Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2012-10-11, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2012. PAGE 5. What do you do when you realize the guy who lives next to you is nuts? I don’t mean ‘eccentric’ or ‘dippy’ – I mean stark, staring bring-the-butterfly-nets nuts. I thought about having him arrested, but I think he’s got way more pull with the cops than I have. Besides, he’s pretty big – and he has a mean streak that stretches from here to Baghdad. I’m not talking about my next door neighbour – he’s fine (besides I’ve still got his lawnmower). No, I’m talking about OUR neighbour – the U.S. of A. Why do I think America’s nuts? Let me count the ways. Let’s start with the cartoon characters the Republican Party has offered for presidential consideration this time around. Let’s see…there was Newt the crook and Michelle the loony; Cain the serial stickman and Rick Santorum, who even the atrocious Ron Paul called ‘atrocious’. At the bottom of the barrel they found a corporation called MITT, hooked it up to Lyin’ Ryan and that’s the ticket they’re going with. But when you see how some other American elected officials turned out maybe R&R Inc. isn’t such a nutty combo. Consider Judge Tom Head of Lubbock County, Texas. Recently, the judge warned in a TV interview that if Republicans lose the presidential election, the U.S. will be invaded by United Nations troops. If Obama gets the nod, Judge Head solemnly informed the TV audience, he would “hand over sovereignty of the U.S. to the U.N.” and send in “U.N. troops with the little blue beanies.” Let me repeat: this is a judge speaking. He is a representative who was (presumably) democratically selected and elected as the candidate most suitable to interpret the laws of the country. It isn’t just Texas either. Lawmakers in Virginia recently wrestled with the problem of rising sea levels. Scientists have confirmed that those levels along the Virginia coast line have already risen a foot and are still rising. Grudgingly the lawmakers voted to fund a study of the problem – but only if all mention of ‘climate change’ and ‘sea level rise’ was stricken from the bill. Reason? Because, said a spokesman for the Republican majority, “’sea-level-rise’ is a left- wing term.” Unfortunately, American nuttiness doesn’t restrict itself to legislative bodies. It begins in the schools. A student by the name of Hunter Spanjer recently ran afoul of school authorities in Grand Island, Nebraska. The boy is not your typical school delinquent; Hunter is four years old and deaf. Like most deaf people who use sign language, Hunter has a ‘nickname’ gesture that he uses to identify himself. He points his index and middle finger together while he balls up his thumb and other fingers behind it. When Hunter introduces himself, he holds out his hand in this configuration and shakes it once or twice. That’s how he says hello and it’s kind of cute. Like a toy pistol. ‘Hunter’ – get it? Grand Island school officials got it. They ordered Hunter to cease and desist using the gesture because Grand Island Public Schools has a zero tolerance policy against “any instrument…that looks like a weapon.” Including a chubby pink fist attached to a four-year-old deaf kid. Meanwhile, at the recent Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, officials banned water pistols, sticks, knives, even pieces of string – presumably because they might be construed as weapons. But concealed pistols and automatic handguns? No problem, bring ‘em on. Florida gun laws prohibit any local restriction on the carrying of guns. In 2010, 170 Canadians died by guns, which is pretty grisly. The number of Americans killed by guns in the same period: 8,775. Bad enough when your next door neighbour is nuts. Even worse when he’s armed. Arthur Black Other Views Armed and out to lunch It was the television program Wide World of Sports that touted “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat” week after week for nearly 40 years. However, in the case of most baseball teams these days, it seems victory too comes with its share of agony. It was last week when the Detroit Tigers closed what just three weeks earlier seemed like an impossible gap on the Chicago White Sox to win Major League Baseball’s American League Central Division. With an incredible end-of-season run, they secured themselves a spot in the playoffs while at the same time they bounced a hated rival from contention. It was a big moment for them, as it was the first time they had punched a ticket to the playoffs in back-to-back years since the 1930s. So when the game was finally over, the camera angles all shifted to the team’s clubhouse, draped in plastic in preparation of the champagne shower that was about to occur. The next shot was of members of the Tigers rushing down a concrete-walled hallway, and for some reason it reminded me of kids running from a change room to the pool at a local recreation centre. They looked happy and they looked like they were breaking all the rules as they ran, against all better judgement and advice from their elders. Why would this thought occur to me? It is, after all, a baseball game, which has nothing to do with swimming. It’s because they were all wearing eye goggles. Yes, swimming goggles. It’s a phenomenon that started less than 10 years ago when the first “brave” soul dared to put goggles on his face in anticipation of the inevitable stinging in the eyes that champagne pouring down on your face creates. I have felt the sting. It’s not that bad. In 1997 (No we weren’t old enough to drink. Yes, our parents were all there supervising.) and then again in 2002, my former baseball team, the Pickering Pirates, captured the provincial title and we were greeted with a champagne shower orchestrated by our parents. Sure, it wasn’t quite as grand (one bottle to shower the entire team), but it was a champagne shower nonetheless. Yes, it stung our eyes and yes, we got over it. We were, after all, 15 (in 1997) and 20 (in 2002). Surprisingly enough, however, I don’t remember too much about the sting, because I was too busy celebrating the biggest sports victory of my life up to that point. These men should be proud to have red eyes after the post-game celebration. They just won their division against near-impossible odds. What’s next? Rain suits and rubber boots to ensure that clothes don’t get dirtied during the celebration? These were grown men, some heroes of mine, jumping and screaming in victory, looking for the next person to soak with champagne through their bright blue, coke bottle swimming goggles. It is disheartening to say the least. These guys are all men, they’re athletes who are paid to win, and when they do win, they’re provided with carts full of champagne and what do they do? They cower away from it. The goggles certainly took something away from the celebration for me. I remember when the Toronto Blue Jays won their back-to-back World Series titles in 1992 and 1993 and there were no goggles to be seen; the players let the champagne wash over them like it was the nectar of life. Now that the playoffs have begun, let’s hope whoever wins the World Series goes goggleless for their celebration. They do, after all, have until spring to recover for the irrepairable damage they’ll be causing: red eye. Beer goggles Shawn Loughlin Shawn’s Sense Maybe it’s because I find myself living in a world terrified by germs, diseases and biological warfare, but when I hear the acronyms HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), I cringe. Sure, I don’t suffer from either, but the conditions themselves, and the ways that you test, treat and live with them makes me squeamish. So I found it extremely odd when I read on Friday that the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that there are situations under which someone can’t be charged for neglecting to tell a sexual partner that they suffer from HIV. When I was in high school, we were taught that if you had sex with strangers without protection, you would get diseases (I’m sure there was also something in there about just not having sex with strangers, but the former point was really hammered home). Then we were taught about what HIV and AIDS are and how they come about and the reality of life (and death) due to them. Sure, everyone dies, but after watching documentaries and films about the two conditions, I have to say that I’m not particularly interested in being able to say I’ve survived either condition. Anyway, the supreme court ruled that if someone has a low infection rate and wore a condom, they would not have to tell their partner that they are HIV positive. Does that not strike people as... a little short sighted? Maybe even a little ignorant? “On the evidence before us, a realistic possibility of transmission is negated by evidence that the accused’s viral load was low at the time of intercourse and that condom protection was used,” Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote on behalf of the court during one of two cases. Essentially, what they’re saying is that, if the person has a low chance of infecting someone and uses a condom, they can go around being as promiscuous as they see fit. Now, I don’t know about kids today or kids 20 years my senior (or more than that), but I know that I was taught that condoms can and do fail. The prosecutors of the two cases, one from Quebec and one from Manitoba, wanted it confirmed by the courts that anyone with HIV would have to, as in would be legally compelled to, inform their partners of their condition and, while I feel for people with the condition, I completely agree. The court even notes that the subject in the Manitoba case did not notify their four partners of their condition and that they, when subsequently asked to testify, stated they would not have had sex with the subject had they known the subject was HIV positive. (For reference sake, he didn’t wear a condom in those four cases and had a low viral load and thus a low chance of transmission. None of them contracted the virus.) So here we have a man with a low chance of infecting someone knowingly and willfully walking around having unprotected intercourse with people. Isn’t that right up there with drunk driving? If someone gets behind the wheel of a car knowing they are drunk, they can be charged if someone is hurt, or worse, dies as a result of their immoral decision. I equate the two because if, even if it’s a 1,000,000-1 chance that the virus could be transfered, it can be just as deadly as an immoral person behind the wheel of thousands of kilograms of steel, plastic, gasoline and stupidity. The big difference? Well you always know you got hit by a car unless it kills you flat out. Getting hit by a car can lead to a life of pain, struggling and frustration or it can lead to immediate death. Contracting HIV which can lead to AIDS, well that’s something altogether different. Instead of being in pain or being dead, you’re constantly worrying that your condition will worsen and, if you have the kind of conscience I have (which I consider not a burden but a virtue), you’ll likely never be able to be physically intimate with someone again for fear that you could infect them and put them in the same boat as yourself. (That would be a problem since, you know, you’re supposed to like that person somewhat. Call me old- fashioned but if you’re going to disrobe around someone, you should probably have a base level of affection for them.) If you have HIV and you don’t tell partners (before you are “with” them) you might as well be walking around with a loaded gun (no pun intended). Using a condom? Well that’s like putting the safety on the weapon. Sure, it’ll help, but you never know when something might slide out of place and then you’re dealing with your gun mysteriously going off. I play Airsoft, it’s like paintball for those of you who don’t know, but it uses small, plastic BBs that weigh between .12 and .25 grams. At the fields I play at, you have to keep your gun unloaded until you go on to the field and you have to have some form of cover over the muzzle of the weapons just in case you left one in the chamber, and that’s for little plastic BBs that, at the worst, could end up causing a bruise or a small scrape on your skin. We all agree to these safety measures because, well, who wants to be responsible for hurting someone else unintentionally? I agree because if I do, everyone else will and we can all be safe, including me. It’s a social contract. In my mind, this ruling flies in the face of social contracts like those. It’s the responsibility of those with HIV to address it and not hide it and it’s the responsibility of the courts to make sure they do that. Arguing the small, ignoring the big Denny Scott Denny’s Den