The Gremlin's Wings

I would like to eventually get married.

Is this a surprise that I declare this? Probably not, but maybe it is for those that may be uninformed about me. I’m not exactly the most sociable person around, true, but I think that there’s a Mrs. Gremlin out there for me. Some people spend all their lives searching for that special someone, and they may find them. I prefer to look at the positive side that I can find my Mrs. Gremlin, and I still have many years ahead of me, more than what I leave behind. At least, I hope I do. Have I found her already? Yeah.

You know, marriage is a true oddity. It is about the commitment of two people to each other, how they will love each other for all time, etc. Marriage and weddings is a religious ceremony repeated across many faiths; even for the non-religious and the atheists it can be a big production, though. It is one thing that most people across the globe can say that they have in common, that weddings are prevalent in societies. The ceremonies may look different, but the process is almost the same if you look at all of them. The general gist is people joining their lives together. Most of the time, I would assume this is because of another force: love.

I can’t go through a post on marriage without talking about love, and explain a few of my views on this particular subject. Whether you believe love is a wonderful thing that links people together, or a biological reactionary to the human need to procreate, it is essentially present in our lives. It is a passion for something that cannot be easily denied or forgotten, and leaves an incredible impression on our psyche, one that I would dare say would be something that shapes us the most in our lives. We associate most of our relationships through our passion we have for others and ourselves, and the direction we go in life can be heavily influenced by the aforementioned passion we can show for things. To borrow a quote from a Hugh Grant movie:

Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion’s starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don’t see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often, it’s not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it’s always there – fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know, none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge – they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion… love actually is all around.

(TANGENT: Love Actually was an impressive movie that openly discussed love in an entertaining fashion. I would recommend it… but if you are a male, grab a woman before renting it. Definite chick flick, but it’s not as obnoxious as others. Also, rent it in the month before Christmas for maximum effect, preferably within a week or two. You’ll see why.)

Note my use of “passion” instead of “love”? Passion, rather than just being a purely physical thing trashy romance novels try to portray, is actually a general term that should be behind love… and hate, really. Nick Scipio said it best: “The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference.” The same passion you use for love can easily translate to hate, but the lack of passion, the lack of any intense feelings, or indifference, is at the polar opposite of the emotional spectrum. This explains propaganda so well, as the entire point of it is to erase all indifference and set the subject in a passion that is controlled in a way that is favorable to the presenter. Case in point: any political smear ad campaign ever done.

Now that I have gone off and talked about love, the point I was trying to make was that love is part and parcel for a marriage to work. An expression of two people (leaving out polygamists, sorry) to the commitment of lifelong love and partnership is getting married, and who am I to stand in the way of two people expressing that? I ask myself that in this subject, and I cannot really say that I am justified in any way to stand in the way of this, unless I believe that the couple, on a case-by-case basis, does not love each other. Yes, I take that part of wedding ceremonies seriously; you do not?

A few years back, there was a similar debate to this in the United States of America about certain people marrying other certain people. It was against God’s nature, perverse, unholy… you name it, there was an argument against it. What am I referring to? A man of dark skin marrying a woman of white skin… or was it white man, black woman? I know one was frowned upon, even illegal for a long time, within the States. Some places it is still frowned upon and discriminated against, but that is because the people that do are brought up that way and do not know any better. (They are still wrong, though, in my opinion.) Is it illegal anymore? No.

So if the same arguments are being used today for same-sex marriages, did the Bible change?

Did someone find a new scripture?

Did Pope Benedict (whom I always associate with eggs) suddenly come up with a new Bible that specifically says that weddings between people of different skin color is OK, as long as they’re not the same sex?

Actually, that last one has always confused me. WAS there a new bible that specifically forbade two people from expressing their love for each other by getting married? I am not a Christian, true, but I have problems believing that an all-mighty God that is forgiving and loves everyone suddenly hates people that openly admit attraction for the same sex. Did Jesus all of a sudden hate little Billy because he found out he liked looking at Tommy instead of Jill? I just… I do not get it. As far as I know, there is nothing specifically in any part of the Bible that says a marriage is only in between a man and a woman. Marriages had been going on for years before the New Testament was written; it’s only natural the Bible includes at least one marriage ceremony.

(Also, I would like to point out that the Bible as read today has been edited at least once a century. Oh, right, and it’s been translated from Latin. Languages change over 2000 years. Perhaps not Latin, but English does, definitely. Just saying that people reading and translating could have made errors; the Bible may be the word of God, according to Christians, but the Bible was not written in your language first, it was written in Latin or Aramaic. Some impact may be lost in translation, and other via just humans over the years that admittedly sin and seek forgiveness for their sins; nobody is perfect, after all. Whoa, heavy tangent… but I have a strong idea that you may want to question things before trusting them fully.)

The passion I see in fighting marriages in between same-sex partners, I acknowledge. Obviously, there is some passion in this subject, though I do not understand it – how is marriage cheapened by two people whom do not believe in the same thing as you but love each other getting married? – and I do not personally agree.

So everyone out there, can we agree on dropping any modifiers from the word “marriage”? According to common law, marriage has no modifier anywhere else, why should those of the same sex that are marrying be called something different so that “your” term is not cheapened? Ownership of a concept and a word that has been around for thousands of years and predates the Old and New Testaments, practiced around the world just seems to be stupid to me. If a church does not want to perform the marriage, fine. Making others not perform it? Seems like a case of “I’m imposing my morals on others, believe in what I believe in or DIE!” to me. I thought that sentiment was waning, but apparently I was wrong.

Live and let live. You will live longer.

I’ve seen a few articles around the Internet, and people going off and saying that people should pull out of Afghanistan, and I feel the need to comment on this. Why? Well, you’re on my site, right? I believe what is said here needs to be said, and needs to be said now, before someone does something stupid.

Out of all the military actions that have happened over the past few years, in my mind there has been only three I have ever supported:

• Operation Desert Storm – the first tango in Iraq was completely warranted, for many years beforehand and should have been done earlier, right after Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and then threatened to do the same to Isreal.
• The campaign against Yugoslavia – Genocide of ethnic Albanians? Yeah… no.
• Afghanistan

Why Afghanistan? Well, there’s any number of reasons that I could list; the most popular ones are routinely listed by world leaders. “Al Qaeda could still be there! The Taliban is evil!” And so forth. I, however, differ from this opinion, and I would like to go through in a few details why there should be troops in Afghanistan.

Before I do so, a small history lesson.

Back in the 80′s, when the Soviet Union was still in power, Afghanistan did some stuff that really pissed off the Soviets and they decided to do a full-scale invasion of the relatively poor country. Their campaign lasted a while, but thanks to the efforts of some very familiar names working together, the Soviets were ground to a halt and their campaign ultimately failed. Those names? Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, and the US government, whom supplied them with weaponry and technical training in how to fight in guerilla warfare tactics, successfully using the same strategy that defeated the US in Vietnam in the 70′s.

Afghanistan has never been a real “country” in the modern definition of the word. Rather, it was a rather loose association of tribes that fought as often as they were at peace with each other. But because world leaders said it was a country, bam, it was a country.

Sometime later, the Taliban came along, overthrew what little government was there, and began making the population follow an fundamentalist Islam teaching that basically turned back the clock on social progress in that country by about fifty years. I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty, because people have different customs and different views on religion than I do. I’m not here to dictate religious views to others on this planet, just express my opinion.

Anyway, they offered bin Laden protection, blah blah blah, WTC bombing in 2003, Clinton firing cruise missiles into the mountains, yadda yadda, 9/11 and the “war on terror”…  most of this stuff you know. Anyway, history lesson over with.

Now, we’re eight years into whatever we are doing in Afghanistan. Have we won? Sort of.

Unlike previous wars that have been fought in the area, the US and their allies did something smart that saved allied lives: they bombed the crap out of main Taliban fortifications, then let the local insurgents do the grunt work of clearing the area. Now, note I say “save allied lives” instead of “saved lives”, because the losses amongst these people are impossible to account for. Anyway, relatively quickly, the main Taliban forces were crippled, and they abandoned the government and fled for hiding, and really, this is when the conventional war stops and the guerrilla warfare starts.

Oh, look, remember that training I mentioned earlier by the US? It’s now coming back to bite them on the ass.

It is technically still a war – damn you dictionary definitions of war – but guerrilla warfare is not fought and won with conventional troops and tactics, which is something the military has forgotten. They have become reliant on technology too much to “save lives” and “reduce cost” that they forgot what type of warfare they are fighting against.

Ask any survivor of Vietnam, and they will tell you what it’s like.

Anyway, I got kind of sidetracked here. Let’s go over why I support the continued presence of troops in Afghanistan. No, the primary reason is not because my leaders tell me to, or any of the main reasons they list. Here it is:

• Opiate farming

One of the ways that the Taliban, al Qaeda and other groups have been raising money for the past few years is the illegal opiate trade. It is ironic that they wish to end Western regimes while being financed by a farm crop that they primarily sell to the Western world, albeit illegally. Yes, great way to vow to destroy your own customer base.

Opiates are used to create heroin and morphine, among other things. In my opinion, this production should be stopped, or, even better, controlled by the Afghani government (once it actually gets off its ass and controls the place) to supply the worldwide medical field with less expensive morphine and methadone than what’s available now. Hey, look, an economic base for the new government! What a twist!

• Humanitarian

I am a very firm believer in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I believe that everyone should be granted to the same access to food and shelter that Americans, Canadians, and other countries’ citizens enjoy on a daily basis. Even those in Afghanistan should get it… if they want help from us in establishing this, that is. If they want to do it themselves, I’m OK with that. But the Afghani people deserve the right to choose how they get their basic necessities – food, water and shelter from the elements.

• Prove the propaganda wrong

Too often has the rest of the world shown the Afghani people that anyone there is in it for themselves and confirming the propaganda that they’ve heard for most of their lives: “any foreigners are evil and only wish to destroy you”. Americans and their allies are cast as devils in this play. The George W. Bush administration did nothing to help in dispelling this – in my personal point of view, he hurt the American image abroad more than any other President, including Nixon and Reagan – and right now, it should be the goal of the allied troops to not just fight the insurgency, but to also prove their rhetoric wrong.

• Get Afghanistan their own functioning government

This might sound weird, but democracy might not be right for these people in this area. Democracy in any Islamic country is a joke – as evidenced by the Iranian elections this year – and really depends deeply on religious leaders advocating for the politicians. The Taliban ruled these people for years since the Soviet Union fell, and gave everyone a strict Islamic law. Change, unfortunately, does not happen overnight, and needs to be gradual.

Unfortunately, one of those other gradual changes also means that the government has to be left alone to find out what works best for the Afghani people. Western influence kinda doesn’t help that, but I understand in this case.

• A return on investment

Speaking strictly on a business standpoint, which I am known to do every once in a while, what kind of returns have the Americans, Canadians, British, or any other force in Afghanistan received by being there? Has it stopped further terrorist actions? No. Should it? Probably not.

The returns I’m talking about are more people-based. Have the people of Afghanistan started rebuilding their infrastructure? Can they start sustaining themselves? Can this happen without their own security forces?

• Freedom

The price of freedom is not measured in dollars, but it is measured in the vigilance of men and women whom chose to defend that right for others. No amount of technology or equipment can replace that simple fact. The peacekeeping troops there aren’t guarding just our freedom, but the freedom of the Afghani people as well, whom deserve a shot at it, just as much as we do. To take away those troops is to remove their freedom again, as the Taliban will return and then we’ll have the entire situation start all over again.

(While we’re on the subject of peacekeeping, a shout out to the father of modern peacekeeping.)

I think I’ve gone on long enough. The point is, we really shouldn’t be there just to hunt for someone whom has the unnatural ability to slip away better than Cobra Commander, or for a group of religious extremists that harbored him. They will battle against conventional forces, using the resources they have: their people. Instead of hitting them directly, hit their resources: their people. You don’t do that with tanks, you do that with words and peaceful actions.

It’s the one resource that’s not as fancy as modern warfare, but it helps a lot more.

I don’t know if anyone who reads this has been following everything that’s been happening, but let me bring you up to speed:

• President Obama wants to change the health care system
• People are protesting in dramatic fashions

Wow. I just summed up the entire American system in two lines. Well, I’m outta here.

Just kidding.

Anyway, Obama wants to bring in this big health care reform for the United States. Some of the numbers are pretty staggering. Let me put up his weekly address because I know Canadians probably haven’t seen this video:

I’m going to comment on this video momentarily. I am not going to get into it right now, but I’m going to provide some resources first.

A couple of other resources I was able to find were:

• A report on health care insurance premiums
• A Wikipedia article on the difference in between Canada’s system and the US system

There’s a lot of rhetoric out there. While looking, I couldn’t find too much raw data compared to people yelling at one side and then the other side yelling back. Twitter’s trending topic of #obamacare is a source of consistent hilarity for me, because as I read down the list, the Republican’s “alternatives” are either keeping the status quo or part of the Democrat’s plan. The real question, I guess, is:

Is the system broken in the first place?

I know at least one person from America that will disagree with me. Her life was saved by experimental drugs that were only available in the United States, and given to er as part of a plan to keep her liver alive. Canada’s health care system doesn’t even have access to that drug yet – out of curiosity, I checked – and is far away from Health Canada acceptance. In one case, I’d say it was a good system. But is it right for everyone?

Is a universal system good for everyone? No, of course not. However, I’d prefer to listen in a rational voice and ask people whom have been through the health care system if they think their health care system is all right.

The way I see the health care systems of both Canada and the United States is kind of like the difference in between Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks (I’m going with Dunkin’ Donuts because most Americans have not discovered what a Tim Horton’s is, so if you’re Canadian, sub out the Dunkin’ with Timmy’s). In a Dunkin’ Donuts, if you want coffee and donuts, that’s the big-ticket items. Sure, there’s other beverages there, and if you want them, they are there, but the focus is on the staple product. With a Starbucks, the focus isn’t on coffee, its about options. Do you want a grande double-whipped no-fat macchiato, or the triple shot no-whip latte with white chocolate sprinkles? As soon as you walk in, you’re presented with 150 different ways that you can receive your a coffee that’s served to everyone. Then there’s different roasts, different flavors, different toppings, different blends… the list goes on and on and on. As a non-coffee drinker, I can’t say whether the choice and options are a good thing or not, but I hear those that can afford to have it every day enjoy it.

America is a lot like the Starbucks in my example when it comes to health care. You have choice of what coverage you have. But, like much of the world, the fine print is where the problem lies. In each plan, do you or your insurance company decide on which doctors you go to? Do they require you to get a second opinion for certain procedures? What happens when your insurance company ends your coverage plan? Is your choice a flavor that takes away the fact that you’re just drinking coffee in the first place?

Am I trying to make a point? Meh… probably. My brain is working in subtle ways today that I find to be… odd. What I would like people to do is come up with their own opinions based upon facts and not other people’s distortions of the facts. President Obama did have a point when he said that critics will try to distract you from anything to do with this subject because people who make money in the status quo want it to stay that way. Who knew that taking the people that didn’t have insurance and giving them a way to buy affordable insurance without forcing those already on insurance to quit theirs is being taken as: “You must take this plan or you go to jail.”

H-uh.

Obama’s statements about how long it’s been debated in the US is a very odd sentiment. Sixty years to try to come up with this. Wow. I guess the differences are only starting to show now, but the problem is really with propaganda. How does one get their message across when there’s ninety different messages being broadcast louder, with twice the emotion?

Is his plan good? I really couldn’t tell you. It has good points, but I’m not an expert. I would just be pointing out my opinion.

Is Canada’s system good? I would have to rate it as an A-. It’s pretty good, but there’s places it can improve as well. The only times I’ve needed hospitals, I’ve come out in better condition than I left in. I’ve had an MRI, three emergency room visits, several doctor’s clinic visits, and twice when my kids were born. (It wasn’t me getting admitted, so they get separate listings.) Ambulance response and billing for services are two big things I have a problem with… but my trifles with that are probably nowhere near an American’s.

The one thing I’d like to ask any American that yells about Obama taking away their health care, or their right to choose… all I ask is that you take a moment and look at the facts yourself. Create an informed opinion before either praising or criticizing the plan. Actually do some research. Please.

It is all I ask, and your life could depend on it.

You know, I had this great post lined up to speak about today. I was going to talk about humanity’s stagnation over the past ten years, and how we as a culture (the “Western World”) are headed into the vast abyss of thoughtlessness and uncreative culture. I had something so clearly written in my head… and now it’s missing. I’ll probably return on this subject at a later time, but for now…

Something happened in the meantime that got me thinking on a completely different track. I’m sort of flying by the seat of my pants on this one, but for all that do know me… it’s something that I do quite often, with mixed results – usually good ones, but that may be just tooting my own horn.

Anyway…

A friend of mine approached me recently and told me her dog died. No, not just died… poisoned. Someone fed her dog a wood stain, killed it, then proceeded to taunt her and her family via phone calls – including a twelve year old and a seven year old – that the dog was dead and not coming back, laughing at their reactions, and repeating this process. Yes, they were familiar with the person that did it… but my God.

Humanity is made up of people on all sides of the cruelty spectrum, from the people who wouldn’t harm a fly to the people who would commit genocide without batting an eyelash. We all coexist within a strange little world, where we interact with each other in a way where we can hurt others by doing some of the cruelest acts that can be imagined, if our minds are put to that test. I’m not citing any facts there, this is just my opinion on it, from human observation and just what I have seen. A good way to tell how cruel a person is is to figure out how cruel they are to those that are more vulnerable than they are.

I know, I am not perfect. I get mad, I lash out. It’s just something that I do, and I regret it instantly when I do. But still, it pales in comparison to those that would murder for entertainment value, or to those that would mistreat small animals so that they can feel a sense of power or control. I understand why they do psychologically… but I don’t agree with it.

I’d do more on this subject, but I think it’d better be left for when I am concentrating properly. For now… I’ll just let my outrage at these people stew as I plan a very nasty and vile way of dealing with the people who did this.