Being Uncomfortable is Necessary

I’ve been thinking a lot about something that a lot of guys like me don’t like to think about.  We like to think that we’re good guys, that we do the right things, that we support the right people and that we are helping our communities.  We’re often right – we are all of those things. We stand up for what is right.  We support those who need our help.  We give to charity, or help out with our time. We’re doing the best we can, right?  So why do we need to think about that thing that the “crazy feminists” and #BlackLivesMatter advocates want to force us into considering, that wacky thing they call “privilege”?

Until just a few years ago, I hadn’t really given it much thought.  I mean, intellectually I knew that I had won the genetic/citizenship/orientation/education lottery.  I’m an able bodied, cis-gendered, straight, educated white male.  If people were choosing the characteristics that would make their lives easier, they couldn’t have chosen a better combination.  And I got it all just by being me. I’m one lucky son of a bitch.

Then along comes rapist Brock Turner.  Convicted of raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster in an alley.  And he gets a sentence of six months in a county jail because, in the words of the judge, prison might have “a severe impact on him.” The media outcry in response to this has been astronomical and heartwarming.  People are coming out of the woodwork to protest that this slap on the wrist is not appropriate, and that it underlines the white mans’ privilege that so deeply underscores our mindset.  I was upset too, until I did some digging today at the suggestion of my partner.  And then I lost my mind.  See, I was just upset because this seemed to be yet another example of sexual assault against women not being taken seriously enough by the judicial systems that are supposed to protect us all equally.  But it is even worse than that. 

Let me introduce you to Brian Banks. At only 16 he was accused of rape, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.  And he didn’t do it.  But he was black.

Then there is Corey Batey. Unlike Mr. Banks, Batey did do it.  He was accused, convicted and sentenced.  Just like Turner.  And just like Turner Batey was a star athlete at a major US university and his victim was intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness.  Unlike Turner, Batey was sentenced to 15-25 years in prison.  Same crime, same circumstances.  Turner is white.  Batey is black.

Let’s not even get into how long you can get away with being a serial rapist if you are a police officer and you chose poor black women as your targets. Sure, when you finally get caught you go to prison for life, but how long did it take for someone to come forward?  Why were these poor black women afraid to seek help?

The answer is in the question.  

Critical Thinking & Kony 2012

It never ceases to amaze me that in this day in age, with access to the vast amount of information we have available via the phones in our pockets, let alone the computers on our desks, that people seem to be incapable of checking into things they hear / read, and instead react much as they have for the last two thousand years – by grabbing their pitchforks and torches and storming the castle when they hear something they don’t like.

Seriously people, the sheer amount of information available via a high speed internet connection is staggering.  If you feel righteous indignation about something, you can make sure, in about twenty minutes, that you are enraged by the right thing, or that your ire is not misplaced.  A few clicks, some reading, and viola, you’re educated.

The recent success of the Kony 2012 movement is amazing to behold.  The video they created (they being Invisible Children Inc., a San Diego based not-for-profit) has been viewed thirty two million times between Vimeo and YouTube alone.  It has been forwarded on Facebook, Tweeted about and is the subject of everyday conversations around dinner tables and in schools as we speak.  That’s an amazing feat for any organization, and the fact that it’s an organization that is trying to do some good makes it even better.

When I watched the video the first time (I’ve watched it three times now, but more on that later) my first instinct was exactly what the producers of the film were aiming for – I wanted to help.  But my skeptical and cynical side reared its ugly head, so I did a bit of digging.  I checked the net for more information on Kony in general (and no, not just the Wikipedia article, though it is actually pretty good).  I learned that he was, in fact, doing precisely what they allege – he’s leading a ragtag army (opinions vary on the size) of largely child soldiers that he has conscripted into his, dare I say it, holy war.  I checked the website of the International Criminal Court for verification, and I read the indictment against him and a number of the senior officers of the LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army).  Everything they said in the video checked out.  I was intrigued, and felt that this campaign of awareness raising was worthwhile to be involved in.  I forwarded the video on my Facebook and Google+ pages, and started to think about how else I can get involved.  There was nothing organized in Halifax (yet), but the internet gives us all kinds of options.  Time will tell.

I posted the video (after having it drawn to my attention via the Phillip DeFranco YouTube show) Tuesday night, around midnight.  When I woke up the next morning, two of my friends had reposted it.  That number grew throughout the day, and then the whole internet seemed to be getting on board.  I know it wasn’t my influence (my Effbook friends list is small by comparison to most – I only have actual friends on it) but I was happy that I was a tiny part of this awareness raising campaign.  When I saw the talented and passionate George Takei post the same video, I knew the movement would succeed at its goal of getting this message out – with his million followers, he’s a great internet voice.

Then, on my way home from work that day, my wife informed me that there was some controversy happening – people were saying that Invisible Children was a scam.  That one hit hard and fast.  As soon as we got home (and my sons finished beating the stuffing out of me during our ritual wrestling match) I grabbed an internet connection and started doing some research / reading.  It ended up lasting until midnight, with a short break for a Zombies, Run! inspired walk/run.

Seems the internet was all abuzz because of two main factors with regard to Invisible Children Inc.  Firstly, that the organization had received a rating of two stars (out of four) from one of the more prestigious charity watchdogs, Charity Navigator in regard to the organization’s “Accountability” which apparently meant they were untrustworthy and the whole organization was a scam.  Secondly, that only 30% of the money raised by the organization was actually being used to fund programs on the ground in Uganda, clearly evidence that Invisible Children existed only to bilk the gullible and line the pockets of greedy film makers.

Charity Navigator, and groups like it, perform a very valuable service.  They let potential donors learn the hard facts about charities – are they trustworthy, are they using your funds properly, is the money going where they say it will, do the heads of the charity earn exorbitant salaries, things like that.  The problem is that the numbers they provide require the reader to actually read deeper than just the basics to really understand them.   In the case of Invisible Children, they gave the organization a four star rating (out of four) with regard to Financials and a two star rating for Accountability and Transparency, with an overall score of 51.52.  They spend their money properly, with approximately 80% of the money they raise going into the actual programs they implement.  That’s very high indeed.  For comparison’s sake, look at two of my favorite charities.  Amnesty International is close to the Invisible Children Inc. amounts (approximately 76% and a much lower overall rating at 42.88) and Oxfam America spends their money about the same (approximately 78%) but has a very high rating, gaining a four star rating and a full score of 62.97.  If you want to see how these scores are calculated, this link will take you to the full explanation.

Invisible Children did get a two star rating in their Accountability and Transparency section, primarily due to the fact that they have only four members on their Board of Directors.  Apparently, charity rating organizations really want to see at least five independent members on a Board, and anything less than this automatically earmarks you as scoring low in this area.  Invisible Children has released a statement on this issue, noting that they are in the process of hiring someone to fill this fifth position so that they can “regain their four star rating”.  The other reason that the rating is low is because the 2011 independent audit of Invisible Children (which you can see here, along with all their other financial information and independent audits) was not available at the time of the scoring.  The organization’s financials, including copies of their Form 990 (the tax exempt return form not-for-profits submit in the USA), their independent audits and their annual reports, are easily available on their website – and have always been.  They did not put them up in response to the criticism, they are required by law to be there and they have always complied.

As to the second allegation against them, that only 30% of the money they raise actually makes it to the ground in Uganda, there is no defence.  That argument is actually 100% accurate, and the organization freely admits it.  Here’s the thing though – that’s not the purpose of the organization, or at least, not its primary purpose.  The organization’s mandate is to use “film, creativity and social action to end the use of child soldiers in Joseph Kony’s rebel war and restore LRA-affected communities in Central Africa to peace and prosperity.”  That first part, the “film, creativity and social action”?  That’s the main mandate of the organization.  They are an advocacy and social awareness group that also happens to help build schools and radio towers and sponsor community programs to help people.  The fact that the lion’s share of their resources and funds go toward the very thing they were created to do should not be upsetting to people.  That would be akin to expressing outrage at Ford for making cars or at Apple for designing and selling electronics – it is why they exist!  The fact that they spend almost a third of their funds on a secondary (or even tertiary) goal is outstanding – there are charities out there that can barely manage to get 30% of their funds into their primary goal.

People have also come out in anger against how the money is spent.  The fact that approximately $250,000 goes to the salaries of the founders is “outrageous!” they claim.  Wait a moment… there are three of them – so that’s only about $85,000 each.  There are bus drivers on strike here in Halifax who make almost that much, and I seem to recall a story about a toll booth operator taking in over 100K a year – largely due to overtime, but does anyone think that the founders of Invisible Children Inc. are working thirty five hour work weeks?

Then “they” rage against the sheer amount spent on travel – a significant expense for the organization.  Hmm… Gee… you think that an advocacy group that travels all over the US and makes routine trips to and from Africa might have a large travel bill?  Common sense people, open your frigging eyes, but more importantly, use your minds.

Finances aside, people have been quick to point out that Kony and the LRA are no longer even in Uganda - which, had they watched the video, they would know that Invisible Children is well aware of, they even have a nice graphical map in the video to show where the LRA has moved to.  People have also suggested that the LRA is all but gone, and that they have been quiet for years now - which is directly contrary to the information the UN is operating under, that the LRA is renewing its attacks, that they have staged twenty attacks since January 1, 2012 and that three thousand people have been displaced, one killed and seventeen abducted in that time.

Suffice it to say, the vast majority of the objections to this organization are based on misleading or incomplete information. See, that’s a much nicer way of saying “idiots who don’t check their facts”  isn’t it?  Who says I can’t be tactful.

Now, all that said, there are some legitimate concerns about the organization’s mandate.  Critics have pointed out that the Ugandan government, who the organization works with, has a lengthy history of human rights abuses of its own.  That’s a gray area – lesser of two evils and all that, but it is a legitimate criticism.  Critiques also include that Invisible Children is simplifying the situation too much. Implying that all that needs to happen is the arrest and conviction of one man, peace will be restored to the region is naïve at best.  And those critiques are accurate – the problems of Africa are myriad and incredibly complicated, made moreso by foreign interventions.  Arresting (or otherwise stopping Kony) will not change that.  But it would be a step, even if it is a tiny one, in the right direction.

And other suggest that US military intervention, on any scale, is not the answer.  Most of the folks taking this position seem to suggest that Invisible Children is advocating a full scale military action against Kony - which is directly contrary to what the organization states over and over in its video - they just want the existing 100 military advisors, and their expertise, to stay in Uganda to help track down the LRA.

Does that smack of colonialism and “white guilt”?  Probably.  Many of the problems that Central Africa faces today can draw their origins directly to European colonialism, and are perpetuated due to, largely, western corporate concerns today.  That’s another rant entirely, but even if it is true, even if the real answer is to let people solve their own problems, is it really wrong to want to help stop a group that murders, rapes and kidnaps as part of their normal business?  Invisible Children says that the LRA has kidnapped over 30,000 children to serve as soldiers or sex slaves.  The World Bank estimates that number much higher at over 66,000 children.  Millions have been displaced as a result of the conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan government.  While many have made their way back to their homes and started to rebuild, many also have not.  As noted in the UN document above, there are still people being displaced as we speak.  Helping to stop that is a good deed – no matter the reason, whether it’s white guilt or genuine compassion.

I suppose the whole point of this (rather lengthy) rant is to remind people to think critically about the things they read online, and elsewhere.  Journalists are not infallible, and the internet is full of self-styled journalists who answer to no one.  These individuals are able to hide behind complete anonymity and say what they want with impunity.  They don’t have to check their facts, they don’t have to prove their cases.  All they need to do is make a believable claim, and then let the panic and fury of thousands of people run with it.  Fortunately, we have the tools today to do the research, to get to the bottom of claims like this.  We may not get a complete answer, or one we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, but we’ll have a better understanding of the situation.  We’ll have open eyes and open minds.  And we’ll make informed opinions.  When we rant at the unfairness of it all, we’ll know what the hell we’re talking about.  And that’s one of the best things about the internet. 

To quote the X-Files, “the truth is out there.”  Now go find it.

Oh Gawd it Burns!

There comes a time in a man’s life when he has to take a stand.  He has to rise up, raise his voice and loudly proclaim “I am not going to take it anymore!”  Chest and jaw thrust out in a manly fashion, he must shake his fist and rail at the injustice of it all.  He must lobby friends and family, reach out to strangers, and find a way to have his message heard.

This is not that time.  That time is tomorrow, or maybe Thursday of next week… maybe I should hold off until summer, when I have had some time to really think it over.

But while I am thinking that over, I do have a favour to ask of you - please stop making me defend Stephen Harper!  People need to do some damned research before blindly following the lemmings off the cliff. If you are a member of the fifth estate, please check your frigging facts before you print / display them for people to see.

Whew.  I feel better all ready.

Twice in the last week I have had to explain to people that while Harper may be the physical incarnation of all that is wrong with Canadian society he isn’t actually saying or doing the things they are talking about. 

Avaaz.org recently began sending around a petition (you may have seen it on your Facebook page) to “Save Jasper National Park” and stated that they were rallying support to prevent the “Harper government” from “[privatizing] a section of the national park.”  The website ShitHarperDid.com picked up on it, and sent it around again.  As of this writing, the Avaaz petition has 136,804 signatures, just 13,196 shy of their goal.

What's the catch you say?  Why is this a problem for you SRD you ask?  Well, Harper isn’t privatizing anything.  He probably hadn’t even heard of this issue before he saw it on his morning briefing when Avaaz ran with it.  Here are the facts:

·         There are hundreds, maybe thousands of privatized businesses, facilities and locations within the Jasper National Park already.  Marmot Basin, the ski hill that over three million people a year visit and the primary reason that the town of Jasper doesn't dry up and blow away in the winter, is privately owned – all the ski resorts in the Rockies are.  Every bar, hotel, resort, sled dog company and tour company that operates there is privately owned.

·         The development in question is being forwarded by a company that, while not Canadian owned, has been doing business in Jasper for over 80 years, that has its headquarters in Jasper, and that employs Canadians every day of the year.

·         The Harper government, and federal politicians in general, have little to no influence in this area.  The proposal will be veted by Parks Canada staff and management.  Had this not become a media issue, federal politicians would never even know it existed.

I lost a lot of respect for Avaaz when they started that one, but not nearly as much respect as I’ve lost for the media (and the sheep who don’t ask questions) over the latest Harper-bash.

At a recent media conference in Halifax, where Harper was raking in the political credit for the recent twenty five billion dollar ship deal, he was asked a question by one of the reporters about a recent court case involving a same-sex couple.  It seems that this particular couple, who do not live in Canada, journeyed here to get married.  When they returned to their home, their marriage was not recognized – their nation (not to point any fingers) does not recognize the basic right to wed for same sex couples.  They didn’t care – they were married and happy and they knew they were married, even if the state didn’t.  Until that went south, and they became very unhappy.  So much so that they wanted to get a divorce. 

They came back to the land of Beaver Tails and curling and attempted to start divorce proceedings.  Where a Department of Justice lawyer informed the court that they may well not qualify for a divorce, not because their marriage wasn’t valid in Canada, but because international law (which the fantastic LGTBQ advocate and lawyer Kevin Kindred said all too well in a recent post) generally states that a “vacation wedding” is only really valid if the couple’s home nation / state recognizes it and it has been that way for over a hundred years. That would be the same answer whether the couple was a man and a woman, two women or two men and would have been the answer regardless which political party was in charge. Hell, it would be the answer in most, if not all, other countries of the world as well.

Now, very few states don’t recognize “straight” marriage, so this is really only an issue for gay couples, but it isn’t because of anything the Harper government said or did, and it can’t be taken as any indication that the dreaded Harper government is trying to reopen the gay marriage issue – it was a lawyer, doing their job and pointing out to the court that the law may not permit what the judge is being asked to do.  Furthermore, it wouldn’t have come up had the couple been resident in Canada for a year prior to the application – it only applies to people who get married in Canada, and then don’t live here.

There are also practical reasons to have a law like that – court proceedings cost a lot of taxpayer money.  Clerks and administrative staff have to accept and file the documents, judges will be involved, databases will have to be updated, etc. etc.  If you are not paying into that tax base (i.e. you are in a “vacation marriage”) then maybe it shouldn’t be so easy to get the divorce here… but that’s another argument.

Should the law change?  Probably – as I said, it really only does matter to gay people getting married, and thus it has a disproportionate effect on them – why not clean it up while we have the chance.

But does this have anything to do with Harper?  No.  Not one iota.  He may be evil incarnate, but he isn’t behind everything.

I know, the lefties (and I am on that side of the spectrum) love to have a target to vent their spleens at.  And Harper makes a very attractive target, I’ll admit. But blaming him for everything is going too far.  And the comparisons to Hitler and Stalin?  Come on folks, those have to stop if you want to retain any shred of credibility.

So the next time you hear that Stephen Harper is trying to pass a law making it illegal to adopt a child not of your ethnicity, or is suggesting that we eat old people instead of chicken, check your source, and then check your facts.  We live in a world of constant and immediately accessible information.  Use it.

You're One in a Billion Baby 24 / 30

So maybe I am naïve, or maybe just not paranoid enough.  Probably a focus of my upbringing, what with all the hugs and love I experienced.  Or maybe it’s because I have never done any drugs that would cause me to be paranoid.  Or perhaps it’s because I am such a well adjusted individual with no anger or anxiety issues.  Whatever it is, I am sure glad it left me unscarred and naïve – because I kind of like it.

I recently posed the suggestion that a universal DNA registry, along with a universal fingerprint registry would be good ideas.  I also advocated in favor of street corner cameras, a la London.

Seems I am in the minority.  Not entirely certain why though.  A few people cited “privacy concerns” with regard to letting the government and the police have access to their DNA and fingerprints.  I inquired if those same people ever blew their nose and tossed the Kleenex away, or if they incinerated all of their various bodily spills – blank looks.  I asked what about their DNA was so private, and I got “well, you never know what the government would do with my DNA now, do you?”

This is a good point.  I don’t know what the government would do with my DNA, nor my fingerprints.  I mean, it’s very possible that they would frame me for murders, nail me for tax evasion and steal my Wii games.  They could even use camera images to splice together images of me doing things I have never done, in places I have never done.  You know, because I am such a high priority for the government and CSIS is routinely reading my mail, email, texts and blog posts.

Seriously people, why so afraid of “Big Brother”?  Let’s face it, the government and the police are too busy dealing with criminals to waste time ruining my life.  The only things I have to fear from my government are increased taxes, non-accountability when they steal money, broken campaign promises, reductions in services, smaller school budgets, stupid quasi-military spending and rogue leaders proroguing Parliament.

What is the source of this fear?  Why do so many people (about ten I asked today all had the exact same response) have issues with governments watching them in public places, and governments being able to readily identify individuals?

Think about it for a moment… how many crimes would be far more easily solved if the police could easily run the DNA they found at the scene and get a match.  Sure, it’s not an exact science, its only 99.9% accurate (or less, depending on who you talk to) but it is getting better all the time.  And think about how that could be used:  Let’s say you are a gay couple living in small town Nova Scotia, and someone deposits human feces on your property.  Why would anyone do that you ask?  Well, because people are generally speaking real idiots and overall big douchebags.  But right now, no way to tell who’s feces that is.  Now if we had a DNA registry, the police could take a sample, and viola!  We have someone to talk to.  Sure, its not conclusive evidence that the feces was deposited there by the person to produced said feces.  But it’s a pretty good place for the police to start.

And say there was a camera on every corner.  With today’s face recognition software (which face it is only going to get better and better) the mugger who assaulted the old lady could be identified, located and questioned.  Why are these things such bad ideas?

What is the fear?  Anyone?  Anyone?

Yes, your DNA could be used against you.  Yes, the government could take my DNA and make thousands of SRD clones, unleashing them across the country to wreak a terrible havoc and destroy life as we know it.  But seriously folks, if you aren’t breaking the law, why would you be concerned about these sorts of things?

If anyone can actually give me a non-conspiracy answer to this question, I’d sure appreciate it.

Maybe I am a Hippie

I just re-read the tragic story of the Toronto police officer, Sgt. Ryan Russell, who was killed after being struck by a stolen snowplow.  Note that I said he “was killed” rather than “lost his life”... it’ll be important in a moment.  Also note that I am basing my entire opinion on what is being reported - I have no special knowledge of this case beyond what is on the ‘net and in the papers.

I feel for this officer, and I feel for his family.  He was doing his job, and his job is a challenging, thankless, often dangerous one.  For all the controversy and bad things that The Police and individual officers do, I generally hold the police in high esteem.  Yes, some of them cross the line and abuse their power - google the BC RCMP officer kicking the suspect in the head for a prime example of this and don’t even get me started about the recent G8 debacle in Toronto - but for the most part, the police are trying to do something important, keeping our society safe.  And I happen to think that is a commendable thing to aim for.

His life has been snuffed out in a senseless manner, and his wife and small child will be damaged and scarred for the rest of their lives.  Where once was a human being, father, husband, eleven year police veteran with a bright future ahead of him, there is now only a memory.  That is tragic.

His killer is being charged with two counts of attempted murder and one count of first degree murder.  That seems harsh at first, after all, doesn’t first degree murder mean he had to kill the cop in cold blood?  Nope, the law is very clear, if you are engaged in a criminal act, and as a direct consequence of that act someone dies, you are guilty of first degree murder, and will go to prison for life.  This was originally aimed at instances of kidnaping and assault.

Now, why is this officer dead?  He’s dead because 44 year old Mr. Richard Kachkar allegedly stole a snowplow and drove it into the officer.  Witnesses at the scene stated that Mr. Kachkar, a homeless man who was not wearing shoes at the time, jumped into the snowplow and drove off into the night with it, driving in a dangerous “rampage” through the Toronto city streets.  In that drive, he struck, and killed Sgt. Russell.

Two things jump out at me here.  First, Mr. Kachkar was homeless, and secondly, he was wearing no shoes.  In January.  In Toronto.  During his apprehension, he was shot by Toronto police.  There is no information out yet as to why he was shot, but he is not facing any weapons charges - though a snowplow, as Sgt. Russell unfortunately learned, makes one hell of a weapon.  And I don’t think you can easily build a roadblock that a snowplow can’t break through.  It may not be a tank, but its awfully damned close.   Maybe they had to shoot him, maybe they didn’t.  I don’t know.

I do not mean to paint Mr. Kachkar as the victim here.  No, that is unquestionably Sgt. Russell and his family.  Mr. Kachkar allegedly did an illegal act, and as a result of that, should be required to face consequences if such is true.  But... and there is always a but.

I fervently hope  that the courts show a degree of understanding and compassion on this issue.  While I can’t even begin to guess what was going on in Mr. Kachkar’s mind when he stole the snowplow, and I have no information on his situation and any challenges or traumas he was facing, I do know that he was homeless and shoeless in a Toronto winter.  It was -11 degrees and snowing when this homeless, shoeless man did what he did.  Does that excuse his conduct?  Never.  Does it show that there might be more here than meets the eye?  I hope so.

Homelessness, poverty, addiction and mental illness have been shown time and time again to have intrinsic links.  You don’t have to be a psychiatrist to know that anyone wearing no shoes in a Canadian winter is dealing with issues that everyone reading this hopefully never has to deal with.  You don’t have to be a saint to feel compassion for both the officer and his killer.

Here’s hoping the judicial system doesn’t fail Mr. Kachkar, while still respecting the terrible loss of Sgt. Russell.  That’s a tough act to balance, but I want to believe in our system of justice.  Right now, and on this issue, I need to believe it.

OK, so I am a hippie.  I can live with that.