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