Jumping Around

I used to mock people who'd have three or four journals.

I just didn't get the point.

I started off with one on a site that had a dorky name --- but it wasn't all that nice to look at and I was HTML-illiterate so I didn't really have the tools to create something I'd prefer to look at. (Though I could have learned if I really wanted to.) And besides, what did it matter when it was just the words that mattered?

But then I moved on to yet another site with an equally silly name and this one was a little more interesting 'cause you could develop a community of sorts. And it was cool because you had this mini-support system and people could routinely leave you comments and stuff and it gave socially isolated malcontents the illusion that they belonged somewhere --- even if it was only in cyber space.

After awhile, though, it got hard 'cause people started looking to me to entertain them --- to be funny and witty. And sometimes, I just didn't want to be funny or entertaining. Sometimes, I was unhappy...but it felt weird to write about it. There was an illusion to keep up.

(I know. A part of me's thinking, "Oh, please. Just who do you think you are?")

So, then, I moved again. I kept the old journal to update in occassionally, but I primarily moved to this other site --- a more popular one with the same premise, but even then, I felt a little caged.

I'd moved here awhile back.

And it's quiet here. Nobody comments. I'm free to write whatever it is I want and yet...yet...sometimes, I feel like maybe my life isn't all that it could have been. I'm only 26 and I'm going on 27 now, but I feel like all the early promise of my youth has been smudged or wiped away.

And it makes me feel a little bit sad.

Just a little bit.

Doing "The Devil's Work"

All I could do was shake my head when I read this article.

Granted, when you're really devoutly religious, you're going to be intolerant to whatever goes against the grain of what your religious text preaches. But you know what? Paul Martin had a point --- being prime minister doesn't mean he can go around and decide, "Um, yeah. Want to support that. But won't support this."

Like he says in the article, "rights are rights."

Parish priest in Martin's riding prays PM will be ousted over same-sex marriage
ALEXANDER PANETTA



OTTAWA (CP) - A parish priest in Paul Martin's riding says he's praying the prime minister will lose his seat in the next federal election because he's doing the devil's bidding on same-sex marriage.

Father Francis Geremia delivered his message in a fiery sermon during a Roman Catholic wedding mass over the weekend in Montreal. In a telephone interview Monday with The Canadian Press, the priest described himself as a former Liberal who has shifted his political allegiance in spectacular fashion.

He's now working against Martin's party - and seeking help from a celestial ally.

"He has to be very careful because he might even lose his riding," Geremia said from Montreal.

"I pray that he will lose his riding. Because you cannot have two faces: either you serve God or you serve the devil."

The priest said he's glad he wasn't around on a day earlier this year when Martin attended mass in Geremia's Montreal church.

He said Martin no longer deserves the sacrament of communion because of Bill C-38 - the federal same-sex marriage legislation.

The prime minister is a practising Roman Catholic, attends weekly services and is MP for LaSalle-Emard, which includes Geremia's St. John Bosco church in the city's Ville Emard district.

In a radio interview Monday, the prime minister explained how public figures can walk the line between public policy and personal faith.

"I'm actually a very strong Roman Catholic," he told Vancouver's CKNW radio station.

"But I'm also a legislator, and I believe that clearly what I've got to do is take the widest perspective possible.

"And that perspective leads me to believe that the Charter of Rights . . . is a fundamental pillar of our democracy."

He repeated his intention to quickly pass C-38, which has been through two of the necessary three readings in the House of Commons.

Martin said he's willing to make it happen by extending the House of Commons session that is slated to end this week.

The same-sex marriage debate heated up in 2003 when an Ontario provincial court ruled that it violated the charter to ban gays and lesbians from civil matrimony.

That ruling has since been echoed in six other provinces and one territory.

The Liberal government responded with Bill C-38, which would apply at city halls and courthouses but allows religious institutions to refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The government says its legislation succeeds in balancing the charter's equality provision with its religious freedom guarantees.

"I don't believe that a prime minister can cherry-pick among those rights and say, 'Oh, well I'll support this right but I won't support that right,' " Martin said.

"You can't do that. What you've got to do is say, 'rights are rights.' "

But many religious institutions aren't buying the argument that churches, synagogues, mosques and temples will be left untouched.

Gay-rights activists have already talked about challenging churches' tax-exempt status, and Geremia worries that religious figures will some day be subject to hate-crimes prosecution.

In his lengthy Saturday sermon, Geremia never mentioned Martin by name, but spoke about the "government" visiting the neighbourhood to spread its wicked message.

Parishioners described his message - delivered in Italian and repeated in English - as warning that there is a government in Ottawa "doing the devil's work."

Geremia says he's determined to continue speaking out against the legislation because his conscience requires that.

He says he would wrestle with his conscience if he ever came face to face with the prime minister.

"I wish he doesn't come to communion," he said.

"Because he would put me in an embarrassment, (whether) to give communion or not."

Geremia is not the first church figure to lash out publicly at the leader of the Liberal government.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary once waded into the debate, saying that former prime minister Jean Chretien was putting his soul at risk.

To which Chretien replied: "I'm a Catholic and I'm praying."
(c) Canadian Press, 2005

Here's Something I Don't Get...

...sometimes, HR people don't even bother reading the cover letters you've spent a good hour of your life composing, hoping that it'll wow them enough to get you into an interview.

So, they don't read the cover letter. They glance over your resume. And then they decide that maybe your qualifications don't match up to the demi-god-like creature they've got in mind.

The deadline comes and passes. They still have the job posting up --- but now they've extended their deadline by another couple of weeks.

Miracle of all miracles, you actually get a reply (!) instead of the cold silence that all job-seekers have come to expect as the weeks drag by --- like the Beatles's song, there's just "No Reply" 95% of the time. But, good God, some computer program has generated a rejection notice on behalf of the HR department this time around.

And you know what I can't help but wonder?

You spend upwards of $25,000 for an irregularly sized rectangular paper that says you've gone above and beyond the call of duty in terms of education and you've gone and got yourself one of those fancy degrees everybody says you need if you want a hope in hell of ever getting a good job.

You purchase yourself one of these degrees after slogging through four years of sleeping wide-eyed through boring lectures, forgetting all the info that's been thrown at you as soon as the exams are over, and you make it out in the "real world."

But surprise! You need experience --- often 3 to 5 years' worth.

All that's available is the menial kind of crap that a trained monkey can do.

And yeah, I totally get the fact that you're supposed to pay your dues, do this trained monkey work and climb up the corporate ladder just like everyone else has had to do --- well, everyone except for people who've landed their jobs because they knew somebody who knew somebody else. And from what I've read in a book called "Linked", that's pretty much how most people land their jobs these days. (It must also explain why a certain "entertainment reporter" with no discernable writing skills managed to snag a job watching TV and writing about it in Toronto's free commuter paper, found in subway stations everywhere --- but that's neither here nor there.)

If you look at most job postings, you KNOW that all that garbled gobbly-gook written up is just disguising the fact that it's something ANYBODY with the right kind of training can do.

And please --- EVERY job requires TRAINING.

So, what the hell? Why won't somebody just give you a fucking interview? Give you one fucking chance? Just to meet with them and let them see in person just what you're made of?

Especially if, after weeks of advertising, they still haven't managed to find someone and they feel compelled to extend the deadline?

Could someone please explain that to me?

It just gets me so angry 'cause I know I can do every single fucking thing that they've listed on that job ad, but they won't even give me a fucking chance. Instead, they expect some neurosurgeon or something to fill the spot.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Mr. and Mrs. Smith didn't get good reviews in the local rag, the Toronto Star --- which wasn't surprising.

They've got two middle-aged white guys who review for that paper and most of the time, the movies that get the best reviews are the most pretentious, farty ones.

You know what I'm talking about, right?

They're the arty flicks that we're supposed to like because they're "cool."

That's just my personal opinion, though.

I mean, seriously, they find the most boring movies interesting.

Is there anything more annoying in the entertainment section than crusty, middle-aged white guys who think they're cool and who sit in high judgment of what's worthy of watching and what's not?

Give me a break: they're crusty, middle-aged white guys --- what could they possibly know about what's cool? Especially in a city that's as multiculturally diverse as Toronto?

Went to watch Mr. and Mrs. Smith yesterday.

Thought it was a bit long, but overall, I thought it was pretty cool --- and funny...which wasn't what I was expecting.

Like when the therapist asks them, "How often do you have sex?" and Angelina Jolie stares blankly at him and says, "I don't understand the question."

I kinda thought that Angelina could probably wipe Brad's ass on the floor if they really had to duke it out, though.

Overall, I think that if you're an action film fan, you're going to like this.

If you like chemistry between the two leads, then you're going to like this movie.

If you like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, you're going to like this movie.

And if you're looking to be entertained --- and really, that's the whole point of the movie industry --- then, you're going to like this movie.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Private Health Insurance Ban

Two-tier health care: here we come.

In case you haven't heard, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Quebec's bans on private health care insurance, citing it as unconstitutional because it increases the risk to the life and health of Canadians.

The 4-3 ruling looked into a patient's right to pay for faster service in a system that currently treats patients on the basis of equal access to medical care, regardless of income.

79-year-old George Zeliotis and physician, Dr. Jacques Chaoulli launched a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada, after losing their fight in Quebec's lower courts, arguing that having to wait for surgery violates a patient's constitutional right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Zeliotis had to wait for more than a year in excruciating pain for hip replacement surgery in 1997.

Zeliotis and Dr. Chaoulli argued that being able to pay for private medical services wouldn't be detrimental to the public health care system.

Um. Yeah, right.

The Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal had dismissed the case, ruling that the provincial law's intent was not to discriminate among patients and to provide health care based on need rather than a patient's ability to pay.

The Canadian Medical Association said the Superior Court of Canada ruling could "fundamentally change the health-care system in Canada as we now know it" but declined to comment any further until it had time to study the decision.

See, one of the great things about being Canadian is free health care that was based on the premise that everyone should have equal access to it and that it had nothing to do with a person's ability to pay for faster service.

Okay, sure --- the wait times are a bitch.

The medical system needs a complete overhaul --- there's no denying that.

We have a doctor shortage, yet, we make foreign-trained doctors jump through hoops to get certified in Canada.

(Excellent documentary about this called "Doctors With Borders" that's on OMNI for any Canucks who are interested in tuning in.)

We have doctors who come to Canada as refugees and then we make them pay for one-year's tuition to get re-trained --- and most of them have to squeeze all this studying in between trying to earn a living to support their families.

Meanwhile, we have people in certain towns who don't have family doctors.

And now, with the Supreme court ruling, who knows what the hell we're facing? If a two-tiered health system comes into play, we could be looking at some of our top doctors and nurses being lured away into lucrative private practises and only those who can afford to pay will get the prompt and quality treatment that anyone should be able to get --- for free!

This completely goes against what the medical system here is all about.

In Alberta and British Columbia they've kinda sneaked the two-tier system in, where there are private clinics in place where you can go if you've got the cash.

Two-tier healthcare...the whole idea really makes me uneasy.

And incredibly the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed with this guy today in a very narrow ruling...which means that the face of healthcare could change in the very near future...and who knows what that'll be like?

I just feel like this cuts away at what it means to be Canadian.

If we usher in a two-tiered system, then we're no better than the Americans.

The ONE Campaign

Did anyone seriously think Brad Pitt was going to open up on national TV and talk about the break-up of his marriage or whether he was actually with his sexy new co-star?

Give me a break.

God, it was painful watching Diane Sawyer attempt to probe, anyways.

You've got to admire the guy, though --- he was serious about wanting to maintain the focus on The ONE Campaign and there was a lot of good footage of Pitt and Sawyer in Ethiopia, highlighting the plight of a couple of AIDS orphans and the impact that a couple of bucks a day have on the lives of children in Africa.

It's been in the news recently in Canada that Pitt and Bono and several other celebrities have stepped forward to urge Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to cancel Africa's debt to Canada --- to wipe the slate clean and hopefully put an end to extreme poverty in some of the world's poorest nations.

As most of us know, there's a G8 summit scheduled in July and the One Campaign hopes to motivate the world's richest countries to do the altruistic thing and cancel the debt owed.

You know what was interesting? When they interviewed average Americans on the street
around Times Square and asked them how much they thought the U.S. government gave towards foreign aid each year.

Some nut jobs actually said 40%.

It's really less than 1%.

My sister turned to me at that point and said, "I wonder how much Canada gives."

"Definitely more than that," I assured her. "We give at least 2%."

Actually, I don't even know if that's true. A quick Google search indicates that in 2003, Canada donated about 0.26% of its GDP (about $3 billion) whereas the U.S. donated about 0.14%. And of course, it's important to remember that you have to take into account that the U.S. has a far greater GDP than Canada, so that comes out to even less.

Not that 0.26% is anything to brag about --- though Prime Minister Paul Martin at one point was pushing funding increase of about 8% a year until 2009. But that all went to shit.

According to Oxfam Canada, the amount low-income countries spend per day towards debt repayment is about $100 million. That's US dollars, too.

Cancelling third world debt...I really doubt that's ever going to happen.

Though...I don't get the logic: these countries owe money us money, yet we're giving them money as aid...um...doesn't that cancel each other out? Sort of?

If the G8 nations did the unthinkable and actually cancelled third world debt, it'd be awesome 'cause these nations would be able to focus on putting money towards more important things...like education. It's like that old saying goes: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

I like the fact that Pitt kept the focus on this...watched an interview this morning with Matt Lauer and Madonna --- wow. She's kinda nasty. I mean, there's a classy way to deflect personal questions and keep an interview interesting and focused on important issues and then there's the defensive, why-bother kind of interview. Pitt falls into the former category and Madonna falls into the latter.