The Unreasonable Man

Street Racing is this month’s Signature Crime. Stupid teenagers race their souped-up Hondas down the street side by side, and obviously then crash into innocent taxidrivers and into couples out to celebrate their wedding anniversary, leaving behind small orphans.

This is deplorable, but is it worth introducing urgent new legislation, as the conservative government has said it will do? Why? There are already perfectly laws against fast driving and against careless driving. Even the police say so.

The driver (excuse pun) for these new laws is the sense of outrage. I heard the CBC radio presenter burst into tears on the radio this morning when talking to a policeman about the 7-year old girl whose parents were killed last week by some of these kids. This normally liberal CBC presented talked about the “unfathomable depths of stupidity” involved in these horrible crimes, and said that “in the absence of the death penalty, which we have abolished” (one gets the sense he meant “unfortunately”), he had “no idea what punishment would fit”.

I think that is nonsense. Yes, the story is terrible and sad, and yes, these kids are very stupid. But let’s keep a sense of perspective. Who has never done anything moronic in his late teens? And there are other crimes that result in orphans: take murder, for instance. It seems to me that murder is obviously much worse than street racing: the former intends for death to occur, the latter does not. These teenagers had no idea they would end up in hospital, with people killed and themselves in hospital and then jail. And murder is much more common as a cause of death.

So why are we not bursting out in tears every time someone is murdered? Because murder is not this month’s Signature Crime, that’s why.

The searches people use to hit this site are sometimes revealing and sometimes amusing. They are mainly about things (like my Land Rover), politics and history, people, and places. Here are the last few days’ searches in the “politics and history” category:

Most of these are straightforward but some beg questions. Muslims can’t what? Have sex with clothes on? And I would love to know, how many years driving license suspension did that angry drinker get?

Here are some more searches, this time from the “art and culture” area:

This is all very puzzling. I suppose I can understand why people might want analysis of a simple poem by Tennyson (although it is not complicated), but I am amazed to learn things from my own web site. I do not recall ever seeing a family Guy episode that had God wearing a condom. He wouldn’t anyway, since surely it is a sin. But on the other hand He may simply feel that He already has one son, and that is quite enough.

I guess now I’ve done it. Since google will read this post, I expect there will be many more searches coming about God’s use of birth control.

Hey….. wait a minute….. I can shape the profile of the people who reach this web site! Here we go:

Get free pictures of naked undressed young women here. Photos of all-nude naked young women who wear no clothes. Nude Co-eds. Lesbian But Bi-Curious chicks having naked fun together!

Um, no, sorry, there are no photos: simply the mention. We’ll see the search strings next month.

Uh oh, we have a controversy. “Colourful” British MP George Galloway (spoiler: I like him) has caused a stir [link] by responding in an interview with British GC magazine that he thought assassinating Tony Blair would be morally justified. While he did qualify his comments (he would report a plot to the police), he is clearly of the opinion that killing Tony Blair would be as morally justified as killing 100,000 innocent Iraqis.

I agree with Mr Galloway on that moral equivalence - although personally I think both acts are unjustified. Killing Tony Blair, it seems to me, is no more justified than killing innocent civilians. Hauling Messrs Blair and Bush in front of the International Court of Justice would be justified, but of course we will never see that.

As always, Mr Galloway, by speaking freely, this time from Cuba, sparks some good debate. There will be many calls for a “restriction, for the common good, of so-called Freedom of Speech”. There will be calls for sanctions on Mr Galloway. There will be plenty of righteous moral indignation.

I do hope that there will also be people who point out that Mr Galloway has a right to speak, that morality is in the eye of the beholder, that 100,000 innocent people did die, and that one man’s resulting terrorist is often another man’s resulting freedom fighter.

The funniest comment was by Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats, who said:

“No politician, ever, by act, word, or deed either expressly or by implication, should give any support to the notion that violence might be justified.”

Hear hear. I wonder of Sir Menzies knew what he was saying there? Somehow, I doubt that he meant what he said.

In the UK, a group of doctors has today called out against the National Health Service funding unproven “complementary therapies”, such as homeopathy, reflexology, and acupuncture.

This is good news: someone is being rational, using the scientific method of thinking that has allowed mankind to know so much about the world - indeed, to get to the moon. Of course if people want to go in for alternative therapy which is not shown in any scientific test to work, then that is their prerogative - but not using public money.

A few misconceptions about these sorts of therapy exist. First, that these some of them “actually work”. If they did, it would be easy to prove in double-blind scientific tests. The second misconception is that they “actually help people, whether they actually work or not”. That too is unproven. You have to define what “actually help” means, of course. Longer life expectancy? Less fever? Faster healing bones? By all accounts, none of these are shown to occur with any of the mentioned therapies.

The big danger is that we base arguments on individual accounts. The BBC links to a 93-year old woman who says homeopathy must work because her heart is fine. Prince Charles says alternative therapies work because he says so.

Science is very simple: if something works, you can show that it does so. Uncontroversially, and with results that are accepted by most scientists. If we abandon this standard, then what standard do we use? Catholics burn candles and achieve miraculous cures, but presumably no-one wants to add candle-burning as a publically funded therapy. Homeopathy is in the same league as candle-burning, unless proof shows otherwise.

I am back from Australia, and for once I bear good news about US immigration. I went through twice, once in Vancouver on my way to Hawaii, and once last night in Hawaii, on my way back to Vancouver. And I must say both encounters with officialdom were pleasant, quick, and unusually, handled extremely courteously. Perhaps the “how did we do” survey they handed me had something to do with that, but that does not matter: at least they are doing such a survey.

Unlike the Australians. On the way in I was shouted at by the border guard for not standing exactly behind his desk. On the way out, yesterday, it was even worse. Upon leaving Australia, you have to fill out a form, and on this form I had failed to spot the “passport number” field. “Passport Number!”, said the woman behind the desk. Unfortunately, she had my passport in her hands, and in any case, I had my glasses packed in my suitcase and without them I could not see where to fill it in on the faint, tiny print form. Bloody annoying.. but did the woman help? No, she did not. “You need to fill in the Passport Number!” she told me again, more agitated. When I told her I could not see where, and in any case she had the number, she just stared, No help. I had to get the passport back and move into the light, squint, and queue again.

Of course I found this experience a humiliating one, and one that convinced me again that putting people in positions of petty power is to be avoided. There is no reason to humiliate law-abiding people (even if they are foreigners, and yes, we all know foreigners are to be distrusted).

If this woman wanted to leave me with a bad impression of an otherwise excellent trip, or if she wanted to minimise Australian repeat tourist revenue, or perhaps if she simply wanted to engender hatred of Australian officialdom, she did a great job. But in all likelihood all she wanted to achieve is to take the opportunity handed to her to humiliate a middle-aged man, and the perverse power system encouraged her to do that. Let’s reduce such police state power systems to a minimum: or we risk throwing away the baby with the bath water.

And before you say “but security!”, I do not buy that. When you travel a lot you see that security measures are inconsistent. Like religions: they cannot all be right, so they are most likely all wrong. In Australia, for example, when taking a domestic flight you show no ID. All you do is tell the boarding pass kiosk your name and flight number, and that’s it. At no time, for instance while going through security or when boarding the aircraft, do you need to show any ID. In North America even one passenger getting onto an aircraft without ID would cause airports to be immediately closed down with red security alerts; in Australia it is just the way it’s done. And I could give you many more examples.

But bureaucracy spawns rules: the more power you give the bureaucrats, the more silly rules you get. End point: police state. And before you protest that you do not object to being searched or shouted at: that’s fine for you, but I do object. For my children’s sake. 25 years ago, if you had told me what was coming, I would not have believed the treatment we get nowadays. Only criminals used to be treated this way. Let’s resiste facile “security justifies everything” arguments: Hitler used to use those, too.

Now I go unpack my suitcase.

Like many people of my background, I feel that the old “left-right” divisions do not hold any longer - if they ever did. I used to belong to a right of centre political party, but most of society sees me as a loonie lefty. Both of these positions are bad at reflecting where I actually am.

This site (link) does a much better job. It reflects the reality that people see themselves on different axes: an economic axis and a social axis, for instance. So many Canadian slike me believe in a socially liberal system and a responsible economicx system. Interestingly, there is no party for us: if you follow the links you will see that the quadrant I am in (bottom right: libertarian/right of centre)) is not represented by any parties or politicians. You have to be libertarian/left or authoritarian/right. A missed opportunity, for sure.

To my slight surprise, although it shouldn’t be, I am much more economically right-wing than I thought. And I am rather libertarian, but that is not a surprise. On the chart, according to this test I am here:

  Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

You can take the test yourself by following the link: let me know your coordinates. “Test” is a misnomer of course: there are no right or wrong answers.

…then it is because I am in Sydney, Australia until Saturday. I did not know last Saturday that on Sunday I would be hooping on a plane.. large prospect says “jump” and we say “how high”.

I am typing this in my hotel room art the Westin, and am paying an obscene $25 a day for Internet access: when will these hotels stop doing this?

There is no time for picture taking, unfortunately: although I carry my camera, it is not easy to take pictures from a taxi window, and the days or filled with meetings.

This week, the UK government was about to do something good (I am almost tempted to say “for a change”), but no worries: the house of Lords, and in particular the Church, prevented it.

The government had introduced an “assisted dying” bill that would allow people under certain circumstances to be allowed to die at their own request. These circumstances were far too restrictive (6 months to live, unbearable pain, no depression, etc), but hey, it was a start.

But the house of Lords (for some reason in the UK they call lords “peers”: peers means equals, and lords are definitely not equal) killed the bill. The Church (both the Church of England and the catholic church) waged a fierce campaign against the bill. In spite of the fact that by all counts, the great majority of the English population is in favour of being able to die when they wish. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is part of the house of lords, God knows why, and he was instrumental in stopping this bill.

This same thing is happening in other countries. Organised religion so often stops progress. Religion of this sort is anathema to logic, humanity, liberalism, progress, freedom: to anything good. Organised religion says “your opinion is useless. Our dogma, and our ability to interpret that dogma, knows right from wrong, and you know nothing”. Thou Shalt, or rather, Thou Shalt Not.
Of course this also explains why religion is fast becoming irrelevant in the Western world. No-one goes to church anymore: this being 2006 and not 1006, we are quite able to make our own moral judgments, thanks very much.

Of course euthanasia will be legalised eventually, whether churchgoers who know best how we should live our lives agree or not. And churches, at least those who think they can impose a way of life on people, even on non-believers, will be empty. Perhaps we will all be Buddhists then. Not a day too soon.

Music, that is. A recent spat with iTunes and MS Media Player, both cynical monstrosities designed not to help me but to help Apple and Microsoft derive maximum Big Business revenue from me (good luck!), has necessitated me sitting at my computer all night to rename, re-organise and re-classify all my music. I shall spare you the details: the horror, the horror.

But this again reminds me of how powerful art is, and music is no exception. The power of music, of course, is evocation: the power to transform me into anyone, anywhere, anytime on the planet. Come on a trip with me…

As I sit here listening to “Águas de Março” by Antonio Carlos Jobim, I transform into a sophisticated Bossa Nova connoisseur in a New York nightclub in 1964. And I speak perfect Portuguese: words like suave and sophisticated were invented just for me. Two minutes later, I am listening to “Aha me a riddle” by Laura Love, and I am an altie in a grungy nightclub in Seattle in 1995, and I have fun with my vegetarian, green, lesbian friends. I wear grunge clothes and want to ban the bomb, fur and world trade.

And “real reality” mixes in too: listening to “Always Crashing in the same car” by David Bowie, I am once again 18, sitting in a Datsun 300Z driven (not very well) by His Royal Highness Sheikh Tahnoon bin Said Bin Sultan Bin Shakboot al-Nahayyan, on a narrow country lane in Surrey. And then a second or two later, “Clap for the wolfman” by the Guess Who takes me back to the Libyan desert, where I used to listen to Wolfman Jack, my link with the world, on shortwave radio.

And now Ten Years After’s “Slow Blues in C” takes me back to Earls Court, and to my friend David Leapingwell, whose TYA Live album I still have, and who died tragically, young, of a Heroin overdose: that’s why I still have his album.

Now Georges Moustaki sings “Il y avait un jardin qu’on appelait la terre”. I am 17 again, at boarding school, talking to a friend from Quebec.

Uh oh, ZAP! and we zoom back some more years.. “Je t’aime - moi non plus” by Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin… je suis la vague irrésolu, tu l’isle nue… I have entered the 60s! And from there to Karn Evil 9 by Emerson, Lake and Palmer: I am 14 again.

Are you still with me? Well then, more French sophistication: La Place Rouge Etait Vide.. devant moi marchait Nathalie.. il avait un jolie nom, mon guide: Nathalie. That of course is Gilbert Becaud, who can say “boire… un chocolat” in a way that completely explains the French character with just a bit of pronunciation and that makes one instantly want to be French.

But then… gazing from my window to the streets below, a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow.. now with Simon and Garfunkel I am a Rock in New York city. It is but a small step from there to the Velvet Underground and “Some Kind of Love”. Between thought and expression lies a lifetime: no kinds of love are better than others, Margarita told Tom. Like a dirty French novel; combines the absurd with the vulgar. The possibilities are endless.. some kinds of love are mistaken for vision. New York: Sophistication gone wild.

So to wind down, I listen to some Jazz: “Freddie Freeloader”, sung here by Emilie Claire Barlow in Toronto a couple of years ago. At The Montreal, where I admitted to being the only person in the audience to have checked out Emilie-Claire’s web site.

So. What a trip! Sitting at my desk, In an hour I traverse the world and the decades and the entire human condition thanks to music, and that is why art, and music in particular, is so powerful. Now let me see, what is more valuable.. Politicians? Musicians? Mmm. What do you think?

Methinks the conservatives are predictable:

The previous Liberal government’s target of 300,000 new immigrants to Canada each year was too high, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg said Wednesday.

I understand that there are challenges, but forgive me for thinking that this is predictable: conservatives like white Christians; even in multicultural Canada they do not much like immigrants, who are generally not English and may also be of different religions.

The minister is also happy that there have recently been fewer asylum-seekers. As a frequent traveller I know why that is. Most international flights I arrive on are now met at the gate by armed immigration officers, who inspect passports and whose only purpose is to send asylum-seekers back onto the airplane if it came from a safe country. That way the issue goes back to that country. Problem “solved”.

If the minister wants to solve immigrants’ problems, the answer is very simple. Remove the artificial barriers, and recognise their foreign qualifications. This country is rather inward looking: even a foreign driving licence is not recognised. That is why your taxi driver or pump attendant may well be a trial lawyer, brain surgeon, dentist or literature professor.