Sparks

Last week Wendy decided that Elli should enroll in Sparks, the entry level of Girl Guides here in Canada.  Elli was excited about the uniforms and the idea of an all girls club so off she went.  Why exactly she is so excited to go to an all girls event and yet simultaneously is desperate to be engaged to some boy or other is strange to me but I suppose five year old girls aren't supposed to make sense to their fathers.  Having recently been thoroughly disgusted with the Boy Scouts homophobia and religious discrimination I was concerned about sending Elli to Girl Guides but it turns out my concerns were totally groundless.

Girl Guides not only tolerates gay folks but specifically enshrines equality for all in their mission statement.  They clearly say that they will:

Treat Members, volunteers, employees and Members’ families fairly, knowing that GGC does not tolerate unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical ability, political beliefs, socio-economic status, health-related status, sexual orientation, marital status, or any other grounds enumerated in the human rights legislation of the jurisdiction in which the individuals involved are located.

Seems pretty conclusive to me.  I was also pleased to note that their Promise was entirely free of worship and supplication.


Brownie Promise
I Promise to do my best,
To be true to myself, my beliefs and Canada
I will take action for a better world
And respect the Brownie Law

---

Law

---

The Guiding Law challenges me to:

• be honest and trustworthy
• use my resources wisely
• respect myself and others
• recognize and use my talents and abilities
• protect our common environment
• live with courage and strength
• share in the sisterhood of Guiding.

Honesty, wisdom, respect, achievement, environmentalism, courage, and sharing seem like a pretty great set of guidelines.  All in all the Girl Guides impressed me.  I was kind of expecting to have all sorts of righteous indignation and to have to hold my nose while Elli went to Guides but honestly I can't find fault with their policies in the slightest.  I wonder how much of the fact that the Girl Guides are less prejudiced than the Boy Scouts is due to the fact that they were explicitly founded to serve a marginalized group.  Some groups manage to escape the clutches of their beginnings and some do not; much like people in that regard.

Quotes taken from http://www.girlguides.ca/

Save us from ourselves Google!

People are scared of all the wrong things.  They worry about terrorism when the chance of it killing you is roughly 0.002% and they fail to worry about the flu and pneumonia when those kill 1000 times as many people as terrorism.  They also worry way too much about the dangers of flying and not nearly enough about the dangers of driving.  As a sad sidenote it has been calculated that in the US about 1500 people died in traffic accidents due to driving more and flying less after the 9/11 attacks; they should definitely have continued to fly, from a short term safety standpoint.

Google, ever the champion of righteousness, is coming to our rescue.  Cars that drive themselves are now becoming legal in a few US states and certainly that trend will continue north of the border and around the world.  There are clearly a few tricks to having a driverless car on the road and some obstacles to overcome but we can't ignore the obvious advantage that computers kick our collective asses at things like driving.  Obeying the rules, staying on the road, and not hitting things are actually really easy under the great majority of conditions.  The problems really only emerge when you introduce the people factor:  Being drunk, being exhausted, having screaming teenagers in the car, driving beyond the speed limit, and other unnecessary risks that we take far too regularly.

We chuck all kinds of money at health problems that we can barely make a dent in to try to extend human life.  Modern medicine can perform some wonders but I think we could actually improve health care and longevity in most modern societies by cutting money from the healthcare budget and diverting it into getting every car on the road driven by a computer.  Would we have a few collisions because the computer crashed?  Sure.  But in the wash we would save huge numbers of lives by preventing people from doing stupid things and killing themselves.  Want to get loaded and drive home?  Go nuts!  Desperately need a nap on the way to work?  No problem!  I might recommend finding the money to encourage driverless vehicles by cutting out things like useless fighter jets instead of slashing healthcare costs but either way it is a winning proposition.

This issue is all tied up in dumb psychology.  We are afraid in planes because we have no illusion of control.  They are astoundingly safe but without our hands on the wheel there is a fear that something up front is going wrong and we have no idea what it might be.  90% of people believe they are in the top 50% of drivers by skill so very few of us have a realistic idea of how good we are at driving.  We have this collective delusion that somehow our talents can make up for our impairments and risky behaviour and it kills us in remarkable numbers.  We don't need perfection from a computer to drastically improve our road safety, just a driver that obeys the laws and brings its full focus to bear every single time the key is turned.

Crooks and Poor Nations

There often isn't much difference between the ethics of a 'legitimate' ruler and the ethics of a mob boss.  Obama has happily signed away some very important, very basic rights of his citizens in order to further a completely unnecessary war as well as been responsible for plenty of assassinations and combat deaths.  (Note that the Republicans would probably have done the same but worse, this isn't about partisan politics.) However, when he does things they have the stamp of legitimacy.  He sends in official type people on missions that are public because no one can do anything about it; Osama Bin Laden simply wasn't able to prevent himself from being killed regardless of the fact that he knew it was coming.

On the other hand you have the Pakistani railways minister who was extremely angry that a random person in another country made a film that offended his religious sensibilities so he put out a $100,000 contract on the life of the filmmaker in question.  He would have happily started a war or sent a strike team to destroy the filmmaker instead but of course he lacked the direct power to do so, much like a criminal does.  Drug dealers may beat people up but they don't do it publicly and acknowledge it when asked; contracts are the weapon of the underdog.

That stamp of legitimacy is simply power though and has nothing to do with moral authority.  I think both the press and regular people often confuse the two and talk as if someone in a suit giving an executive order is somehow better than a machine gun wielding militant hiding in a cave when their aims and results are the same.  Dropping bombs from high tech planes on civilians isn't better or more justified than shooting those civilians at close range because the only difference is how powerful the aggressor is.  Power should not imply moral behaviour or appropriate goals though unfortunately people often see it that way.

I find it hilarious that Obama went before the UN to condemn extremism and violence after his nation invaded another nation and caused more than 100,000 civilian deaths.  Certainly the violence of the protests in recent days is deplorable but it is a pittance compared to the violence of the Iraq war.  It must also be noted that the US is happy to imprison and kill people without due process, just like any terrorist organization, when it suits their needs.  The difference, again, is simply that they are powerful enough to do it publicly and nobody can stop them.

Stopping violence is a good thing.  Spreading democracy and basic human rights around the world is a wonderful goal.  The first thing you would want to do to make that happen though is to set a good example.  You will win nothing but enemies and accusations of hypocrisy when you cloak violence against the weak under the guise of self-defence and then condemn others who do the same thing without as many guns to back it up.

Give me one more hit

18 months ago I quit World of Warcraft.  It was my addiction, my passion, my motive for doing things for seven years.  Tomorrow at 3:00 am the newest expansion for WOW launches and I am preparing to get up at 2:55 so I can log on immediately and score up some realm firsts.  For the first time I will be doing this alone as Wendy is not planning on joining me in falling back into our old habits.  We used to schedule a week's worth of holidays for her so the two of us could play together but no more; WOW will fail to grab her again in its cold, icy clutches.

Of course it isn't the game so much that is grabbing me but the social opportunities.  WOW is where the action is.  All kinds of friends are planning on playing again and the opportunity to hang out with the boyz while having fun blowing up monsters and taking their stuff is too much too pass up.  Truly it doesn't matter what game it is we are playing so much, as long as I have a good community to play with I will be pretty happy.  Sthenno is even contemplating resubscribing to WOW at fifteen dollars a month just as a chat window to keep up with us; you know that something is lacking technologically when you do that.

I liked Pounda's characterization of my situation. "So Blizzard has stolen your friends and is willing to rent them back to you for $15 a month?"  We need this focus, this place, to create the social environment that we all want.  There is enough inertia to WOW and it is a good enough social platform that a rejoining seems inevitable for many or even most of us.  I wonder how many other old friends I do not speak to regularly will end up drawn back in by the allure of geek chat and watching numbers get bigger.  Those two things together are some kind of magical elixir, one so addictive that it is nearly impossible to break the habit permanently.

I suppose I should feel guilty about breaking my dry spell and hitting up the crack pipe once again.  I don't though.  Time to kill dudes, eat them, and take their stuff.  Also, make spreadsheets to optimize said activities.

What is in a name

Names are really important to people.  I knew this when I was in kindergarten because Sky is very easy to rhyme with and it led to endless mocking lines from my peers, though things improved a lot when I got older and it became a great opening line when trying to hit on women.  I don't place much stock in last names though and I forget how important they are to other people.  I just read an article about Japan that made it clear how important last names and family legacies are to some people and was astounded at how much sexism was tied up in that practice.  

I normally think of Japan as a pretty progressive place, one that is much like Canada with more raw fish and electronics but less open space and ice.  I couldn't quite wrap my mind around the idea that you could make a living trying to unite females from business families and males looking to be adopted into a business family as the new successor.  Apparently a female running the business is unpalatable enough that companies and families feel the need to hunt down a man who can marry into the family for that express purpose.  

There are all kinds of wrong in that story.  First off, why is it that the family name has to be drawn from the male exactly?  Second, why does it matter if the person running the business has that family name?  Third, why can't a daughter inherit the business instead of a son?  Is that level of explicit sexism really the norm in Japan?  Certainly if you want a family and a business both women have greater challenges because they need to divide their attention more than a man would but that can't possibly be justification for this; a few years off work isn't the end.

I just can't figure out the mindset that would necessitate such efforts to ensure that somebody out there who is about twenty five years younger has the same name as you.  I get the idea of wanting a genetic legacy but the leap from that to adopting an adult male just to carry on your name is totally beyond me.  It seems like a desperate reach for immortality, a continuation of oneself, but why would that be so completely attached to men?  If you want continuity you can get it by simply having your family name continue down through to grandchildren by your daughter, I would think, and yet that isn't the case.

I tend to identify myself a me, not as a label.  I could change my name without any significant discomfort; hell, I actually thought about changing my first name to Red awhile ago and I have no particular attachment to my last name.  Roy is a fine name and all, rarely misspelled, but I feel no obligation whatever to support it over any other name.  If there weren't any more Roys in the next generation that wouldn't bother me as it just isn't a part of who I am; rather it is just something that happened to me.

I need a lawn

Camping is a very mini/maxi activity for me.  When the sun is shining and I get to spend my day paddling through a picturesque lake, swimming off of a giant rock, poking at a fire, and having wonderful late night conversations in the dark it is a fantastic thing to do.  When the rain is coming down, my hands are locking up because they are so cold, and I am looking forward to a miserable paddle in the drizzle and wind it is a dreary activity indeed.  Fortunately camping in the rain builds character so it is not a total loss.

One thing camping does teach me though is that lawns are really useful critters to have around.  Normally I find them useless and annoying, a source of extra work and worry that is rarely of great utility.  When you get back from a camping trip and try to spread all of the soaking wet, filthy camping gear out to dry though you really get a sense of how useful a lawn and a sunny day can be.  Piling the gear on all of the furniture and hoping it dries just by sitting in my condo is a irritating situation at best - not only do I need a lawn, but a basement to store all the stuff until the sun is out and shining would be nice too.  Maybe I ought to talk to the folks in the condo below mine to see if they would be willing to warehouse my crap?

We also got to try out canoe camping with a child in tow and it went surprisingly well.  Elli needed a ton of attention and supervision throughout the trip but we had ten adults along so that wasn't such an issue.  The only issue with having so many people taking care of her is that all the adults seemed to take it as a point of pride to cram her full of candy at every opportunity - each of them seemed to feel that it was their duty to butter her up with sour keys, roasted marshmallows, or chocolate.  It will be hard for her to adjust to real food again!  I think the whole thing would have worked better with more children around, rather than less, because they could have entertained each other and perhaps avoided being spoiled quite so much.

Also, UtiliKilts are awesome for camping.  Despite all the naysayers and doubt surrounding my choice of attire I stand triumphant.  There were actually people betting that I would lose the kilt at the first portage!  Don't bet against me being stubborn about my nonstandard fashion choices, you won't win.

Put that gun away

British bobbies are famous for not wielding guns.  They take a relatively normal police uniform, add a ridiculous hat and subtract a pistol.  For most of my life I looked at them as a bit of a freakshow and couldn't fathom why they wouldn't pack heat to shoot some bad guys.  Seriously, a cop's life is mostly high speed chases and shootouts in old factories with desperate drug dealers ... right?  Also, having a big scary revolver is good for intimidating all those evil punks and disruptive protesters.

I don't think that anymore.  There are a few problems with gun toting police, the first of which is that they very rarely use their guns.  This might not seem like a problem, exactly, but it turns out that police who are actively encouraged not to use their weapons like in Canada rarely need them.  I read some scary stuff about cops in the US who whip out their guns for every speeding ticket but up here in Canada the paperwork for pulling a gun is prohibitive enough that cops don't do foolish things like that.  If you don't need your gun much it does not make sense to have one since just possessing them is an issue.

The big thing about possessing a gun is that you tend to then use that gun instead of finding other solutions.  We are all going to be better off if police officers have every possible reason to calm situations down instead of relying on superior firepower to win if things get out of hand.  Just the knowledge that there is a gun on hand makes people more nervous and desperate; when one side is keyed up and the other side is subtly encouraged to escalate a conflict we have a recipe for violence.  Clearly police need to be able to call in backup that has access to heavy weaponry when necessary but it should be a serious choice with opportunity to cool down rather than a split second decision.

Having a gun on hand also separates a police officer from the civilians who surround them.  Everyone is more nervous and worried when a powerful weapon is close at hand such that it is more difficult for police officers to be part of the community when they are carrying a gun.  The gun also cements the idea that police wield power by threat of violence instead of societal contract.  An unarmed bobby is obeyed because we as a society agree that we should do what police officers say to a large extent.  The threat of overwhelming force is far away and that is where it should stay; it is more dangerous for everyone, especially the police, when they are viewed as thugs with big guns instead of people who maintain order with a commanding presence.

I also have a lot less respect for the police based on history.  Most cops are pretty good folk these days (as are most people) but in the past the Toronto police force were used almost exclusively as violent political enforcers and even recently have been in trouble over shootings that seemed really racially biased.  The fact is that although the police are ostensibly there to protect us all they are not immune to politics, bigotry, mistakes, frustration, and misinterpretation.  We all make mistakes and when guns are involved those mistakes can become lethal ones.

The London bobby might seem like an anachronism to some but I think they are the future rather than the past.  Violence everywhere is decreasing and we can help that along by setting a good example with our law enforcement; lethal violence only when all other avenues have been exhausted and never on the spur of the moment.