The Nameless

They vulnerably lay in the streets with no names.

Everyday I see them, faces shielded away from the innocent observer’s condescending eyes. Filth overwhelms their exteriors while torment stripes their souls. Neglect, torture, and disdain are spelt out in the contours of their disheveled skin. A life of aberrations and missteps is apparent but who am I to pass judgment. Moment by moment mistakes are made yet life moves on. We accept these individual bundles as part of the ‘life-cycle’; the learning curve of maturity and development. Justified under the helm of the momentarily misguided conscious or the seemingly faultless moral compass going astray, individual stumbles are accepted as facts of life that we all must endure. Indeed, one who claims a life clear of these personal errors is discredited immediately on the basis of utter and pure falsehood. They are labeled as insecure and apprehensive, unable to admit their own ills. Overall, we accommodate these transitory lapses that cause little pain. We find ourselves up and willing to move on. But, what happens when these momentary slips, the careless oversights collude together and happen as one? What results when the majority deviates from their collective conscious simultaneously? Are we then so complacent?

Unfortunately, current 21st century movements suggests yes. From the continual genocides taking place in Darfur and Iraq (just to name a few) to the homeless pandemic reeking havoc across Vancouver’s streets, we have all continued to make the same misstep as the next. Omission, inattention and disrespect continue to plague and poison our minds. Why? I do not know. Maybe it is the sense of disconnect, the lack of interconnectedness we are able to create. The sense that ‘they’ are there and ‘I’ am here and this is the way it was intended to be. Others may shout the Darwinian survival of the fittest and press forward. Further, some may claim that these senseless deaths are simply part of the equilibrium, the necessary balance of global population to keep our resources plentiful and at our disposal. Whatever the case may be, the simple point remains: individually and thus, collectively, we have swayed terribly off course. Our understanding of what is ‘just’ has been severely tainted; democracy itself is a word that we now know little about.

As it is, until things change they will remain continuously lying in the streets with no names.

Peer

They’re looking, I know they are. They always do.

No matter the place, time, setting, or circumstance, they are continually there, peering, judging, evaluating, and ultimately, scrutinizing. Their faces are blank lifeless forms of plastic big box specials there to satisfy their own perverse inclinations; their futile wants, needs and desires they have been molded to have. Their intoxicated eyes, piercing ribs, and boneless backs are enough to cause death to the mightiest of soles; the one’s that can withstand years of insistent punishment and torment. Everything about them seems so factitious; a construed array of selected elements from every manufactured snapshot imaginable.

Nevertheless, they move on. Like a well commanded force trudging its way over a hill, they remain in sync, en masse, as one. They conjointly sway to the roles in the streets, halting to a stop and then proceeding forward in a faultless fashion.

Life seems so easy for them- hassle-free- consistently maximizing their elitist positions in the societal structures of life. And as always, they peer. They stare into the eyes of those who have not yet confined to their superficial way of life. Endlessly, they look down, down on those whom they see as primitive jackanapes unprepared for their virtuous way of life. They peer.

Unfortunately for all of society, they grow. Incessantly, we have allowed their exponential expansion to become a perfunctory aspect of life- a seeming impertinent fact in the eyes of all.

But I warn: this is what they want, this is their ultimate goal. We have been defeated, they are victorious.

They peer on.

My Sanctum

I look through her not at her, but she knows no difference. My seeming attentiveness is nothing more than a fabricated delusional wall there to satisfying her unquenchable needs. She rambles on unrelentingly, draining out the beauty of the moment. The sounds, often unheard and barely recognizable, are once again overtaken by nothingness. She thinks I appreciate her insight, but I do not, it puts me to sleep; and not one of those comforting soothing rests sought by many, but rather the forced escapist drowning out mastered by all. I search for my sanctum in another state, the only way to make time even remotely elapse. So I consider where I am and whom I am with and then throw it all away. The faces around me suddenly become obsolete and the structures vanish. Time and motion becomes still, as the noise begins to change. The ramblings are drowned out and something new and fresh becomes clear. Faint rumblings from a passing train and the flickering of a light are now poignant as ever. The sounds that I truly want to hear, the just sonances I need, are with me for the moment. To my sheer dismay, time here remains limited. I find it a cumbersome task to remold my mind. Within an instance the faces reappear, the structures are back in front, and the noises recur. My ears throb with pain as the rambling is once again merciless. The unseen beauty is no more as reality once again returns. But I do not fret for I know with certainty that my sanctum will never disappear. It will remain unconscious, yet paradoxically so known. I will never forget it nor will I ever let it be shown. It will continue to be at my disposal, a comforting place where only I can go.

The Flaw in Gender Typing: a conversation

John: I have been thinking. Specifically, I have come to realize that I have a bit of an issue with the feminist push for equality when it comes to certain situations. Actually, that’s no fair. My limited knowledge of the feminist movement leads me unable to specify certain calls and campaigns to their cause. Notwithstanding, I have recently taken serious issue with the continual cries for greater gender equity within the firefighting task force. That is the claim that we need more women firefighters within all precincts. Why is this? Do we really? Who is behind this absurd charge? Personally, I don’t think women should be employed as your prototypical firefighter. They do not have what it takes to complete the necessary and potentially life saving maneuvers that a firefighter must be able to do. I know that if I were to be so unfortunate as to be placed in a situation of dire straits where my life was on the line, I would rather see the face of a male firefighter making his way up the ladder rather than a woman. It is as simple as this: certain jobs can only be completed by certain genders. We should accept this fact and leave it alone.

Sam: Well John, I never took you to be such an opinionated and emotionally encumbered man. It seems you are vehemently apposed to women firefighters.

John: Indeed I am. Can you not see where I am coming from? In fact, I have raised this issue with many females in the past and even some of them agree. It is just not their place; it is unreasonable to coerce otherwise.

Sam: Unfortunately John, I believe that you have strayed severely off course with this argument. In fact, you have veered to the extent that you have become blind to a serious flaw in your argument that renders it absurd.

John: Do tell.

Sam: Let me first ask you this, why is it that you would feel overly comforted with a man wearing that iconic red suite but not a woman? What is it about having solely male firefighters that causes you to be so allayed and assuaged?

John: It comes down to this: men are physically stronger than women and thus, they are more likely to be able to complete the tasks that are often times required by a firefighter. Moreover, men tend to be taller than women, which is another advantageous attribute to possess. In essence, the male specie is more physically equipped and better prescribed to take on the crucial challenges that firefighters must be able to perform.

Sam: I figured you would say that. It seems reasonable enough; when you are in a situation that requires what we may call a feat of strength, you would rather have one of those fortunate souls inhabited with that muscular stature so sought by many to come to your aid. I concur. I would also prefer this individual at my side. But does this premise lead to the conclusion that solely men should be firefighters? If we are in search for the qualities layed out above, should they not be of chief concern? What role does gender even play?
You see, it is not because you have a penis and not a vagina that makes you strong. You are strong due to many factors, not the least of which is completely derived from your gender. Familial DNA, daily routine, workout habits, diet and social structures are just some of the cornucopia of factors that will all play a role in determining the physical strength of an individual. For, as axiomatic as it may sound, not all men are stronger than women, and not all women are stronger than men. I will concede that when averaged out, women are most likely the physically weaker specie, but importantly, this is not always the case. Indeed, I know many woman who are stronger that I. In fact, the majority of women probably are. I ask you then, would you rather have me, a male, but a severely weak and pathetically short individual making my way up that ladder to your rescue or, would you prefer the sight of a strapping young lady with a physical presence unparalleled by many?

John: Well, I guess I would rather see the woman.

Sam: Exactly! Because she possesses the qualities we deemed so necessary above (that is, muscular strength and height). Therefore, as you can see, when you take your argument and consider it through the effectual lens of reason and logic we come to realize that you do not hold some deep animosity towards the idea a woman firefighter rather, you are simply oppose to the idea that we have ill-equipped members on the force; a seemingly reasonable and expectable claim. Furthermore, it must be said that muscular strength itself is rather arbitrary. That is to say, no one is completely inhibited from being able to train to the extent that allows them to form the muscles that you think so necessary for a firefighter. Dare I say that even I, if passionate or fervent enough, could also commit to the personal development of this muscular stature. While it may take certain individuals slightly longer than others, few if any are completely deprived of this capability. Thus, as I see it, your claim that women should not be firefighters is utterly absurd and completely erroneous.

John: But can it not be said that, as you earlier conceded, men are more likely to be physically stronger and taller than women and thus, on the whole of it, be the preferred firefighter? Put another way, if I told you that you had to pick between two individuals to occupy the last position as a firefighter, one of whom is a man, the other a women, which would you choose?

Sam: As you probably might expect, I would choose the man because as you noted, there is a greater probability that he will be physically stronger than the hypothetical woman and therefore better equipping him with some of the firefighter necessities. But, don’t you see the sever detriment that could arise when you begin to play the game of gender barriers and bias?

John: No, its just simple probability statistics.

Sam: Not completely so. By making the statement, as statistically reasonable as it may initially sound, that women cannot be firefighters because it is less probable that they have the physical strength to be able to complete the necessary tasks required of the typical firefighter, you are engaging in simple discrimination; a canard. Furthermore, by utilizing such gender biased language, you may promote further sexism and discrimination against women both during the hiring process (despite the fact that they may be well qualified) and in the actual fire halls; where, need I add, a pervasive problem of patriarchy already exists. Moreover, and as I showed above, your argument itself is absolutely ridiculous.
So, as I see it, the only reasonable statement that one could make is the following, “firefighters should possess the qualities of physical strength and vertical height (although neither is necessary nor sufficient; an argument for another day). Whether they are female or male is a non-issue, both genders could potentially have them and thus, be a well-trained and successful firefighter”.

John: Point taken. I will try to avoid the use of gender typing when speaking on this issue for as you have shown, it is not a question of gender at all.

Face Value: what we think we see and hear

We have come to a point in post-modern history where the assumptions of honest, accurate, and truthful media presentations are non-existent. No longer can we wander into the realm of mainstream media and drift ignorantly on the presumptions of accurate face value presentation. With growing vertical and horizontal monopolization and the permeation of corporate conglomerates and multinationals, media reports are continually being marked (and rightly so) with heightened suspicion and skepticism. We, as citizens of a democracy, are finding ourselves incessantly questioning and doubting the information spewed out by the dominant beholders (Yes, I am speaking to you Leonard Asper). Ulterior motives and underlying agendas are becoming customary assumptions that we all necessarily have to be mindful of; it is idealistic propaganda at its best.

Consider two diverse examples as points of clarification and demonstration.

Firstly at the most frivolous and one may say insignificant level, consider the story of Richard Branson and his conflict with British Airways. For those of you who have seen the latest Bond flick, you are most likely aware of the cameo role that Mr. Branson plays. Furthermore, you are likely to known that Richard Branson- billionaire- is the owner of Virgin Airlines (among many other things with the prefix “Virgin”). This is where the conflict takes place. Recently, British Airways, while playing the latest Bond film on one of their national flights, decided to travel into the audacious world of selective presentation. Justified under the title of “conflicting interests”, British Airways airbrushed the scene where Branson has his 15 seconds of fame; they completely removed his presence from the film. Moreover, they blurred out the Virgin Airlines logo that appears on one of the jets. They claimed that they did this with their shareholders in mind; in other words, they didn’t want to piss anyone off. As an anonymous employee of British Airways bluntly put it, “We screen all films before they're used on our aircraft so that we can control the content of what is displayed. We have full control over what is shown."

Wonderful to hear, how reassuring (sarcasm intended); here I am thinking that it was only the Asper family deciding what we see and don’t see in mainstream news media, but movie culture as well; shit, not just movie culture but tampering with Hollywood, as many of their followers would say, “SNAP”.

Importantly, it must be said to validate my point, that I say the above not because of some deep admiration for Virgin Airlines or some underpinning animosity towards the owners of British Airways, I present this case to simply demonstrate the extent of selective presentation and the surreptitiousness by which it is done. In no way were the passengers of the airline notified of this intentional content tweaking nor where their interests ever considered. Come on people we should know by now: stock holders always find themselves at the top of the hierarchy of care.

A further example that clearly displays the fabrication of presentation and hence, need for greater skepticism can be extrapolated from the recent March conflict between Iran and Britain. Throughout this entire confrontation we as ignorant viewers where bombarded with images that we assumed as fact, yet were later conflicted with further images and tales; there was a never-ending cycle of presentation, confliction, and rebuttal.

The standoff began when Iran seized 15 British Royal Navy personnel from what they claimed where “Iranian waters”. Resultantly, they were taken into the custody of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and temporarily detained in Tehran. For the next week, diplomatic efforts were furious. Back and forth, Iranian and British authorities were attempting to resolve the dispute in a non-violent diplomatic way. During this time, we were shown various images of the detained Naval personnel; whether it was a taped confession to their entering of Iranian waters or the seemingly humane and benevolent treatment they were receiving, news media around the world unremittingly presented these clips. At face value, one may have originally interpreted the detainment as simply that, a detainment with no torture or inhumane care. The naval personnel seemed content and even nonchalant about the whole thing. Furthermore, during the release of the naval personnel (or what Ahmadinejad called a “gift” to Britain) we were presented with the iconic images of the soldiers in well-suited garments jovially conversing with Ahmadinejad. At one point he even jokingly claimed to one soldier, “You ended up on a compulsory visit, didn’t you?” A saddened and distraught face was not to be found, the 15 British soldiers seemed as though they were transfixed in an unequivocal admiration for the Iranian President. As expected, it was not soon after that British authorities labeled these displays as pure propaganda; an attempt by Iran to manipulate the minds of all by providing misinformed and falsified images to the major media networks.

Once again, as expected, Britain responded to this claimed manipulation of the conflict (more specifically, the detainment) as their armed forces decided it was their turn to play the role of information beholder. By means of employing a calculative and strategic method, they allowed the 15 British soldiers to tell their stories for the world to hear. Tactically positioned and semantically contrived, the soldiers went on to label their treatment as “interrogative; mistreatment”. Words like “rough handling” and “aggressive questioning” were peppered throughout as the British media seemed to unquestioningly accept what the soldiers had to say (despite its clear contradictory nature). The picture painted by the British soldiers during this conference can be best summarized by the following: interrogative tactics; forced confinement; and consistent mistreatment. Leading to the ultimate question, who are we to believe?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question, nor do I believe it is of critical concern. The crux is simply to say that, indicative by the above tales of clear contradiction, taking information or the stories of others at face value can no longer be. It will not suffice for media to play the role of personal tape recorder and simply regurgitate what they have been told (as the British media seemingly did). Skepticism and rigorous investigation must be revived from its place of suppression back into the minds of all. For quite simply, the idea of accurate, truthful, and honest face value presentation is virtually extinct.

"endings" are never truly the end

You lied to me and the evidence is as lucid as ever. Clearer than that imaginary light bulb flashing over one’s head in a moment of brilliance, it is undeniably plain and simple. What, did you think I would never notice? Am I that gullible when perceived through your eyes of indifference and apathy? This is how you got to where you inevitably did, isn’t it? You self-interested, cunning, manipulative prick; do I not have a soul, a heart and conscience worth fostering? Even if I was not worth your minute ounce of mortal considerateness, what about the rest? Did you honestly believe you were going to be able to get it past them as well? I suppose personal justification, no matter how erroneous it is, can alleviate the guilt from the most unemotional and impenetrable soul. And this is the most frightening aspect; the fact that you actually and dare I say, honestly believe that what you have been doing is right. Your choices of personal gain and intolerance are without question seen as logically appropriate and utterly acceptable through your eyes. It is the only deducible conclusion I can draw for a man that continues to walk with a stature of pure confidence and assurance; ignorance in its most self righteous form –no one can put on an exterior wall of fabrication to this proportion, it is not doable.

Fortunately, for every single decent person on this planet, your time is nearly at a close. Life under that ostentatious and cocky smirk is done. No longer will we have to stare into those monotonous squinty eyes of seeming poise that are in actuality, masking your true essence of incompetence, confusion, and ineptitude. Nevertheless, your legacy or should I say, path of terror and destruction will never totally be gone. In my lifetime, its residual effects will continue to be apparent; undoubtedly, thousands of innocent people will continue to die under your name, your cause. And yet, you will sit indifferent to it all. You will remain steadfast in all your previous choices and decisions for as we all have been told (and unrelentingly been shown), confliction, reflection, and true personal honesty are all values that are readily reviled; acts that form a mold of weakness and debility that we do not want to see from those in authoritative roles.

Ultimately, I simply want to know one thing: How do you sleep at night?

The Mother's Day Celebration: Have we got it all wrong?

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts,whether our baptism be that of water or of fears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided byirrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reekingwith carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not betaken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teachthem of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of anothercountry to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. Fromthe bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own.It says "Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balanceof justice."

Blood does not wipe our dishonor nor violence indicate possession.As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summonsof war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for agreat and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women,to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to themeans whereby the great human family can live in peace, eachbearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that ageneral congress of women without limit of nationality may beappointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and atthe earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote thealliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlementof international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward HoweBoston 1870


The above poem is the work of one Julia Ward Howe, American social activist and poet. She wrote this piece in the year 1870 as a response to her devastating experiences as a mother in the middle of war; specifically, the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War. Deeply motivated by the endless plight and destruction apparent throughout these times, Julia Ward Howe was determined to take a stand, unite mothers and women alike, and appose all forms of war while promoting peace. According to most historians and relevant documentation, the above proclamation represents the seeds of the Mother’s Day tradition; the birth of Mother’s united and their movement and call for peace. As you probably well know from you own personal experiences, today’s conceptualization and tradition of the Mother’s Day celebration is a far cry from this early message. Present day, this time is marked by an intrinsic drive to buy mom a bountiful bouquet of flowers (usually on the way back from the golf course or your friends at the local market) or some meaningless yet (conceding) delectable box of chocolates; Julia Ward Howe’s original message is nowhere to be found. Our capitalist inclinations to take the easy way out and buy, buy, buy has resulted in little time being spent reflecting on the important role that mothers play in the broader contexts of society. All of this is occurring notwithstanding the numerous examples of ravaged warfare that are currently reeking havoc and utter destruction on our planet. Accordingly, I encourage you to implement some of the following initiatives in you future Mother’s Day celebrations: show your gratitude and thankfulness that you have the mother that you do; do not simply display this on the second Sunday of every May, express it and convey it everyday of the year; promote and discuss the values and principles that mothers (and for that matter, all women) bring to our world; put them into a broader societal context, outside of your personalized home; consider the plight that war is currently causing and the startling fact that we still withstand it and are complacent with it to this day; (for the mothers) unite together once again, and take a stand against your sons and daughters fighting wars unworthy of the human soul, undeserving of one who holds your own flesh and blood. Let us bring back the true roots of the Mother’s Day tradition and put an end to the capitalization of what once was a day that manifested the meaningful values of social activism and peace.