Jonas's profileMC Delta T SpacePhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
MC Delta T SpaceTHE BEST LIVE SPACE EVER!!! February 26 Radio Show! Alas, although my Space is public again, I will not be writing in it that often. I hate typing. I invite you to check out my online "radio show" instead. It is called "The STEAMROLLER Hour" but it is only about 10 minutes. I know, I know... Y'all can't get enough of me, but I'll try to update it often. Enjoy! ~ Jonas Going public (again)FYI: After several months of requiring permission to view this Space, I've decided to make it public again. I made it private mainly because I was worried about the potential effects on employment. However, I have decided that it is just not worth it. I have so many good ideas to offer the world that it is worth offending some narrow-minded potential employers. In fact, I think this might even help... Dear potential employer, if you do read my blog, you will gain insight into my life:
January 28 January 28th, 1988Today marks the 20th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen vs. Henry Morgentaler. This landmark Supreme Court decision struck down Canada's remaining abortion law and since it was not replaced, Canada has been one of the most abortion-permissive countries in the world. Canadian law allows abortion to take place anytime during pregnancy. Even after the baby’s heart starts beating. Even after the arms and legs are formed. Even after the baby can suck its thumb, feel pain, and survive outside the womb. No medical reason needed. To my "pro-choice" friends: A foetus is a living human being from the moment of conception. This is not a religious opinion. This is a scientific fact. As for whether or not it is a "person", that is a matter of opinion, but whenever we excluded certain humans from the definition of person (Jews, African-Americans, Aboriginals, etc.), we have seen horrible consequences. Shall we make the same mistake again? The point is: A foetus is a living human being. It is wrong to kill a human being. Abortion does just this. Therefore, abortion is wrong. This is not about imposing patriarchal laws on women's bodies or anything like that. This is about telling women that abortion is wrong because they would be killing their own babies. To my pro-life friends:
September 07 Liberals and their Lies #1: Just be yourselfAround last December, I thought of three lies that I hear all the time and really irritate me. I meet a lot of people that strongly believe all three lies and base their entire world view around them, usually these people tend to be at the left-side of the political spectrum... The three lies are:
Today, I am going to talk about the first one. It seems that many people seem to think that you should remain faithful to who you are rather than try to be someone else. To a certain extent, they have a point. If you always pretend to like music you don't like or wear clothes you don't like, just to impress other people, you are not going to be very happy. However, there's nothing wrong with changing certain aspects of your personality. I have, for instance. I did not like my Canadian accent so I started talking differently. I pronounce the 'h' in 'wh' words like who, what, when, where, why, etc. Or how about if you're an alcoholic or, just simply, an asshole, should you just be yourself then? No! I say! Be who you want to be. Be all you can be. Sometimes you won't live up to who you want to be. Do not content yourself by saying "I am just being myself". Instead, recognize that you have failed and work harder next time. It's funny that liberals who whine about how hard it is to rise in class and how criminals get stuck in a cycle of crime, because of us branding them criminals, are the same people who discourage people from changing themselves even when it's for the better. If people hate you for who you are, you can change. Or not. You have to look at what you want and determine whether it's worth it to you. If you don't change, people might hate you, but you might still love yourself. If you change yourself, you might not like who you've become. But just don't rule it out as an option. Perhaps, if you change yourself, you might even like yourself more. And you might even hate yourself for who you are. Or you can just pretend to be someone you're not in order to gain certain advantages from a particular person or group. Remember: you are in control and you can be whoever you want to be! Besides, once you've set the pattern, you ARE being yourself by being a new person. For example, I AM myself when I talk in my southern drawl. That is me: a self-hating Canadian who, for some reason, talks kinda like a southerner. Also, there's nothing wrong with joking about your stance. I do that all the time. I will jokingly adopt a much more extreme-conservative position than my own. Psychologically, it creates some distance between me and what I'm saying so when people attack my arguments, I don't take it as personally. It also gives me room to back down to my real stance. Further, it makes it difficult for other people to take me seriously which causes them to not take the debate as seriously and reduces the likelihood that they'd get angry or use personal arguments. Plus, it's more fun that way. Now, I know there are times to be serious and I am. I am pretty good at adopting the right attitude for each situation, but the point is, I am OK with not quite being "myself". Sure, I spend a lot of my life "playing a role" I guess. Sometimes, I change myself permanently, because I think the change is positive and it is who I truly want to be. Sometimes, I will be who you want me to be. Sometimes, I will just pretend to be who you want me to be. I realize that for the people that I am closest to, I have got to be sincere about who I am because I expect the same from them, so I might not pretend as much. I will be who I am now, I will tell you who I was and who I want to be. I will not pretend. But at first, I might pretend to be someone I am not in order to avoid confrontation or provoke it, or sometimes just for kicks. We can all do that, so I don't see why we shouldn't. Come on, who hasn't pretended they were a serious professional at a job interview or something? It's only natural that we all hide a bit of who we are sometimes or even change who we are sometimes. At first, we might have to pretend a bit. For example, at first, I pretended to have a southern accent. But the trick is to fake it till you make it! Now, it's such a habit that I always talk this way. I pretend to talk Canadian when I'm with my parents because for some reason, the drawl offends them. But it's OK. It's all good! I know who I am. I may or may not let you know who I am. I realize you might not be who you seem. But I accept this as part of the complexity of life. It makes things that much more challenging and fun. You can even make a game of trying to guess whether someone was born with the accent they speak in or are they faking it. It's awesome! Anyway, yea... I've said all I have to say about that for now. Just remember, don't just settle for being yourself. That's easy and boring. Be who you want to be. Be all you can be! Have fun, y'all! Post-FroshTGIF, y'all! As I am writing this, it's Friday afternoon. I actually slept in till 11:20 this morning. So rare of me. In case y'all didn't know, I'm living in the 514 now. I'm living in NDG. It's such a great part of town. It's quiet but there are so many stores and stuff around: a bank, a grocery store, a video store, a SAQ, etc. What more could I ask for? Plus, I take the Metro next to Villa-Maria, a private Catholic High School for girls. ;p I'm starting a second B.A. in Economics, at Concordia University. Since I already have a B.A., I only have to take 60 credits but because of the sequence of courses I will probably have to do it over 3 years, anyway, but I will only have to do 5 terms, so I'll get an 8-month break at some point. And I've been conditionally accepted to co-op so I'll get some work experience while I'm at it. So far, so good, although it's only the first week. For the first week, I lived it up at Frosh week. It's pretty awesome. It's also a way better deal than uOttawa's 101 Week. For $70, it included free BBQ's, free beer, a pub crawl (with free booze), camping (summer-camp style, not tents) at B'Nai Brith (with free food and booze), a day at Mont St-Sauveur waterpark, a boat cruise and admission to a fancy club. Interestingly enough, unlike at the U of O, Frosh Guides are not only allowed to drink, they're encouraged. I met some really awesome people at Frosh week and had plenty of good times dancing it up, playing the cleavage game (Joel, you know what I'm talking about), getting trashed, going on an obnoxious rant at Ben & Jerry's about how Ben and Jerry are a bunch of Dirty Fucking Hippies, dirty dancing, etc. GTs, GTs... (GTs means more than Giant Tiger now, it also means Good Times) That last one, I feel, deserves a bit of an explanation on my part. I mentioned before that I don't like "clubbing" and grinding and stuff. Well, first of all, I don't like grinding on a girl's backside but frontside is different. But, I do think that alcohol somehow lowers my libido. When I drink, I become less aroused, oddly enough... That's what I noticed during the booze cruise. However, I noticed during the club night, that, well, what the hell. It's not really about sex, it's about doing something crazy. I guess it's like when straight girls kiss each other hwhen drunk. Or something like that... Speaking of drinking, I got some more Alcool. There's only one SAQ Depot on the Island and it took me forever to find it but I eventually did and got some! Boo-yea! So now I'm stocked up for the Semester! Anyway, back to the people I've met... There's one guy from BC who's the same age as me and in my program. There's a girl from Florida who is conservative like me. There's a girl from South Ont who has short hair and not so conservative but a lot of fun, nonetheless. Then, there's the girl who, like me, was born in Montreal, but spent a lot of her life travelling because of her dad's job. She's a bit of a hippie but it's fun playing off her (i.e. pissing her off with my comments like "The only good hippie is a dead hippie" at Ben & Jerries). Then, there's a girl who works as a nanny who's soooo sweet. She gave me a ride home during Frosh week, twice! My roommates are pretty cool too. I live with 2 Korean girls and a white guy. The Korean girls came here to learn English (in Montreal of all places). Well, actually, Montreal is a very English Town. Everybody can serve you in English, especially in NDG. In fact, when I walk into a store, the staff are often talking to each other in English so I just speak to them in English. And even downtown, the Maudits Anglais control all the money so, you know... Anyway, more about these Korean girls, there's one who I often watch TV with and stuff and the other one is an amazing cook and she often lets me have a taste! Sweet! Then, there's the white guy who is in Political Science at Concordia. We talk about a bunch of things: politics, Concordia, religion, etc. But it's always fun cause I'm usually never serious. I have decided that I might want to start an audio blog because typing is sooo lame. And reading sucks too! I think I might do one more non-personal entry in this blog first, though. August 12 An analogy as American as Apple PieI love analogies... I thought of this one whilst ummm... "having a constructive dialog" with a super lefty guy on the bus to Montreal. It describes my views on the distribution of wealth, especially in the face of calls for all wealth to be distributed equally. Frank and Joe are both presented with a bunch of apples, some sugar cane, an oven, flour, etc. Frank just eats the apples raw and chews on the sugar cane whilst checking the time on the oven. Meanwhile, using the same goods and tools that Frank got, Joe refines the sugar, makes the flour into dough, cuts the apples... and makes himself a delicious apple pie. Both were able to eat. But, come on... Who ate better? Joe, of course! Given the same opportunities, resources and capital, Joe was able to create more wealth by investing more labour and intelligence. Should he not be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour and intelligence? Of course he should! In the real world, it's often the same. Some people are simply wealthier because they do more with their opportunities and whatever is given to them. Granted, some people start off with more and get more opportunities, but all I'm trying to say is that perfect equality is unwarranted in a society because some people create more wealth in relation to what they are given than others so they should be allowed to enjoy at least most of the benefit of their efforts. Now, if Joe had used some of the wealth he created in order to buy up all the apples and sugar, or if Frank didn't start off with as many apples, perhaps then he'd owe Frank a piece of his pie or at least a couple of apples, since everyone should be able to eat, even if they can't eat as well as others. Perhaps it would be reasonable for Joe to demand that Frank help him in the kitchen in return for a piece of his pie, though. But he shouldn't just let Frank starve even if Frank was kind of dumber than him. My point is: Although everyone should be provided with enough wealth to survive, the wealth of a nation need not be divided equally since some people earn that wealth more than others. This is the conclusion I came up with until I heard the bible reading at Mass: Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?” Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.” Then he told them a parable. “There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest. He asked himself, ‘What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?’ And he said, ‘This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’ Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves but are not rich in what matters to God.” ~ Luke 12:13-21 So what does this mean to Joe and Frank? Joe can enjoy his apple pies but he shouldn't get carried away by producing a huge surplus that he really doesn't need... God doesn't care that if he makes a lot of extra apple pies. So he can go ahead and make a few for his enjoyment but his focus should be on loving and serving God, not himself. Creating wealth is not bad, in and of itself, nor is enjoying that wealth, but stockpiling way more than you need is wrong because it is greedy. God is not impressed. Joe must focus on loving and serving God. Joe should make some apple pies for him and his family to enjoy, perhaps he should sell a few to generate money to buy other things his family needs, perhaps he should give some of his pies to charity or to Frank, even. Loving and serving God entails showing compassion towards his neighbor. Joe could spend all of his time baking pies and thus accumulate more of them, but he shouldn't. The point is that he puts God first. God may want him to make pies but God doesn't want him to be greedy. After a while, he should maybe stop and do other things to serve God. Perhaps he could teach Frank how to make apple pies, for example... July 14 Mid-summerJust a quick personal update after a huge non-personal update and months of nothing... After almost 2 months of unemployment, I am now working for "the Man" at Patrimoine Canadian Heritage. I'm moving files and stuff. It's kinda fun, I guess and I get valuable government work experience and stuff, not to mention: loads of cash! In September, I'm going to Montreal to study Economix at Concordia. I'm really looking forward to that. It looks like I might not get all that money from the government, though, on the account of I've only got a 3-year Bachelor's degree from Ontariario. But hopefully, I can get into co-op and I can work part-time and get a bank loan. Also, my program might take 3-years, after all, instead of two, but there would be an eight month gap, two light 12-credit terms and one Part-time term. I'm going to try to find a way of doing my MBA in Québec too, like at Concordia, or in Newfoundland. If I do it in Québec, though, I would be entitled to loads of money from the government. I am liking the summer, although, it's a little cloudier and rainier than I was hoping. I had a gf, briefly, but I found we didn't have much in common, and I just wasn't into the things she was into and I was just not that into her, so I broke up with her. I'm more confident about getting chix though. It might take time, but I've got time! Anyway, I'm prolly not going to write in this blog as often as I was hoping because each time I write a major entry, I take it sooo seriously and write sooo much. Like my last entry was over 2000 words, which is more than I usually write for school. Well, Keep trucking, y'all! ~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, B.A. The Cynical Ethic and the End of CivilizationIn the early 20th century, a Sociologist named Max Weber wrote a book called "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" where he explores the influence of religion on productivity and economic success. Calvinists, who believe in pre-destination, saw financial success as a sign of being of God's elect, and so, people wanting to be of God's elect work hard so that they do well. Plus, they saw laziness as an affront to God. Using one's wealth to buy luxuries was frowned and so was giving to charity so the natural use for all this hard-earned money was investments. This hard work and sacrifice did much to fuel capitalism in many Calvinist countries and thus allowed them to be more economically successful than other countries, like Ireland, for instance. Today, I think that, as a society, we deal with a mass of cynics whose lack of work ethic leads to seriously low productivity. It seems that in a lot of my jobs, I have a lot of co-workers who are just so darn lazy. Then, they tell me off for working too hard and making them look bad. It seems that, rather than giving it 110%, their attitude towards work is just to get away with as little as possible. It's a race to the bottom. Part of the problem is that many people do not believe in God anymore so he does not notice when they slack off. So, as long as their employers don't notice/care, they can get away with being as lazy as they want. This lazy attitude is nothing new. In fact, Friedrich Taylor, theorized that most employees hated work and didn't really care to work hard. They just wanted what Sprint Canada used to promise: "The most for the least". He witnessed miners taking every opportunity that they could to slack off. They were paid by the hour and once the mine ran out of resources, they were out of a job, so, for an hourly-wage worker, there was a strong incentive towards low productivity. Thus, they tried to accomplish as little as possible, per hour so they could get the most hours possible and make more money. Well, could you blame them? Taylor called this phenomena "soldiering". The solution, according to Taylor, was close supervision, coercion a piece-work system, where workers were paid per unit of work accomplished rather than per hour. There was also a quota system which encouraged employees to exceed specific production targets set by management, by paying them more per unit, for every unit, once they exceeded the quota. For example, if Jack produced up to the quota of 100 Widgets per day, he might make 5 Pesos per widget for a total of 500 Pesos per day, but if he gave it 110% and made 110 Widgets, he might get 6 Pesos per Widget, for a total of 660 Pesos per day. (Not bad!) This seemed to work well and inspired a lot of thinking about Human Resources for the early part of the century. So what happened? The Hawthorne experiments. In the 20s, researchers studied the effects of varying the intensity of lighting on productivity at a certain factory. They tried increasing and decreasing the lighting but they found that whether they turned up the lights or dimmed them, the productivity would increase anyway, because the employees would feel they were part of something. Although, perhaps it was just because they knew they were being watched. This lead to a whole revolution in terms of thinking about motivation. Employers now tried to pay more attention to employees and made them feel like they were part of something. They now began to think that employees cared about the organization and did like work, sort of. This resulted in a less emphasis on a piece-rate pay structure and more emphasis on other forms of motivation which involved more attention being paid to the worker. Yet, through my experiences, I am finding more and more that perhaps Taylor was right. Often, I find that my co-workers do not like their jobs, they try to get away with doing as little as possible in order to make a task drag on. In my work, there is a finite amount tasks and once they are done, we might have no more work to do and so we will no longer be necessary so yea, I suppose that does provide an incentive towards soldiering. However, maybe I'm just young and naïve but somehow, I believe that my hard work would pay off somehow because, eventually, I would get recognized for it and that would help me land another job. Yet my co-workers seem so cynical. It's almost as if they believe that productivity doesn't even matter. The fact is: not all workers enjoy their jobs. So they try to get away with actually doing their job as little as possible. It makes sense. Not all jobs are all that enjoyable. So, you've got to look for ways of getting workers to do more of this lousy work. Perhaps if at least part of their pay was based on productivity, they might want to get more done so they can make more money. Also, use the new approach as well. Pay attention to the worker. Recognize when they do a good job and record it so that when management is looking to fill a higher position, that employees accomplishments will stand out and they might have a greater opportunity of getting a promotion. I think part of the problem is that many employers saw the Hawthorne experiments as an excuse to not reward the employees for high productivity. Alas, this is not the case. Although the experiments found that employees are motivated by attention being paid to them and feeling like they're part of something, they still would enjoy a little more money when they do a good job. Also, you must not forget to actually pay attention to employees and make them feel like their part of something, otherwise this is just not going to work! Also, Marx was right! Workers are alienated from their own labour-power. People often do not see how their task matters in the grand scheme of things so this is actually quite discouraging. Even when you have some idea of what your doing and how it helps, having more information would allow you to take more pride in your work. For example, I am currently working for Canadian Heritage and I realize how my task is saving the department money and thus benefiting the department but I don't really quite understand what the department does and how it benefits Canadians. If I did, I would be certainly more motivated. That is, if I liked what they were doing. i.e. If I found out that certain tools that I made were mainly used for abortions, I would certainly take less pride in my work and probably quit. Also, sometimes at a job, you have to impose silly rules required by other departments. It would be nice to see those other departments in order to realize why they have those rules. Task rotation is another good idea because, by letting employees try other tasks, they would be able to see more of the picture and realize how everything comes together to make the finished product. Mainly, though, I think that the problem is that workers do not see how their job really matters in their life, especially when they're not really doing their "dream job". Employers should interview employees to find out what they want out of life and how they think this job will help them achieve it. For example, I hope to eventually get an MBA and move out of Canada. I'm hoping I can work hard and get a good reference out of my job, which will allow me to eventually get a better job that's more relevant for business school which would give me a good reference. This interview could be part of the job interview at the selection stage where it could help employers select the ambitious people. (Ambitious people probably work harder.) However, candidates may not be completely candid as they might be afraid that revealing how they think their job will help their long term plans may hinder their ability to get the job, in the first place. However they could just ask them about their long-term plans in order to find the most ambitious people then after they start working, they could have a discussion about how the employee hopes the job will work into their long-term plans and also how the employer thinks the employee helps with their plans, in order that they might feel like part of something. The key is to have open dialogue. Employees should be able to talk with their employers about equipment or information they might need to do their job properly. They should be able to request training or guidance when they need it and suggests improvements that management can make to improve safety, efficiency or quality. They should also be able to discuss advancement opportunities withing the company and their work goals. Employers should discuss their productivity expectations with employees, as well as their constraints (i.e. corporate financial difficulties requiring cut-backs), suggestions for improving performance, etc. The idea is that employees and employers should be more open with each other. That way, they would be able to understand each other better and be able to co-operate more in achieving each-other's goals. Now, I understand that some jobs, especially in retail, emphasize "looking busy" but this is actually counter-productive: i.e. employees cleaning the same counter over and over again, or moving something back and forth between one place and another. So, companies should emphasize actual productivity. They should clearly identify what actually needs to be done and when they assign a task, they should set a goal for when they expect the work to be done. This goal should not be absolute, as in, if it is not done by that time, the employee is fired. But, they check in on the worker's progress from time to time and if they are going ahead of schedule, congratulate them and make note of it and perhaps reward them and if they are running behind schedule, ask them why and try to figure out how to improve productivity. When an employer finds an employee doing nothing, instead of immediately reacting with anger, they should enquire about how their task progress is coming along and only reprimand employees if it is unsatisfactory. It may even be possible that the employee is already done and they're just waiting for the employer to assign another task. There is no need for them to do unnecessary tasks just to "look busy". But, the bottom line is most of the above is BS and lazy employees are just... lazy. The only real way to deal with it is to keep a close eye on them and punish them by giving them less money or firing them. What has this got to do with the end of civilization? A great civilization would get as much productivity out of people as possible. But, then again, maybe I'm a "fascist" for thinking that. I just think that when you're paid to work you should work. If you don't want to work then don't. But our system is too inflexible for that. If our pay was more related to our job, then things would be a lot easier. If you don't want to work a 40 hour week, then you wouldn't have to. Just do enough work fast and then be done in, like, 3 days and stay home the other four days per week. Or, if you want to make more money and you don't mind working 50 hours per week, you could go ahead and take on more tasks and make tonnes of money. People also want steady incomes though, so, that should be a possibility. Perhaps, the ideal is a job that combined a small steady income with more income depending on how much work they actually do. But to pay people for work that they're not actually doing will hinder us in the long run, especially in the face of an increasingly competitive global marketplace. The more time we waste, the more things cost and the less gets done. If we keep going along that path, everything will cost too much and nothing will get done. Wouldn't you rather live in a world where things actually got done, products were more available and cheaper? Well, keep trucking, y'all! ~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, B.A. April 30 The "God Hates Fags" peopleHave y'all heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? I'm not talking about the baptist church in Westboro, in Ottawa. Rather, I am talking about the group, based in Kansas, that preaches that "God Hates Fags" and stuff. But they don't stop there. They are so desperate for attention, they will do just about anything to provoke people even if it means alienating potential supporters. For example, they love to picket soldiers' funerals with signs like "Thank God for dead soldiers!" because they believe that dead soldiers are God's righteous retribution for America being so tolerant of sodomy and such. They could have won the support of the far-right bible-belt" support our troops" types but no... They had to go out and piss them off as well. Anyway, they're mainly made up of one family: the Phelps. There is also a documentary filmmaker, Steve, who converted. They believe that God also hates America (for being a "fag enabling" nation), God hates Canada, God hates Sweden, the Catholic Church is evil and depraved, etc. They believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional election, that is that God chose to save some people but not others and this is God's own choice, there is nothing we can do to influence our own salvation. They don't believe that God loves all humans. They believe that God actually hates certain people, such as fags (homosexuals). As a Catholic, I beg to differ. I think that God does love us all. He may hate the sins we do but he loves us anyway, through his infinite mercy. Even if you are gay, he loves you. I do believe that Sodomy is a sin but God still loves sinners. I don't think God is all about vengeance and all of the tragedies we experience are a result of the wrath of God. Sometimes bad things just happen. Sometimes people do bad things. The patriarch of the church is Rev. Fred "gramps" Phelps, a former lawyer who was actually famous for fighting for civil rights for black people. His tactics were harsh and even back then, he was famous for "bullying" witnesses and defendants but he won a number of cases and was a real champion for civil rights. Today, "gramps" makes videos condemning just about everybody from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for making fun of his views at the Emmy awards to "Fag Pimp" President Bush. In what I believe is his latest video, he thanks God for the Virginia Tech massacre because it was a just punishment for America's sins. Check it out: Anyway, you can find out more about the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) by checking out their websites:
Anyway, my point is: Love 'em or hate 'em, they've got a lot of attention, lately. But despite everybody saying the media is supposed to be fair and balanced, I find that it often isn't. It is very easy to disagree with these people, it is very easy to prove that they're wrong, using rational means. But instead of doing that, so many journalists just resort to personal attacks and using the bully pulpit, something the Phelps are all too familiar with... For example, check out the interview with Shirley Phelps and her daughters on the Tyra Banks show. At one point, Tyra is just like "I didn't come here to fight with you on my stage" Umm... Yea you did! Tyra's an idiot! I actually got a lot more respect for the Phelps after seeing this interview... Then, there was the BBC 2 documentary: The Most Hated Family in America. (It's divided into 6 parts on You Tube so look in the "related" sidebar.) At one point, in the 2nd part, the journalist, Louis Theroux, talks to Jael Phelps and asks her about boyfriends and stuff. He seems to heckle her and asks her really personal questions, like about whether she's ever sinned and he seems to try to make her feel bad about not having many boyfriends. OK, this is really personal and totally unrelated or maybe slightly related but does not affect the validity of their premise at all! I can personally relate to this cause, as y'all know, I'm pro-life and when trying to have a purely rational discussion about the morality of abortion, somebody once said something like "you've never even been with a girl" which does not have anything to do with my stance. They were just trying to attack me personally. There is a word for this: Ad Hominem. Anyway, depending on his definition of "been with", he's either right or wrong but like Jael, I don't want to talk about it (but then again I've talked about it enough already in this blog). My point is: this is waaaaaaaaay too personal for objective journalism and it has little or nothing to do with the issue. Louis also, routinely states his own opinion (not only on voice-over but he actually tells his opinion to the Phelps) and it shows his bias. And then there are those political talk shows like Hannity and Colmes and all that. But I don't blame them for being biased and such on the account of I don't really expect them to be fair and balanced. But some talk show host had the brilliant idea of bribeing them with airtime on his radio show in exchange that they don't picket the funerals of the murdered amish schoolchildren. And now, he had to do it again, to stop them from protesting the funerals of Virginia Tech students. And this is all just playing into their plan. For a church with just 71 members, they're getting A LOT of attention and that's really what they want: attention! And why don't these people ever do their homework? Why don't these people ever talk about Fred's work in the Civil Rights movement (by the way, the WBC has produced a documentary that talks all about this and other stuff - check out hatemongers.com). Why don't these people mention quotes from the bible that prove that God doesn't hate fags? Well, one journalist does... She still gets too emotionally involved, but at least she did her homework. Check it out: But, also, why can't they just debate them in purely rational terms? Why do they have to get all angry? Why can't they just show them that they're wrong or just show America who they are, without making any sort of judgement and let them decide for themselves? Try being objective for once. Here's an interesting thought experiment: Imagine you were just as you are - I'm assuming that's a reasonably intelligent person, not naïve or anything (you're welcome) - except that for some reason, up until recently you knew nothing about Christianity, Judaism (the religion of the old-testament) or homosexuality and you just learned in purely academic terms the rudimentary facts about these things. i.e. Christianity is a mono-theistic religion that sees Jesus as the messiah promised to the Jews who were a group of people that believed they were chosen by God and stuff... Homosexuality is when two people of the same sex have sex. Imagine you just knew basic facts like this and you really didn't know what to believe... Does God hate homosexuals or doesn't he? You turn on the TV and they are talking about the Westboro Baptist Church. You can clearly see that the WBC has a certain agenda. But so do the journalists! The Phelps seem to be very angry and think homosexuals are despicable but the reporters seem to be angry and think the Phelps are despicable. Who should you believe? There seems to be a whole lot of hating going on but not much reason! Why don't they present the facts? i.e. Here's what the WBC believes and here's why. And here's what critics of the WBC believe and here's why. Just present this objectively. That's what the media is supposed to do (or maybe I'm just naïve). Or why not have an intellectual debate? Perhaps they could have "gramps" debate some intelligent bible scholar about what the bible actually says about God's opinion on homosexuals. Perhaps they could have someone from Harvard Divinity School or something. Or you know what? If they hey really crave attention so much, maybe we really should just ignore them and they'll go away... I'll leave y'all on a lighter note. Parody is often a good way of dealing with conflict (although it doesn't really solve the conflict, it tones it down a bit) and if the Phelps are the most hated family in America, check out the second most hated family in America: God bless, y'all! ~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, B.A. April 28 So this is rock bottom?Good evening, y'all! I've been feeling great lately! Technically, I "hit rock bottom"! My job finally ended so I'm "between jobs" and I've been spending a lot of time drinking and stuff, but despite that, I'm holding up all right. I had a little money in the bank and I got my federal income tax refund so I'm doing alright, financially. I also applied for E.I. so I should get a few benefits from that. That might take a while, though... I've decided to make this blog friends-only because I tend to say things that are a tad controversial and I tend to be very open about things that perhaps prospective employers and stuff should not be aware of. This was actually a bit of a difficult decision on the account of I love to be very open about myself and I don't care what people think, but perhaps I shouldn't say so much when I have something to lose. But some of my ideas are so awesome that I want to share them with the world and have randoms search it, but for that I might want to have a separate space that's public but that will be for later. For now, I'll just feel free to say what I want! Yee-haaaaaw! Anyway, I don't smoke weed, anymore. I just find it boring and stupid and it makes me itchy. Anyway, I love the springtime! I'm starting to think that if I was feeling kinda blue before, it has more to do with the weather than with y'all-know-who or my job or whatever. I've actually been looking back at old blog entries and I've noticed a pattern. I often feel pretty blue in the winter and then great in the springtime. Perhaps I have what they call "Seasonally Affected Disorder". But I don't think that's really a disorder. I think the real disorder is the fact that our ancestors moved to cold countries like this, in the first place. Many animals only live in certain climates. For example, there are no monkeys in Canada or Québec. (Could you blame them?) And it's only natural we feel a little helpless in the winter-time - in Agrarian or hunting-gathering societies, there is a period between the last possible harvest and the first possible plantation where you really can't do much to affect your outcome. You're basically relying on your skills from the year before. If you were a good farmer, you'll live. If not, you'll starve! So, it's only natural that you kind of feel retrospective during this season. i.e. Did I save up enough food? Did I even plant enough crops? Oh! If only I hadn't been so lazy all summer... You can only pray that you make it through the winter before you can change anything so you feel helpless and scared. Now, in modern times, we work all year round so there are things we can do to affect our survival in the winter, but I believe that this feeling is instinctual by now so that we naturally tend to feel this when we see the winter sky or feel the cold winter air. Of course, there is such a period in every climate, but in colder climates, it's longer. I seriously want to move down south somewhere. Y'all can have Canada if y'all want, but I'm out of here... Oh! I've also got a new friend now who drags me out to go clubs and stuff. It's fun to go out and do stuff and have fun. OK. Admittedly, that was a stupid comment. Anyway, so I've been "clubbing" a bit lately. I like clubs that play pop music especially 80s tunes and "glam" rock because I can really get into it. I'm not that into modern pop because it's mostly hip-hop and stuff. Hip-hop is all rhythm and no melody. Also, basically, the only thing to do with hip-hop music is to find a girl and "grind" with her. That's basically what everybody else is doing and that seems like the only way you can really have fun. I don't like it when the only way you can have fun is just to hook up with some random And I think "grinding" is stupid. I don't like to rub myself against a girl's ass. It just doesn't appeal to me. I don't find it arousing at all and I prefer to see her eyes anyway. It's just soooo boring. I probably won't find a chick that I really like at a club anyway. I'm more likely to find a girl by doing something I really like and then noticing a girl doing the same. I like to get to know a girl's personality more. I'm not that picky about looks but if that's all I have to go on, shucks... But I like to be pushed into trying new things. Like Techno Music. Last night, me and my friend went out to this concert and had a lot of fun. Techno dancing is different. It's all about expression. There's less pressure to hook-up. You just go out and try something and yea... sometimes you'll look like a dork but everybody does and it gives you more of an opportunity to see people's personalities. Anyway, I never really thought I would enjoy it that much but fancy that! I did. Who would have thunk it? Anyway, I got accepted to Concordia. So it looks like that's where I'll be going next year. I'll be doing another bachelor's degree since my first degree wasn't honours, I cannot get into grad school. This time I'm doing Honours in Economics. There's a co-op program. Alas, I don't know if I was accepted yet. I think even if I'm not accepted straight off the bat, though, they'll probably give me a chance to prove myself in first year by achieving a certain average or something. I really want to do co-op because it will be easier to get a high-paying summer job and I'll gain some great relevant work experience. I plan to maintain a GPA of at least 3,7 (A-), anyway. Speaking of which, Concordia, like many Québexican universities, uses a standard GPA scale like universities in the best country in the world. A is 4, B is 3, C is 2, D is 1 and E and F are both 0. Plus or minuses are given by +/- 0,3. uOttawa used it's own 10-point GPA system. My GPA was 7,5, which was between B+ (7) and A- (8) so it's basically equivalent to 3,5 on a standard GPA scale. I'm really going to enjoy this. It's going to give me another chance to really shine and impress professors and co-op employers and I'll really get involved in a lot of activities and stuff. Plus, I'll get a season's pass to 6 Fags La Ronde and go almost every weekend. I love amusement parks! It's a pretty good deal. $92,58 with taxes (about 905 Mexican Pesos). I can't wait! This is going to be soooo much fun! By the way, I'm starting to look for a room, so if anybody knows of any good rooms available in NDG (within 10 minutes walking distance to Loyola) for $400 per month all-inclusive (or $300 per month w/o hydro or furnishings in the room or $250 with absolutely nothing included), keep me posted. Also, since I've already got a Bachelor's degree, I'm considered financially independent so my parent's income isn't taken into account when I apply for loans and bursaries. Tuition at Concordia is under $3k and I stand to get about $3500 in bursaries alone so that should cover my tuition and then some. Basically, I just have to pay for living expenses. But apparently, tuition in Québec is going to be unfrozen so it will increase by $50 per semester starting in Fall 2007 but that's not so bad. I would only have to pay $650 more for my degree (if they count the summer) and I'll probably be able to get more money from the government, anyway. Anyway, my plan is now to do another Bachelor's at Concordia (which should take about two years) and then an MBA at St. Mary's, Dalhousie or Memorial (2 years) and a Graduate Certificate in Systems Science at the University of Ottawa. So, in total, I'll be spending another 5 years in school so I should be ready to emigrate and start my career before I'm 26, so that's not so bad. I may get a little bit of debt. MBAs are expensive and if I do mine outside Québec, I just get loans - no bursary. By the way, have y'all heard of Mika? He's an amazing pop singer that my mom introduced me to, oddly enough. Some of his music videos are on Youtube so I suggest y'all check them out! I've embedded them here for your enjoyment (and so I could try out embedding video in Live Spaces)! Grace Kelly Love Today Anyway, enough about me! I might write a non-personal entry tonight or sometime soon so y'all can look forward to that... Have fun, y'all! ~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, B.A. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Send a private message
Subscribe to RSS feed
Tell a friend
Add to My MSN
Add to your network
Sign up for alerts
|
|
