primary protection as a child, looking down on you with a grim determination on his face as he hacked away with a knife? Can you imagine?
This story is truly sickening, and I don't imagine there are too many readers who would empathize with the father. But, I don't really see any significant difference in circumcision of any kind. It is genital mutilation that has become culturally acceptable. Anytime I have had a discussion about circumcision, either online or in person, there seems to be a mix of opinions for and against it. Amazingly there are still people who think that it is healthier to chop off a piece of a young boy's penis. There are claims that it prevents foreskin cancer. Well, no kidding. By definition it is impossible to have cancer of a tissue that doesn't exist. But how many men have you met who have had foreskin or even penile cancer? There are claims that it helps prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Wear a condom. There are claims that it helps keep the penis cleaner. Take a bath. There is no valid medical reason for circumcision of a healthy foreskin. Most medical associations now recognize this.
There are many, many good reasons NOT to circumcise a young boy. Firstly, the foreskin includes the most sensitive (i.e. pleasurable) part of the penis. Any man who has been circumcized as a boy has missed out on significant sexual pleasure. There's simply no way around that fact. The parallel situation in females is to cut off the clitoris. Any woman who has had her clitoris removed at birth has missed out on significant sexual pleasure. That is not to say that a woman cannot have sexual pleasure without a clitoris, nor to say that a man cannot have sexual pleasure without a foreskin. But there is without question something missing.
Another good reason NOT to circumcise a young boy is that he has no choice or say in the matter. Let a man decide, when he becomes an adult, whether he wants to lose part of his penis for religious reasons or for any other reason.
If it weren't for religion, it is unlikely that circumcision would have ever gotten off the ground. Traditionally it was mostly the Jews who circumsized their young sons, but of course in North America the practice became popularized in the 20th Century due to faulty medical beliefs that it was healthier. Given the nature of our society these days, in which lawsuits seem to ever push the boundaries of personal freedoms and also of accountability and liability, I think it is a matter of time until an adult male sues his parents for having circumcized him as a child. I say the sooner the better. I suspect we are still in a time when most courts would not find in favour of such a plaintiff, but I think that may change. Freedom of religion will undoubtedly be used as a defense if such a case comes along, but it should not be a valid defense. Freedom of religion should only be a viable defense if it refers to the person themselves. I should not be able to claim freedom of religion if my actions are taken against another person, even if they happen to be my son or daughter.
I feel sorry for those little boys who are still subjected to the Bronze Aged barbarism of genital mutilation. I was shocked this past summer when Russell Crowe was ostracized for speaking out against circumcisions and calling it for what it is: both barbaric and stupid.
I have to say, this story actually made me feel sick and heart-broken at the same time. I would hope that most people who have children of their own (and even those who don't) are appalled at the thought of taking a knife to the private parts of their four-year old son. Sometimes changing a diaper on a child is a huge battle of wills. Often getting them into the bath requires some significant coaxing. But can you imagine how hard your child would be screaming and kicking and writhing if you pinned him down on the kitchen floor and took a knife to the most sensitive skin on his body? Can you imagine the fear and life-long trauma that would result from seeing your own father, who is supposed to be your primary protection as a child, looking down on you with a grim determination on his face as he hacked away with a knife? Can you imagine?
This story is truly sickening, and I don't imagine there are too many readers who would empathize with the father. But, I don't really see any significant difference in circumcision of any kind. It is genital mutilation that has become culturally acceptable. Anytime I have had a discussion about circumcision, either online or in person, there seems to be a mix of opinions for and against it. Amazingly there are still people who think that it is healthier to chop off a piece of a young boy's penis. There are claims that it prevents foreskin cancer. Well, no kidding. By definition it is impossible to have cancer of a tissue that doesn't exist. But how many men have you met who have had foreskin or even penile cancer? There are claims that it helps prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Wear a condom. There are claims that it helps keep the penis cleaner. Take a bath. There is no valid medical reason for circumcision of a healthy foreskin. Most medical associations now recognize this.
There are many, many good reasons NOT to circumcise a young boy. Firstly, the foreskin includes the most sensitive (i.e. pleasurable) part of the penis. Any man who has been circumcized as a boy has missed out on significant sexual pleasure. There's simply no way around that fact. The parallel situation in females is to cut off the clitoris. Any woman who has had her clitoris removed at birth has missed out on significant sexual pleasure. That is not to say that a woman cannot have sexual pleasure without a clitoris, nor to say that a man cannot have sexual pleasure without a foreskin. But there is without question something missing.
Another good reason NOT to circumcise a young boy is that he has no choice or say in the matter. Let a man decide, when he becomes an adult, whether he wants to lose part of his penis for religious reasons or for any other reason.
If it weren't for religion, it is unlikely that circumcision would have ever gotten off the ground. Traditionally it was mostly the Jews who circumsized their young sons, but of course in North America the practice became popularized in the 20th Century due to faulty medical beliefs that it was healthier. Given the nature of our society these days, in which lawsuits seem to ever push the boundaries of personal freedoms and also of accountability and liability, I think it is a matter of time until an adult male sues his parents for having circumcized him as a child. I say the sooner the better. I suspect we are still in a time when most courts would not find in favour of such a plaintiff, but I think that may change. Freedom of religion will undoubtedly be used as a defense if such a case comes along, but it should not be a valid defense. Freedom of religion should only be a viable defense if it refers to the person themselves. I should not be able to claim freedom of religion if my actions are taken against another person, even if they happen to be my son or daughter.
I feel sorry for those little boys who are still subjected to the Bronze Aged barbarism of genital mutilation. I was shocked this past summer when Russell Crowe was ostracized for speaking out against circumcisions and calling it for what it is: both barbaric and stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)