Something on my Mind: I'll be Honest With You (1)

One of the most difficult tasks today is to be honest with each other. Most people, if asked about their level of honesty, would claim to be somewhere between honest and quite honest.

That “lie” would be a dead giveaway.

We think we're honest when we do certain things in a certain way by a certain time. “Truth” be told, it's not quite that way. There are so many examples, I hardly know where to start. Birthday or anniversary cards might be the worst (or best?) example. They may say more (but rarely less) than we want; however, they make for a better relationship.

Kids will say they got a chore done, when, in fact, it was almost done. Did they or did they not get the dishes done? The homework done? The bed made?

The child answers “Yes,” when, in fact, it's “Almost.” Is that “dishonesty”? It seems harsh say it is, but it is. There may be a deeper reason why kids cannot be as open as we want them to be.

The child becomes an adult, so the questions change a little: Were they exceeding the speed limit? Did they mean everything that was said on that anniversary card? Was it just one beer? “Yes,” should be replaced with “Nearly” or “Pretty well.”

The answer, right or wrong, is actually not the issue. The reason behind the answer is. Why are we hesitant to come up with the correct and frank answer? Kid or adult, why can't we say we didn't do the laundry, we didn't trim all the grass, or we stayed out later? Why can't we say we bought something extra that we shouldn't have, why we don't actual feel about that person the way we said we feel, or why we hate our job?

One of the more noble motivations for this “dishonesty” is that we don't want to hurt or disappoint whomever we're talking to. In the main, this is good. We want them to feel positive about us and be happy with us. So it's back to “us,” and that includes you or me.

We may not tell the whole truth (“whole truth”: Isn't that redundant?) because we don't want to suffer any consequences. Dishes not done, for example, could mean punishment for a messy kitchen, more dish duty, or some form of grounding.

Whatever is the issue, we don't want to suffer consequences for telling the truth.

A second reason for not telling the truth is that we may lose a relationship. If we lie about a personal vice, we are simply hiding something. They may not understand us, and might tend to mock us or reject us.

So a third reason for not being honest is to cover up some form of weakness. I think most of us find it hard to be vulnerable or transparent with each other. Part of that problem is trust (or lack thereof) and feeling insecure in our relationship(s).

See how complicated not being honest can get?

This column is an example in being pretty honest with you—maybe more honest than pretty, at that.. Always? No, almost always. But when I say that, I wonder if you're thinking that I'm not being truthful with you. See how these word games show up?

I'm always truthful in this space. I just don't express my fears or outrage or confusion to their fullest extent. I don't think there's a place for that here; that is, a personal opinion in a public arena. There has to be some socially-acceptable caution exhibited.

I know we would have much better relationships (pick your preference: husband-wife, employer-employee, teacher-student, teacher-parent, retailer-consumer) if we could develop the art (and science?) of being more open with each other.

If that was the case, issues wouldn't fester, resulting in blow-ups, ulcers, divorce, rage, shootings, or a whole host of other reactions. Pick any fractured relationship you know of-–or are involved in. If the two warring parties could have just been honest with each other, most of what is said and done would not have happened, and the relationship would have been so much smoother.

Let me start the list: eating disorders, anger, unemployment, divorce—and I'm just warming up.

So, if nothing else, learn to couch your feeling with some tact; learn to push back gently without shooting your mouth off. Short term pain (read: awkwardness, embarrassment, fear) should give way to conversation governed by a hope for long term gain.

And that's the honest truth.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Conserve your Vote

There are certain professions that I could never do. I know I've used that line before, but it's still a good one, and after all, it is my column.

For example: I could never be an actor, for example. My whole life would be consumed with trying to impress people, living up their expectations, saying things that were not my words, and I would only be as good as my last movie. It would also mean that I would strive to be as liberal, brainless, and out of touch as most of Hollywood is.

Nor could I be a paramedic, EMT, EMR, or EMS (or maybe EMP-TY). It takes a really special person to answer that sort of call. With the first emergency phone call, I would go home, grab my teddy, and hide under my bed. The closest I would want to get to “blood,” “gore,” and “death” would be in the dictionary.

And though I have played with the notion, I could never be a politician. It's a thankless job at every turn, including in one's own party. I could handle the kissing babies part, and I could certainly handle the cushy pension part, but it's the years between running for office, then running from office, that would get to me.

Unless you have a pickle for a brain, and peas for eyeballs (why not add a “banana for a nose” while I'm at it?), you will have a sense from reading my columns that I would land somewhere on the right side (in more ways than one) of centre. Not extreme right, just right of centre.

Re-stated: I would never be left, lefter, and leftist, as we have in the Libgreenew Party.

I know there's no Libgreenew Party, but in so many ways those guys way over on the other side of centre are indistinguishable. When it comes to morality, climate change, abortion, Indian affairs, business (big and small), gun control, the environment and the economy, and the military, they seem to be the same—but not in a good way.

And I resent the notion that someone, or some party, with such unbalanced views could be representing me and mine. But in all fairness, I', sure that's what a lot of lefters are saying about this present government. Isn't democracy grand?

For me, I will vote happily and confidently for my local Tory, feet of clay and all. I believe in conservative everything, though that may not be “Conservative” everything. They simply represent the best option. I suggest to you that would be prudent for you to investigate the facts and positions of each person in the party before you vote. I know I have.

The essence of my conviction is that I don't believe any party left of centre is fit to run government at any level. The federal Liberals (not to be confused with the BC-type of Liberals) are really no different from Mulcair's NDP. They are closer to the NDP since Trudeau took reins of the party. Perhaps their greatest contribution would be that of spoiler.

Again, when it comes to the NDP, any thinking electorate should investigate their history as a provincial government in the last twenty to thirty years (hello, BC, SK, and ON). So it 's unfathomable to think that anyone would want an NDP-led government in Ottawa.

Can you spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R?

Finally, I don't really want to waste time calling out the Green party. They are really wannabe NDP, but are more ineffective and incompetent. I think their greatest ambition is to get more than one elected representative.

There are people who can't stand voting for anything conservative, but would never stoop to voting NDP, and the Green party is not an option. So they place a spoiler vote and vote Liberal. We just saw that here in Alberta with out last election, only in reverse.

It remains a very bad joke, but now we're the laughingstock of Canada.

Me? Obviously, I will vote Conservative, warts and all. (I'm not blind to their faults, but they make the best case for leading Canada.) I appreciate conservative in everything; it works best for all, in my opinion.

I admit that my conviction and conscience motivates me and the world I live in. It's for my kids and their kids; it's for today, but mostly for next year, next decade, next generation.

You know, considering the public facade and the blood and gore, I'm thinking that the politician has the worst job of the three that I would hate to have. That's why we need the right men and women representing us in Ottawa. A uncalculated vote on the wrong type of politician is a throwaway privilege.

That's why Stephen Harper and his ilk are getting my vote.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Water, the Great Equalizer

What do baths, broccoli, and beaches have in common? Well, they all have vowels. Good answer. And they're all pretty dramatic and traumatic. Very good. (I think that comment came from a reader in Frog's Croak, Saskatchewan).

The answer I'm looking for is, of course, they all involve “water.”

This may not be the best time to talk about the pleasures and pastimes of water, what with the worse drought in Alberta in recent history (at least my recent history). And with the drought, everything is tinder-dry, and so the forest fire situation was one of the worse on recent record.

And with forest fires, the one thing they need is—you guessed it—water. A vicious circle here: no water, then ripe conditions for forest fires, which need water, of which there is little, followed by more forest fires, and the circle gets viciouser, er, more vicious.

That's bad, but a column on water is not all bad. Some of the happiest memories I have both as a kid and as a parent revolved around water.

As a kid, my mother could never keep me out of the water. We always spent two glorious weeks at Cultus Lake, just out of Chilliwack, BC. Everyday I was in the water. When there as no lake, there was always a pool. And when there was no pool, Lulu Island always had ditches.

(Maurice, I'm kidding: I never swam in the ditches...much).

Then as a parent,, some of my fondest memories are of those times when we would travel and end up in a motel with a pool. We always had to have a pool on those long days. I see a motel pool as a combination playground, bathtub, and babysitting service.

One of our favourite pool games was “Marco Polo.” (So the pool was also a history class, yes?)

Whoever was “it” (with eyes dutifully closed) would shout “Marco” and the rest of the family would respond with “Polo.” Theoretically, the responders would give their whereabouts away, and “it” would try to tag them—or punch them, if frustrated enough.

I was often “it,” but I swear on a stack of buoys that I never punched my kids. Maybe some hapless swimmer who got in my way, but never my own flesh and blood.

We humans are not made to live in the water, other than in a recreational way. No matter what the Darwinists propose, we did not come from some cosmic soup millions and millions of years ago.

We can enjoy water, but we generally need flippers, boats, life jackets, and other forms of floatation devices to keep from drowning. Without any of the afore-mentioned, we're out of our element.

I would be remiss if I didn't encourage another form of an external use of water, namely, baths and showers. I rarely have a shower myself. You might think people can smell me coming before they see me coming. Not quite, Tonto: I always have a bath...at least on certain holidays and celebrations. And job interviews.

We also can enjoy water internally, not just externally. That is, we really need to drink a lot more of it. They say eight cups a day is good for you. And good water makes great coffee, though even the best cream in the world can't improve coffee made from tap water.

Where would we be without water to cook our vegetables in, water for washing our clothes with, or water for our lawns? Probably eating at McDonalds in stinking clothes, waiting for the raindrops to fall on our head and on our parched green space.

In or out or over or under, water is the greatest equalizer of all natural entities. It's that one thing that is good for all ages, all colours, and all cultures. We can't live without it yet, we can't live with too much of it.

Too little is a desert, too much is a flood. Harnessed, it produces power; unharnessed, it creates incalculable damage in its pathway.

I've got more to write about, but there's a birthday coming up, so you know what I have to do.

And “Marco” to you.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: Consistently Inconsistent (2)

I'm sure we would all agree that the ISIS is an out-of-control killing machine. Any civilized society on planet earth is horrified and terrified at the ongoing sadism that ISIS conducts on a daily basis.

But I would add that I am also stupified at the serious inconsistency of the modern press (here I go again) on this side of the Atlantic. They rarely, if ever, report the same sort of of sadism that is taking place here in North America, likewise on a daily basis.

Assaults, coldblooded killings, rapes, swarmings, kidnappings, thefts, abortions, and abuse—and that's just a slow news day in Chicago. Okay, slight exaggeration, but you get my point.

Last week I used the term “selective consistency” and it fits here again. Selective consistency is the selective practice of consistently choosing certain angles of the news, while ignoring others. There's a bias in there, so the listener (or viewer or reader) just gets part of the news story.

Let's consider briefly what is consistently reported over there, but consistently downplayed back here:

1. There is regular footage of ISIS destroying venerated icons, statues, and artifacts, in their attempt to destroy and wipe out the past. That's bad, but aren't we doing that over here, too? I would need many columns to discuss the revisionism in our history books where the record of our past is being destroyed and wiped out regularly. Yet there's nary a word in the mainstream media. Why the inconsistency?

2. We are appalled at the gross, perverted way ISIS treats women, but what about here? When did you seethe last graphic exposure of how we as a culture treat our women? I'm thinking well beyond the sex trade; I suggest any form of the real abuse of women should be consistently reported.

Despite the feigned hue and cry coming from the left--and feminism, in particular-- women are clearly worse off today than ever before. Shouldn't our media “friends” make that a public issue? We need to be aware of genuine injustices, with the challenge to do something about it.

3. Thanks to social media (though not me; I can't handle it), we are well aware of the mass executions, the patented brutality, and the torture and maiming, that ISIS carries out. I would challenge the media and its groupies to rise to their responsibility and consistently report the same sort of news stateside.

Should there be accurate and balanced broadcasting (here I go again) of the butchering of babies? What about the anarchy in the cities of armed black men attacking police? Speaking of police, why is there so limited reporting when they are killed on the job? What about the masses of black young people when they riot in malls? And where's the story when a young white couple is swarmed and beaten? ISIL is despicable, but we have issues here that warrant equal time and space on broadcasts.

4. We're outraged and sickened by what ISIS does, but our own history as global citizens is nothing to brag about. In some cases, there were more people killed in one day over here than whatever ISIS has done over there in its total existence.

ISIS is just a very convenient (and deadly) whipping boy for the slanted and inconsistent media that spellbinds us all. They are evil and their misdeeds should be exposed, no question. It's bad over there, but its very bad over here. It's just reported differently. We need a consistent news source that reports fairly and squarely.

So the news on ISIS is another great example of selective inconsistency. But ultimately, the challenge is for you to rise above that. Recognize the weakness in the style and perspective of the media. You need to have discerning ears and eyes.

Don't believe everything you hear and read. Check it out yourself. Examine all the evidence. Don't fall for the slick drama and smooth voices. The truth is out there, to be sure, somewhere between a desert rogue in Iraq and an unemployed punk in St. Louis.

Selective inconsistency falls somewhere between never-been-this-bad and all-is-just-wonderful. In fact, today's column is a life lesson for all to apply those principles to all news, everywhere.

And speaking of this column, go ahead and ask some hard questions about it: Is it balanced? Is fair? Is it true? And I would even add a fourth question: Is is consistent?

I do not pretend to be a news source, though I am a bit of an information source. And while you may not always agree with me, at least I'm not selective in my inconsistency.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com