The Canadian province of New Brunswick has come up with a Poverty Reduction Strategy. It’s the result of a poverty reduction initiative undertaken this year over several months.
The government started by holding hearings and receiving comments and briefs regarding the causes of poverty and the possible solutions. It then formed a committee which included many of the people who appeared at the public hearings, as well as other stakeholders. The goal was to have a blend of government officials, business people, non‑profit organisations and, perhaps most importantly, people who either were living in poverty at the time or who had once lived in poverty and had managed to better their lives.
A first major document entitled A Choir of Voices was released over the summer. This was the result of the public meetings, a sort of synthesis of what was said at those meetings. There was bound to be internal contradictions in the report because people came from different walks of life and presented their own opinions of what cause poverty, and any two people could very much disagree with each other. The report reflected that. The challenge of the committee was to sift through the information, agree on what made sense, and complete the information where needed.
The committee then met with other stakeholders last November to hammer out the main elements of this strategy. This led to the final document called Overcoming Poverty Together. A copy can be found at http://www.gnb.ca/0017/promos/0001/pdf/Plan-e.pdf.
What do you think the solutions could be? Is education enough? Is there such a thing as a hand up rather than a handout? Teaching them to fish may be better than just giving them fish, but what happens when there is no more fish? Teaching them to grow potatoes is fine, but what if soil erosion or bad weather causes crops to fail?
To better one’s situation is a laudable goal, but how do we know that poor parents do indeed believe their children could do better in life than they did? If that hope isn’t passed on, will the children even try?
Also, for almost a generation, there have been more available workers than good jobs. This situation is about to change, but it won’t be a solution per se. Business will cry out for more workers, but those who could fill the jobs are often uneducated, disabled or otherwise excluded from the labour market. What do we do to meet the needs of both?
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Personal labels
I’m a teetotaller!
What can you learn when you join a nudist social and networking site? Well, I learned I was a teetotaller. I had no idea what that meant, and despite my usually great interest in words and their meanings, I never bothered looking that one up until recently. It turns out it means one who abstains totally from alcohol. And the group on this site would include abstaining from smoking as well.
So, I’m a teetotaller!
When it comes to alcohol, when I was in Grade 2, my mother agreed to let me taste a VERY SMALL QUANTITY of wine, just to know how it tasted. I HATED IT! And I’ve avoided it ever since.
As for smoking, I was more or less brought up with black and white TV and I remember the health ads of the day. My favourite was a cartoon in which a man had set up dynamite and unrolled the wick at a fair distance. He then lit it and put out the match before putting in some ear plugs and taking cover.
At some point he decided he needed a smoke, so he put a cigarette in his mouth and searched for his box of matches. He suddenly realised he had use his last match to light the wick. BUT HE NEEDED A SMOKE! So he started running on all fours, caught up to the quickly disappearing wick and tried to light the cigarette which was still in his mouth. Unfortunately, he ran right into the dynamite, which exploded at that point, leaving nothing but a huge hole in the ground.
The moral of the story: Some people will do ANYTHING for a cigarette!
What can you learn when you join a nudist social and networking site? Well, I learned I was a teetotaller. I had no idea what that meant, and despite my usually great interest in words and their meanings, I never bothered looking that one up until recently. It turns out it means one who abstains totally from alcohol. And the group on this site would include abstaining from smoking as well.
So, I’m a teetotaller!
When it comes to alcohol, when I was in Grade 2, my mother agreed to let me taste a VERY SMALL QUANTITY of wine, just to know how it tasted. I HATED IT! And I’ve avoided it ever since.
As for smoking, I was more or less brought up with black and white TV and I remember the health ads of the day. My favourite was a cartoon in which a man had set up dynamite and unrolled the wick at a fair distance. He then lit it and put out the match before putting in some ear plugs and taking cover.
At some point he decided he needed a smoke, so he put a cigarette in his mouth and searched for his box of matches. He suddenly realised he had use his last match to light the wick. BUT HE NEEDED A SMOKE! So he started running on all fours, caught up to the quickly disappearing wick and tried to light the cigarette which was still in his mouth. Unfortunately, he ran right into the dynamite, which exploded at that point, leaving nothing but a huge hole in the ground.
The moral of the story: Some people will do ANYTHING for a cigarette!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Party Labels
Traditional political labels almost always range from extreme left to extreme right. If we were to use a sketch to illustrate this, we would have something like this:
When it comes to controlling people's non-political behavior, the extreme left has a tendency to live and let live while incorporating some "political correctness," into the mix, while the extreme right may seek to impose morality to counter, for example, any threat to “traditional family values.” The Center will seek control in some ways and not in others. On economic issues, we find communism on the extreme left and unbridled capitalism on the extreme right. We like to think of the centre as having the best of both extremes.
The problem with this kind of description is many people can’t find a place for themselves on the continuum. A Communist sympathizer may still be against sexual freedom of choice. A person who believes strongly in the free enterprise system may still believe in the importance of a universal prescription drug program.
Let’s not forget the dictators! Most of the communist regimes were dictatorships, including such people as Stalin and Mao. At the other end are the fascists, including Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet. These regimes were very different in terms of economic and social point of view, but they were still dictatorships in the sense that the state interests outweighed those of the individual.
But if you're like me, you probably have points of view on the right side of the spectrum and others on the left, but can’t really find your place on the continuum. The Advocates for Self-Government have developed (for their own purposes, of course) a very interesting tool. Inspired by a similar chart invented by a certain David Nolan, this tool is like a Cartesian graph tilted backwards at a 45-degree angle. Here's an illustration:
The economic issues side would be the “y” axe, while the personal issues side would be the “x” axe, with both axes intersecting at zero and spreading out to reach 10 on both axes.
The terms liberal and conservative can represent the left and right respectively. Statist means much interference from the state. Libertarian means greater individual freedom and enterprise as possible and the least possible government interference. Centrist groups elements of the other four groups.
One axe is used to assess a person‘s opinions on economic issues, while the other would serve to gauge his or her opinions on social/personal issues. A position is then plotted at a point on the chart where the two scores would intersect. This would place the quiz-taker in one of four quadrants (liberal, conservative, "populist" (statist) or libertarian), or in the centre, and this would be the general political orientation of that person.
The tool is fine. The problem is we must choose the right questions and word them properly to make sure a person’s political bent is properly assessed. The quiz questions presented by Advocates for Self-Government would suggest that everyone is Libertarian. After all, wouldn't we all like to see fewer business subsidies, no customs duties for items purchased outside the country, no media and Internet censorship, purely voluntary military service, and no laws regarding sex between consenting adults? Only by exploring libertarianism a little further may the idea seem less appealing.
So if we could never agree on the proper questions, this would be an excellent chart.
Monday, December 28, 2009
That “Rude” Problem
These days, Viagra and its similar medications are all the rage to help produce erections in men who can no longer achieve or maintain them as easily. About the only sector of society that doesn’t sing its praises are nudists. Indeed, men are told to avoid erections or risk ejection from clubs and resorts. The underlying assumption is all erections are sexual in nature.
There will always be those who insist that erections are caused by sexual thoughts, and all you have to do is control your thoughts. Spock and Tuvok would be amazed at how well some of us humans have disciplined the mind. Some will say, with a very straight face, that even when you’re not thinking sexual thoughts, your brain interprets various stimuli as sexual. Despite this, control is the key.
That’s a rather far cry from, “Don’t worry, it rarely ever happens. And if it does, cover it with a towel, lie on your belly, or go for a swim until it goes away.”
The general consensus in society in general is that while erections certainly occur due to arousal, they also happen when the man is NOT aroused. This happens especially if the man is in fine physical health. Those who, like me, deal with issues like diabetes and heart disease will know what I mean. In the world of naturism, the issue isn't so cut and dry.
A writer to a naturist forum adds that if one were to stand around talking to anyone "while ‘sporting’ an erection," clubs will ask that person to leave and "never come back." Oddly enough, the writer then adds that once social nudism has been experienced, it won’t be an issue. Talk about comforting! (And don’t I love sarcasm?)
While I’m glad for the second part, I find the “erection means ejection” part rather unfortunate. In my opinion, if some naturists/nudists have problems with the fact that men have involuntary erections at times, then they aren’t true nudists. I especially worry about the message sent to young boys who, too young to experience sexual thoughts as we adults would understand the term, still have the occasional erection. If there were no sexual overtones and the erection was clearly involuntary, forcing a man, or a boy, with an erection to leave a club would be patently unfair (though I suppose the owners can do whatever they want). Would we throw a woman out because her clitoris was erect? Would we even notice?
Some exclusively heterosexual men have erections while being examined by a male doctor or when undergoing a massage, therapeutic or otherwise platonic. It doesn’t happen every time, and it may only happen just once, but it happens, and practitioners know it has nothing to do with sexual desire. If they can take it, why can’t we?
Now, if someone is clearly flaunting it in a place where this shouldn’t happen, then he’s the one with the problem. But if it simply occurs while playing volleyball, enjoying a recital, working as a crossing guard, doing taxes, or just snoozing and being lost to the world, then he’s not the one with the problem.
Indeed, this brings up another point: Except for nudists, people in general aren’t used to seeing other people nude. This may, in part, explain why they are not accepting of nudity in general and nudism in particular. Could nudists be reacting similarly to erections? Maybe if we saw erections more often in situations that did not evoke sex, we could accept them for what they are: naturally-occurring phenomena at times which don’t always suit us best.
There will always be those who insist that erections are caused by sexual thoughts, and all you have to do is control your thoughts. Spock and Tuvok would be amazed at how well some of us humans have disciplined the mind. Some will say, with a very straight face, that even when you’re not thinking sexual thoughts, your brain interprets various stimuli as sexual. Despite this, control is the key.
That’s a rather far cry from, “Don’t worry, it rarely ever happens. And if it does, cover it with a towel, lie on your belly, or go for a swim until it goes away.”
The general consensus in society in general is that while erections certainly occur due to arousal, they also happen when the man is NOT aroused. This happens especially if the man is in fine physical health. Those who, like me, deal with issues like diabetes and heart disease will know what I mean. In the world of naturism, the issue isn't so cut and dry.
A writer to a naturist forum adds that if one were to stand around talking to anyone "while ‘sporting’ an erection," clubs will ask that person to leave and "never come back." Oddly enough, the writer then adds that once social nudism has been experienced, it won’t be an issue. Talk about comforting! (And don’t I love sarcasm?)
While I’m glad for the second part, I find the “erection means ejection” part rather unfortunate. In my opinion, if some naturists/nudists have problems with the fact that men have involuntary erections at times, then they aren’t true nudists. I especially worry about the message sent to young boys who, too young to experience sexual thoughts as we adults would understand the term, still have the occasional erection. If there were no sexual overtones and the erection was clearly involuntary, forcing a man, or a boy, with an erection to leave a club would be patently unfair (though I suppose the owners can do whatever they want). Would we throw a woman out because her clitoris was erect? Would we even notice?
Some exclusively heterosexual men have erections while being examined by a male doctor or when undergoing a massage, therapeutic or otherwise platonic. It doesn’t happen every time, and it may only happen just once, but it happens, and practitioners know it has nothing to do with sexual desire. If they can take it, why can’t we?
Now, if someone is clearly flaunting it in a place where this shouldn’t happen, then he’s the one with the problem. But if it simply occurs while playing volleyball, enjoying a recital, working as a crossing guard, doing taxes, or just snoozing and being lost to the world, then he’s not the one with the problem.
Indeed, this brings up another point: Except for nudists, people in general aren’t used to seeing other people nude. This may, in part, explain why they are not accepting of nudity in general and nudism in particular. Could nudists be reacting similarly to erections? Maybe if we saw erections more often in situations that did not evoke sex, we could accept them for what they are: naturally-occurring phenomena at times which don’t always suit us best.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Getting New Blood
I read some Forum comments on a naturist site concerning the possibility of the naturist movement becoming extinct due to lack of new blood, and the effect of prohibiting single men from nude clubs or resorts being a deterrent to finding new and younger nudists.
I don’t know for a fact that naturism as a movement is having any more trouble finding younger members and sympathisers than any other movement. However, after reading a large number of posts to this effect, several ideas come to mind.
1) Society in general is not very tolerant of children and young people. So many of our activities and events are not child-friendly, and may even be of interest only to adults. Children can become very conscious of this and, early on, decide to set themselves apart. So if the naturist locations are full of adults, they may decide to go elsewhere, even if they, too, are adults by then. It takes a while before one realises that full adulthood has been attained. In my case, I sometimes think of 50 as old until I remind myself that I turned 46 this year (2009)!
2) From what I hear in testimonials, many of us may come to naturism sort of like coming to an epiphany. We see beauty in the movement itself and wonder how others can be so blind to what we perceive to be its inherent goodness. So, many years later we wonder why nudity, or at least female “toplessness,” is still not allowed at public beaches or city parks. Because it’s like an epiphany, adult naturists tend to remain naturists for life. Children who have grown up in the lifestyle may come to a totally different opinion. While many will be nudists into adulthood, some may just not have the same enthusiasm their parents had, and may even wonder “What’s the attraction anyway?”
3) No one is born married or “in a relationship.” We have to actually meet our “significant other.” And in the case of gay men, that significant other will probably not be a woman. So as long as single males are excluded from naturist clubs, young single men can’t get in and young single women who do get in can’t find any young single men to mingle with. I’m sure there are good reasons for maintaining a balance between the sexes, but we are still giving young men ample reason to drop out altogether.
I recall a conversation I had with a woman who represented a local club of the Canadian Council of the Blind (CCB). She mentioned that her club had trouble finding younger members despite the abundance of visually impaired people in her city. She attributed this to the fact that most young people no longer feel the need to join clubs for socialising and having fun. MSN and other computer tools have changed the way people connect, and the challenge will be for clubs and organizations to make themselves relevant to today’s young people.
In a sense, this may explain the success of Internet nudist sites. The younger people especially will appreciate using the Internet and other electronic tools to make contact and keep in touch. When you can interact and perhaps make plans for naturist outings this way, who needs a club?
Of course, this in itself doesn’t explain why there are fewer people frequenting naturist centres. In this case, it may be a simple matter of generations. If David Foot, author of Boom, Bust and Echo is to be believed, there were fewer tennis players in the 1990s because older people tend to go for less strenuous activities, and the peak of the baby boomer’s tennis playing days were in the mid-80s. Tennis clubs which were initially turning people away suddenly found themselves emptying and searching hard for new members.
Could something similar be at play in the context of naturism? Older naturists may not be interested in going to naturist centres for various reasons: they have their own hideaway now, they no longer have to drag children along, they’d rather be nude on their own terms, they’ve moved south, etc. Perhaps twenty years ago, their situation was different and frequenting naturist centres made sense. The logical “replacements” would be their children who drag along the grandchildren. And since the fertility rate among naturists is probably not any higher than the rest of the population, new “converts” must be found among the textiles. Is this, in fact, happening? For the good of the movement, I hope it is.
I don’t know for a fact that naturism as a movement is having any more trouble finding younger members and sympathisers than any other movement. However, after reading a large number of posts to this effect, several ideas come to mind.
1) Society in general is not very tolerant of children and young people. So many of our activities and events are not child-friendly, and may even be of interest only to adults. Children can become very conscious of this and, early on, decide to set themselves apart. So if the naturist locations are full of adults, they may decide to go elsewhere, even if they, too, are adults by then. It takes a while before one realises that full adulthood has been attained. In my case, I sometimes think of 50 as old until I remind myself that I turned 46 this year (2009)!
2) From what I hear in testimonials, many of us may come to naturism sort of like coming to an epiphany. We see beauty in the movement itself and wonder how others can be so blind to what we perceive to be its inherent goodness. So, many years later we wonder why nudity, or at least female “toplessness,” is still not allowed at public beaches or city parks. Because it’s like an epiphany, adult naturists tend to remain naturists for life. Children who have grown up in the lifestyle may come to a totally different opinion. While many will be nudists into adulthood, some may just not have the same enthusiasm their parents had, and may even wonder “What’s the attraction anyway?”
3) No one is born married or “in a relationship.” We have to actually meet our “significant other.” And in the case of gay men, that significant other will probably not be a woman. So as long as single males are excluded from naturist clubs, young single men can’t get in and young single women who do get in can’t find any young single men to mingle with. I’m sure there are good reasons for maintaining a balance between the sexes, but we are still giving young men ample reason to drop out altogether.
I recall a conversation I had with a woman who represented a local club of the Canadian Council of the Blind (CCB). She mentioned that her club had trouble finding younger members despite the abundance of visually impaired people in her city. She attributed this to the fact that most young people no longer feel the need to join clubs for socialising and having fun. MSN and other computer tools have changed the way people connect, and the challenge will be for clubs and organizations to make themselves relevant to today’s young people.
In a sense, this may explain the success of Internet nudist sites. The younger people especially will appreciate using the Internet and other electronic tools to make contact and keep in touch. When you can interact and perhaps make plans for naturist outings this way, who needs a club?
Of course, this in itself doesn’t explain why there are fewer people frequenting naturist centres. In this case, it may be a simple matter of generations. If David Foot, author of Boom, Bust and Echo is to be believed, there were fewer tennis players in the 1990s because older people tend to go for less strenuous activities, and the peak of the baby boomer’s tennis playing days were in the mid-80s. Tennis clubs which were initially turning people away suddenly found themselves emptying and searching hard for new members.
Could something similar be at play in the context of naturism? Older naturists may not be interested in going to naturist centres for various reasons: they have their own hideaway now, they no longer have to drag children along, they’d rather be nude on their own terms, they’ve moved south, etc. Perhaps twenty years ago, their situation was different and frequenting naturist centres made sense. The logical “replacements” would be their children who drag along the grandchildren. And since the fertility rate among naturists is probably not any higher than the rest of the population, new “converts” must be found among the textiles. Is this, in fact, happening? For the good of the movement, I hope it is.
This is me, too!
Yes! It's me!
I'm told my eyes are my best feature. What do you think?
Careful! Santa's watching you!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
But officer, I didn't see her!
I have dealt with Muslims in the past. These people are intelligent, compassionate and certainly worth knowing and having as friends. Given the minority status of Islam in North America, I easily become interested in debates and discussions related to Muslims, and even more so since September 11, 2001.
The topic recently found its way into local university student papers. One Muslim author, a woman studying journalism, published an article entitled Understanding the Niqāb. (The hijab does not cover the face, but the niqāb and burka do.) She was generally explaining the niqāb and defending the rights of Muslim women to wear it if that is what they wish. I have no problem with women wearing it as long as it is truly an exercise in personal choice. However, I did take issue with her "Islamic reason" for wearing the niqāb, and wrote a comment to the paper’s electronic comment board. Here is my comment as published:
You write: "The Islamic reason for giving women the choice to wear or not to wear the niqāb is to avoid any attraction between men and women, and we all know that that attraction does exist. And if left unharnessed it has the potential to break down the values of society."
What of blind men who are attracted to women no matter what they wear? Should these visually impaired people be somehow controlled because their visual faculties cannot tell them it`s time to behave? If we follow your argument logically, these blind men, if left unharnessed, have the potential to break down the values of society.
I agree women should be allowed to wear whatever they want according to their beliefs, but to say that this somehow helps break down attraction between the sexes is wishful thinking, at best.
If I were to rewrite the above today, my only change would be for clarification. Instead of saying that this somehow helps break down attraction, I would write that clothing somehow helps break down attraction. Apparently, in her opinion, the niqāb is to prevent sexual attraction. But my association with blind and visually impaired people has convinced me that when it comes to sexual attraction, the visual part is only one component, and not even essential.
Not surprisingly, another commenter replied that if a woman’s face were hidden, she wouldn’t be judged so much on her looks. Here is what she wrote, in part:
I believe that a hijab or niqāb can be a source of empowerment for women, for their hair and body is covered, so they cannot be judged based on their physical attractiveness. Their intellect and personality is what shines through.
I wonder if I could even begin to trust a woman who would not allow me to see her facial expressions. In my opinion, that itself can be a barrier to the perception of intellect and personality.
The topic recently found its way into local university student papers. One Muslim author, a woman studying journalism, published an article entitled Understanding the Niqāb. (The hijab does not cover the face, but the niqāb and burka do.) She was generally explaining the niqāb and defending the rights of Muslim women to wear it if that is what they wish. I have no problem with women wearing it as long as it is truly an exercise in personal choice. However, I did take issue with her "Islamic reason" for wearing the niqāb, and wrote a comment to the paper’s electronic comment board. Here is my comment as published:
You write: "The Islamic reason for giving women the choice to wear or not to wear the niqāb is to avoid any attraction between men and women, and we all know that that attraction does exist. And if left unharnessed it has the potential to break down the values of society."
What of blind men who are attracted to women no matter what they wear? Should these visually impaired people be somehow controlled because their visual faculties cannot tell them it`s time to behave? If we follow your argument logically, these blind men, if left unharnessed, have the potential to break down the values of society.
I agree women should be allowed to wear whatever they want according to their beliefs, but to say that this somehow helps break down attraction between the sexes is wishful thinking, at best.
If I were to rewrite the above today, my only change would be for clarification. Instead of saying that this somehow helps break down attraction, I would write that clothing somehow helps break down attraction. Apparently, in her opinion, the niqāb is to prevent sexual attraction. But my association with blind and visually impaired people has convinced me that when it comes to sexual attraction, the visual part is only one component, and not even essential.
Not surprisingly, another commenter replied that if a woman’s face were hidden, she wouldn’t be judged so much on her looks. Here is what she wrote, in part:
I believe that a hijab or niqāb can be a source of empowerment for women, for their hair and body is covered, so they cannot be judged based on their physical attractiveness. Their intellect and personality is what shines through.
I wonder if I could even begin to trust a woman who would not allow me to see her facial expressions. In my opinion, that itself can be a barrier to the perception of intellect and personality.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Eye of the Tiger
Found a young girl that suited him nice
Went to his papa to ask his advice
His papa said: "Son, I have to say no,
This girl is your sister, but your mama don't know."
-- From Shame and Scandal in the Family
It’s hard to avoid news about Tiger Woods these days. I’d heard about this great golfer but only to a certain extent since I’m not into golf and I’ve pretty much stopped following pro sports in general. So when it was announced that he apparently had more than one extramarital relationship, I was hardly concerned.
A scandal is a scandal. Yet scandals about illicit sex seem to be of greater interest to us than purely political or economic scandals. If Tiger Woods was involved in money laundering or tax evasion, his fall from grace would have been just as crushing. Still, we have to admit that the presence of a very attractive wife and very good-looking extramarital partners has something to do with our fascination with the case.
Adultery in itself destroys the reputations of all concerned, but reading about it in the press must be the ultimate humiliation. Even innocent parties, like a faithful wife betrayed by her husband, become items of public interest, as if she doesn’t have enough on her plate already.
Once you’re married, you shouldn’t lust after anyone else, let alone sleep with that person. Could this explain our interest in these kinds of scandals? Oh sure, we’ll cry "Shame!" But whether it’s due to our voyeuristic urges or our sense of outrage, these kinds of stories capture our attention.
And what about novels and movies? Every story needs conflict to be interesting. In some cases, conflict arises from a forbidden love, perhaps due to a prior and still valid marriage. We can say this is fiction. But all fiction has at least some basis in real life, so before it hits the big screen, someone somewhere must have lived through it.
The great Tiger Woods has fallen. Are we happy now that this gifted golfer has been shown to be human just like the rest of us? Is infidelity, the weakness of this champion golfer, any more serious than our own weaknesses, which for now remain hidden or are known only to a select group? If the concepts of marriage and adultery had never been invented, would we be so fascinated by this scandal today?
Went to his papa to ask his advice
His papa said: "Son, I have to say no,
This girl is your sister, but your mama don't know."
-- From Shame and Scandal in the Family
It’s hard to avoid news about Tiger Woods these days. I’d heard about this great golfer but only to a certain extent since I’m not into golf and I’ve pretty much stopped following pro sports in general. So when it was announced that he apparently had more than one extramarital relationship, I was hardly concerned.
A scandal is a scandal. Yet scandals about illicit sex seem to be of greater interest to us than purely political or economic scandals. If Tiger Woods was involved in money laundering or tax evasion, his fall from grace would have been just as crushing. Still, we have to admit that the presence of a very attractive wife and very good-looking extramarital partners has something to do with our fascination with the case.
Adultery in itself destroys the reputations of all concerned, but reading about it in the press must be the ultimate humiliation. Even innocent parties, like a faithful wife betrayed by her husband, become items of public interest, as if she doesn’t have enough on her plate already.
Once you’re married, you shouldn’t lust after anyone else, let alone sleep with that person. Could this explain our interest in these kinds of scandals? Oh sure, we’ll cry "Shame!" But whether it’s due to our voyeuristic urges or our sense of outrage, these kinds of stories capture our attention.
And what about novels and movies? Every story needs conflict to be interesting. In some cases, conflict arises from a forbidden love, perhaps due to a prior and still valid marriage. We can say this is fiction. But all fiction has at least some basis in real life, so before it hits the big screen, someone somewhere must have lived through it.
The great Tiger Woods has fallen. Are we happy now that this gifted golfer has been shown to be human just like the rest of us? Is infidelity, the weakness of this champion golfer, any more serious than our own weaknesses, which for now remain hidden or are known only to a select group? If the concepts of marriage and adultery had never been invented, would we be so fascinated by this scandal today?
The line must be drawn here
I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith. Among the many things I would learn about the Church was its treatment of Galileo and how it would not hesitate to denounce scientific explanations which did not correspond to its theology.
For all of its other faults, I must at least acknowledge that by Darwin’s time, the Roman Catholic Church had learned its lesson concerning science and would not oppose the teaching of evolution so long as it was recognised as a valid field of scientific study and research.
By evolution, I mean the accumulation of changes at the genetic level in a population of a given species which, over time, can result in the emergence of a new species. And as human beings are part of the natural world, a prior species would have had to gradually change over hundreds of thousands of years to eventually produce human beings.
I eventually threw off the shackles of religion, but I’m glad I was able to learn about evolution, including human evolution, early in my life. This seemed so natural to me that I was understandably appalled that many people the world over, but especially in Canada and the U.S., would actually oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools on religious grounds. The story of Adam and Eve, which I had come to see as more or less allegorical, is apparently nothing less than actual fact to many, and they see evolution as a threat to their faith.
Yet, evolution is a fact. It has happened. We know that. Anyone who approaches the subject and the evidence with an open mind must come to that realisation.
BUT… how does evolution work? That is the stuff of theory, where we hear about natural selection, mutations, heredity, genetic drift, plate tectonics, etc.
So, if you say, “I don’t believe in the theory of evolution,” that’s fair enough. We may have the mechanics wrong. Feel free to poke holes in the theory and, if you can, supply a counter-theory. It’s like saying, “I know the sky is blue on a sunny, cloudless day, but I’m convinced it’s blue for a totally different reason than the one generally given.” Great! Let’s hear your theory.
But if you say, “I don’t believe in evolution,” then there’s a problem. That’s like saying, “The sky is NOT blue on a sunny, cloudless day.” Imagine if this were followed by, “How dare you teach my children that the sky could ever be blue!” As tolerant as we try to be as a society, we probably wouldn’t give much credence to this tirade. Yet, we do try to be accommodating of those who oppose the very fact of evolution.
At some point, a line has to be drawn.
For all of its other faults, I must at least acknowledge that by Darwin’s time, the Roman Catholic Church had learned its lesson concerning science and would not oppose the teaching of evolution so long as it was recognised as a valid field of scientific study and research.
By evolution, I mean the accumulation of changes at the genetic level in a population of a given species which, over time, can result in the emergence of a new species. And as human beings are part of the natural world, a prior species would have had to gradually change over hundreds of thousands of years to eventually produce human beings.
I eventually threw off the shackles of religion, but I’m glad I was able to learn about evolution, including human evolution, early in my life. This seemed so natural to me that I was understandably appalled that many people the world over, but especially in Canada and the U.S., would actually oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools on religious grounds. The story of Adam and Eve, which I had come to see as more or less allegorical, is apparently nothing less than actual fact to many, and they see evolution as a threat to their faith.
Yet, evolution is a fact. It has happened. We know that. Anyone who approaches the subject and the evidence with an open mind must come to that realisation.
BUT… how does evolution work? That is the stuff of theory, where we hear about natural selection, mutations, heredity, genetic drift, plate tectonics, etc.
So, if you say, “I don’t believe in the theory of evolution,” that’s fair enough. We may have the mechanics wrong. Feel free to poke holes in the theory and, if you can, supply a counter-theory. It’s like saying, “I know the sky is blue on a sunny, cloudless day, but I’m convinced it’s blue for a totally different reason than the one generally given.” Great! Let’s hear your theory.
But if you say, “I don’t believe in evolution,” then there’s a problem. That’s like saying, “The sky is NOT blue on a sunny, cloudless day.” Imagine if this were followed by, “How dare you teach my children that the sky could ever be blue!” As tolerant as we try to be as a society, we probably wouldn’t give much credence to this tirade. Yet, we do try to be accommodating of those who oppose the very fact of evolution.
At some point, a line has to be drawn.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Honni soit qui mal y pense
There are places in North America where young French-speaking children once had to pee in their pants because they didn’t know enough English to ask the teacher for permission to use the bathroom. It was a simple strategy: Shame them into assimilating into the majority culture.
Things weren’t quite as bad in Quebec because the Québécois WERE the majority, in numbers at least. But there were cracks in the foundation. Big business was running mostly in English and it expected anyone who dealt with it, including its own employees and customers, to do so in English as well. Slowly but surely, this was having an impact on the French spoken in Quebec and the relatively low self-worth the Québécois had for themselves.
Someone came up with a radical idea: “The language is a common tool. It should be managed by the State.” The closest thing Quebec had was a provincial government, but it did enact legislation to make French the official language of the province, to make French predominant on all commercial signage, and to require all people moving to Quebec to register their children in French schools. Services to the English minority would be maintained, and parents who had been educated in English school in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, could continue to send their children to English schools.
We can always debate whether the law went too far or whether there have been abuses that were perhaps never intended by the law. But the objective was certainly met. Quebecers now have a healthy dose of self-worth.
Contrast this with New Brunswick. The francophone Acadian population has hovered at the 33 percent level for quite some time, and this has made the Acadians a political power to be reckoned with. New Brunswick is the only province in Canada which can lay claim to true equality for both the English and French communities.
This reality seems to be lost on some, though. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit a small town in the south-eastern part of New Brunswick. The town was definitely French through and through, and was far enough from Moncton that you wouldn’t think signage would be a problem. And yet, the business slogans and other advertising, as well as the specials at the local restaurant, were all given in English. English ONLY!
I believe in free enterprise as much as anyone else and I also believe in freedom of choice. However, when the situation is such that the signage portrays a community as being the total opposite of what it is, one has to wonder how this French-speaking community can think highly of itself if it won’t even advertise to itself in its own language.
It’s with that in mind that I learned of Dieppe, NB’s intention of passing a by-law making bilingual or French signage mandatory. Some are crying foul, saying they should have a right to do business in the language of their choice. The point they are missing is this: They can continue to use English on their signs. They just have to add French as well. In a French place like Dieppe, how hard can that be?
Things weren’t quite as bad in Quebec because the Québécois WERE the majority, in numbers at least. But there were cracks in the foundation. Big business was running mostly in English and it expected anyone who dealt with it, including its own employees and customers, to do so in English as well. Slowly but surely, this was having an impact on the French spoken in Quebec and the relatively low self-worth the Québécois had for themselves.
Someone came up with a radical idea: “The language is a common tool. It should be managed by the State.” The closest thing Quebec had was a provincial government, but it did enact legislation to make French the official language of the province, to make French predominant on all commercial signage, and to require all people moving to Quebec to register their children in French schools. Services to the English minority would be maintained, and parents who had been educated in English school in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, could continue to send their children to English schools.
We can always debate whether the law went too far or whether there have been abuses that were perhaps never intended by the law. But the objective was certainly met. Quebecers now have a healthy dose of self-worth.
Contrast this with New Brunswick. The francophone Acadian population has hovered at the 33 percent level for quite some time, and this has made the Acadians a political power to be reckoned with. New Brunswick is the only province in Canada which can lay claim to true equality for both the English and French communities.
This reality seems to be lost on some, though. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit a small town in the south-eastern part of New Brunswick. The town was definitely French through and through, and was far enough from Moncton that you wouldn’t think signage would be a problem. And yet, the business slogans and other advertising, as well as the specials at the local restaurant, were all given in English. English ONLY!
I believe in free enterprise as much as anyone else and I also believe in freedom of choice. However, when the situation is such that the signage portrays a community as being the total opposite of what it is, one has to wonder how this French-speaking community can think highly of itself if it won’t even advertise to itself in its own language.
It’s with that in mind that I learned of Dieppe, NB’s intention of passing a by-law making bilingual or French signage mandatory. Some are crying foul, saying they should have a right to do business in the language of their choice. The point they are missing is this: They can continue to use English on their signs. They just have to add French as well. In a French place like Dieppe, how hard can that be?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
This is very taxing
Until recently, New Brunswick had a four-bracket personal income tax system. Various tax rates would come into play depending on how much you earned. Anyone who earned $34,836 or less would be taxed at a rate of 10.12%. Anyone who earned up to $69,673 would pay 10.12% on the first $34,836 and then 15.48% on the rest. A third tax bracket came into play for people earning more than $69,673 but less than $113,273 (16.80% on anything beyond $69,673). Finally, anyone who earned more than $113,273 would be subject to a tax of 17.95% for any amount beyond that.
During 2008, government asked for presentations and submissions on a tax reform plan. They were presenting two options: first, a single rate of 10% for all, no matter how much money you made; second, a rate of 9% for the first $37,893, and 12% for any amount beyond that. The government wound up choosing the second option.
According to law professor Kathleen A. Lahey, who prepared a gender-based analysis of this plan, this could result in the provincial government taking in as much as $325.6 million less per year, a 26% drop. Government would either have to make up the difference through consumption taxes, cut drastically, or a combination of both. And this was figured out before the current economic crisis came to be.
If this alone wasn’t enough, the plan is also regressive toward women as a group since the disappearance of the two highest tax brackets, where women are significantly underrepresented, will result in an increase of the income gap between men and women.
Government figures show that a person earning $15,000 in one year will see his tax payable go from $65 down to $7. This is a $58 reduction, or 89.2%. Someone earning $140,000 will see his or her tax payable go from $19,912 to $18,730. This amounts to $1,182 in savings, or 5.9%. Percentage-wise, everything looks fair. However, many, including myself, would argue that the person earning $15,000 probably needs those fifty-eight extra dollars a whole lot more than the richer person needs $1,182. Somehow, this got lost in the debate.
I would think anyone who sees this information should have grave concerns. Unfortunately, this is now yesterday’s news and no one seems to want to revisit it.
During 2008, government asked for presentations and submissions on a tax reform plan. They were presenting two options: first, a single rate of 10% for all, no matter how much money you made; second, a rate of 9% for the first $37,893, and 12% for any amount beyond that. The government wound up choosing the second option.
According to law professor Kathleen A. Lahey, who prepared a gender-based analysis of this plan, this could result in the provincial government taking in as much as $325.6 million less per year, a 26% drop. Government would either have to make up the difference through consumption taxes, cut drastically, or a combination of both. And this was figured out before the current economic crisis came to be.
If this alone wasn’t enough, the plan is also regressive toward women as a group since the disappearance of the two highest tax brackets, where women are significantly underrepresented, will result in an increase of the income gap between men and women.
Government figures show that a person earning $15,000 in one year will see his tax payable go from $65 down to $7. This is a $58 reduction, or 89.2%. Someone earning $140,000 will see his or her tax payable go from $19,912 to $18,730. This amounts to $1,182 in savings, or 5.9%. Percentage-wise, everything looks fair. However, many, including myself, would argue that the person earning $15,000 probably needs those fifty-eight extra dollars a whole lot more than the richer person needs $1,182. Somehow, this got lost in the debate.
I would think anyone who sees this information should have grave concerns. Unfortunately, this is now yesterday’s news and no one seems to want to revisit it.
Let’s Party!
Given the naturist tendency to avoid even the mention of S-E-X, not to mention the act itself, it may strike some as odd that the closest political ally naturists have in Canada is an organization called The Sex Party.
I’m sure most of you would think that a sex party is nothing more than a gathering where people meet in order to have sex. But there is a bona fide Canadian political party which makes sex the main issue in its campaigns.
For now, this party is only truly active in British Columbia, where a provincial wing has been firmly established. However, it has national objectives. There is also a similarly named party in Australia. Whether the two are related in some way is unknown to me at this point.
Unlike other Canadian political parties, The Sex Party actually has a section of its platform devoted to the matter of what it calls public nudity. Here is an excerpt:
Public nudity has many social benefits for both nudists and non-nudists, chief of which is to normalize all parts of the human body and de-stigmatize human sexual organs.
The Sex Party would pass legislation requiring all public parks and beaches larger than one hectare to designate areas reserved for nudists.
My only gripe is we should designate areas where nudity is permitted. The expression “for nudists” seems too limiting to me. Otherwise, I must admit I like the idea. Imagine all the parks all over the country having to meet with naturist organisations to determine which parts of parkland must be made clothing-optional!
Granted, The Sex Party policies won’t please everyone. It proposes a national education program which would encourage sexual activity “in a gradual and disciplined way.” The intention is to introduce young people to “non-coital” exploration and experimentation. Even I have trouble with this, and I consider myself open-minded. Maybe I wouldn’t be so concerned if the word encourage was replaced by does not discourage, as long as it is done responsibly. As much as I want all children to develop a healthy sense of self, including their sexual self, I’m not sure encouraging sexual activity is the right way to go. I don’t want to discourage it either, but there should be a happy medium between the two, where the child is allowed to explore the sexual part of him- or herself if that is what he or she wants to do.
As naturists, we don’t want to force anyone to be nude in public, but we do want nudity to be normalised. In the same vein, we don’t want to force anyone to undertake any sexual exploration, though we wouldn’t want authorities to condemn it either.
Other than that, I kind of like the ideas put forth by the party. It’s a pity that it may very well forever be a one-issue party.
I’m sure most of you would think that a sex party is nothing more than a gathering where people meet in order to have sex. But there is a bona fide Canadian political party which makes sex the main issue in its campaigns.
For now, this party is only truly active in British Columbia, where a provincial wing has been firmly established. However, it has national objectives. There is also a similarly named party in Australia. Whether the two are related in some way is unknown to me at this point.
Unlike other Canadian political parties, The Sex Party actually has a section of its platform devoted to the matter of what it calls public nudity. Here is an excerpt:
Public nudity has many social benefits for both nudists and non-nudists, chief of which is to normalize all parts of the human body and de-stigmatize human sexual organs.
The Sex Party would pass legislation requiring all public parks and beaches larger than one hectare to designate areas reserved for nudists.
My only gripe is we should designate areas where nudity is permitted. The expression “for nudists” seems too limiting to me. Otherwise, I must admit I like the idea. Imagine all the parks all over the country having to meet with naturist organisations to determine which parts of parkland must be made clothing-optional!
Granted, The Sex Party policies won’t please everyone. It proposes a national education program which would encourage sexual activity “in a gradual and disciplined way.” The intention is to introduce young people to “non-coital” exploration and experimentation. Even I have trouble with this, and I consider myself open-minded. Maybe I wouldn’t be so concerned if the word encourage was replaced by does not discourage, as long as it is done responsibly. As much as I want all children to develop a healthy sense of self, including their sexual self, I’m not sure encouraging sexual activity is the right way to go. I don’t want to discourage it either, but there should be a happy medium between the two, where the child is allowed to explore the sexual part of him- or herself if that is what he or she wants to do.
As naturists, we don’t want to force anyone to be nude in public, but we do want nudity to be normalised. In the same vein, we don’t want to force anyone to undertake any sexual exploration, though we wouldn’t want authorities to condemn it either.
Other than that, I kind of like the ideas put forth by the party. It’s a pity that it may very well forever be a one-issue party.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Nudity and Natural Human History
After having read on the subject and thought about it for a while, I now present a short, simplistic, non-annotated and error-riddled treatise on human natural history as it relates to nudity and sex.
One of the many characteristics of life on earth is reproduction. It took a while, but sexual reproduction eventually came into existence and became the main mode of reproduction for more highly developed species. Of course, the creatures didn’t necessarily get together thinking, “It’s time to have some offspring.” No, the drive was to bring the two sexes together so the process leading to reproduction could occur. Therefore, we refer to it as the sex drive.
Of course, the sex drive has been known to make creatures seek out others of their own sex, but that merely confirms the existence of a sex drive, rather than a drive to reproduce.
After billions of years, a creature known as human made its appearance. Like those who came before, humans sought to satisfy their needs for survival: food and shelter from the elements. Like others before as well, humans had a sex drive, which led to reproduction.
And so forth…
As time went on, humans began decorating their bodies in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons, and this included painting, perfume, necklaces and cloth. In time, these pieces of cloth were seen to have protective characteristics against the elements, and a further use for what we would call clothing was discovered.
The wearing of clothes by those who could most easily afford it conferred a certain status on them. When even the poorest of people started wearing clothes, the richer ones sought out the finest cloth possible and the fanciest styles. In time, it was forgotten that some poorer people would have to be naked at times because clothes seemed to be everywhere. Nudity eventually became so uncommon that anyone who would intentionally go about unclothed was considered sick, suspicious, or both.
At the same time, in certain parts of the world, the full process of reproduction came to be understood, and in an effort to control reproduction, and perhaps also to ascertain paternity, rules were drawn up to govern sexual activity. Eventually, the uncommonness of nudity came to make nudity itself sexually alluring and probably added to the suspicion people had regarding those who would not dress. Special efforts were made to cover pretty much everything except the hands and the head.
As years went by, necklines rose and fell, skirt and sleeve lengths varied similarly, and chests could either be exposed entirely, partially or not at all according to the era and the sex of the individual. But the genitals were expected to be covered. When a few movements here and there advocated for nudity, the majority clamped down, often violently. By now, the association of nudity with sex was firmly entrenched.
Fast-forward to the 1900s and a movement which would be called nudism began to gain strength. No longer limited to a particular movement or ideology, it began to appeal to a broader section of the population. Its main enemy: the continued association by mainstream society of nudity with sex. The association between the two seems too hard to break.
Meanwhile, in remote areas of rainforest, there are still human beings who are nude almost all the time and who have no problem containing their sexual urges. They hunt, gather, build huts and small boats, make and use tools, prepare medicines, tell stories, sing, play games, celebrate rites of passage, commemorate the dead; in short, they do everything we do, but they don’t let clothes get in the way.
And what does mainstream civilisation want to do? Civilise them! Often the same way missionaries civilised other peoples: by clothing them!
One of the many characteristics of life on earth is reproduction. It took a while, but sexual reproduction eventually came into existence and became the main mode of reproduction for more highly developed species. Of course, the creatures didn’t necessarily get together thinking, “It’s time to have some offspring.” No, the drive was to bring the two sexes together so the process leading to reproduction could occur. Therefore, we refer to it as the sex drive.
Of course, the sex drive has been known to make creatures seek out others of their own sex, but that merely confirms the existence of a sex drive, rather than a drive to reproduce.
After billions of years, a creature known as human made its appearance. Like those who came before, humans sought to satisfy their needs for survival: food and shelter from the elements. Like others before as well, humans had a sex drive, which led to reproduction.
And so forth…
As time went on, humans began decorating their bodies in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons, and this included painting, perfume, necklaces and cloth. In time, these pieces of cloth were seen to have protective characteristics against the elements, and a further use for what we would call clothing was discovered.
The wearing of clothes by those who could most easily afford it conferred a certain status on them. When even the poorest of people started wearing clothes, the richer ones sought out the finest cloth possible and the fanciest styles. In time, it was forgotten that some poorer people would have to be naked at times because clothes seemed to be everywhere. Nudity eventually became so uncommon that anyone who would intentionally go about unclothed was considered sick, suspicious, or both.
At the same time, in certain parts of the world, the full process of reproduction came to be understood, and in an effort to control reproduction, and perhaps also to ascertain paternity, rules were drawn up to govern sexual activity. Eventually, the uncommonness of nudity came to make nudity itself sexually alluring and probably added to the suspicion people had regarding those who would not dress. Special efforts were made to cover pretty much everything except the hands and the head.
As years went by, necklines rose and fell, skirt and sleeve lengths varied similarly, and chests could either be exposed entirely, partially or not at all according to the era and the sex of the individual. But the genitals were expected to be covered. When a few movements here and there advocated for nudity, the majority clamped down, often violently. By now, the association of nudity with sex was firmly entrenched.
Fast-forward to the 1900s and a movement which would be called nudism began to gain strength. No longer limited to a particular movement or ideology, it began to appeal to a broader section of the population. Its main enemy: the continued association by mainstream society of nudity with sex. The association between the two seems too hard to break.
Meanwhile, in remote areas of rainforest, there are still human beings who are nude almost all the time and who have no problem containing their sexual urges. They hunt, gather, build huts and small boats, make and use tools, prepare medicines, tell stories, sing, play games, celebrate rites of passage, commemorate the dead; in short, they do everything we do, but they don’t let clothes get in the way.
And what does mainstream civilisation want to do? Civilise them! Often the same way missionaries civilised other peoples: by clothing them!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Intro
Dear eventual readers, if any:
I have often seen blogs here and there on the Net. Some I’ve visited regularly, others I’ve just looked at and moved on, depending on whether the subject interested me or not. I always toyed with the idea of publishing one of my own, but never really got around to it.
When I became a member of truenudists.com, I found myself using the blog feature quite a bit, mostly to keep track of my posts to various Forum and Group discussions. I’m glad I did since some threads disappeared altogether when some members ended their membership or were unceremoniously booted off.
In any case, my postings have been receiving some attention and one person suggested I take the blog to a more general audience. I’ve decided to do so, but also for another reason: I find myself wanting to write about issues and present points of view that may not be compliant with truenudists.com Terms of Service. Rather than risk ejection, and the accompanying loss of all my friends there, this blog will contain views that may be a trifle more controversial. Or at least they would be if they were published there instead of here.
My feeling is I’ll probably be writing solely for an audience of one, myself. You, of course, can always prove me wrong.
Gerry
I have often seen blogs here and there on the Net. Some I’ve visited regularly, others I’ve just looked at and moved on, depending on whether the subject interested me or not. I always toyed with the idea of publishing one of my own, but never really got around to it.
When I became a member of truenudists.com, I found myself using the blog feature quite a bit, mostly to keep track of my posts to various Forum and Group discussions. I’m glad I did since some threads disappeared altogether when some members ended their membership or were unceremoniously booted off.
In any case, my postings have been receiving some attention and one person suggested I take the blog to a more general audience. I’ve decided to do so, but also for another reason: I find myself wanting to write about issues and present points of view that may not be compliant with truenudists.com Terms of Service. Rather than risk ejection, and the accompanying loss of all my friends there, this blog will contain views that may be a trifle more controversial. Or at least they would be if they were published there instead of here.
My feeling is I’ll probably be writing solely for an audience of one, myself. You, of course, can always prove me wrong.
Gerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)