The Hunt... is on.

Though it may be a couple of months overdue, I was reminded of the annual seal hunt by our faithful friends in the media, who mentioned that our Governor-General Michaëlle Jean stands in solidarity with the Inuit on their right to hunt seal in the North Atlantic - at least that is how I understood the report; I can't tell where they're going with these stories half the time.

From what I gather, the Inuit have been hunting seal since they've been Inuit, primarily because their survival depends on it, so who are we to tell them to stop now? Case closed, right? Well, not so fast. If it was a matter of the right of the Inuit to hunt seal, this would not be an issue. I fear many proponents of the seal hunt are quick to use the Inuit as a convenient diversion from the real issue.

The seals are being hunted en masse for two reasons: (1) the fish they eat are a source of revenue; (2) the seals themselves are a source of revenue. Our fishing industry becomes vexed when these seals eat into their profits, so it dispatches its henchmen - decent working people trying to keep a roof over their families' heads and food on the table - to neutralize the threat. Subsequently, the fish survive, the trawlers catch them, and they end up on the market. Funny enough, the same people (more or less - I consider them the same people) make a killing (ha!) off of the seals they kill. Blubber? Meat? Pelts? Sure! Let's make a few more bucks!

If there is indeed a threat, it is not posed by the annual spring increase in the North Atlantic seal population, but rather the intrusion of industry in the name of income. In nature, there is harmony - a grand balance, if you will - and we are disrupting it, primarily in the name of personal gain. The Inuit recognize this, as did the remainder of the Aboriginal tribes before our forefathers decimated them. In the grand scheme of nature, there is a balance - that is to say, the net sum is always zero - things are born and things die. Conversely, in the grand scheme of profit, there is growth and only growth, at least that's what we are convinced is necessary for our survival. Of course, we are witnessing the consequences of such logic, given our teetering on the brink of what might be the worst economic collapse the likes of which we've ever seen - quite possibly the death of our economic model altogether, though in past instances, this has allegedly been a ploy by the super-rich to buy up all our assets at bargain-basement prices, but this time around, what resources will be left to buy, and will any of the locals let them? - so perhaps we ought to recognize this universal equipoise and right soon. This growth in profit has come at an insurmountable cost to our habitat, a debt that may take centuries, millennia, even millions of years to repay.

Like anything else, this is not simply a yea-or-nay issue; we must examine it in context before passing judgment. As usual, we draw a line in the sand - or, in this case, ice - and sort ourselves on either side, all the while sidestepping the actual issue: our messing with nature in the name of profit. I have no problem with the Inuit hunting seal, mainly because I trust them to know what they're doing.

As for the rest of us, I think we have much to learn.

Suburbia

For most of my life, I have lived in Suburbia. As I am reliant on public transit for mobility, I can say what a pain in the ass it is to move about the city from where I am - I spend a good three hours each day commuting to and from school - but aside from that (and my friends living in different parts of the city), I can't help but find Suburbia rather fascinating.

Upon first glance, Suburbia seems rather quaint, even tranquil: the quiet residential streets lined with trees and single-family dwellings sprinkled with sounds of backyard gatherings around the barbecue, children playing and dogs barking. As we peel away the veneer and peek beneath the surface, however, we find the real Suburbia, and so the fun begins.

Just the other day, I could overhear my neighbours yelling back and forth at one another (this is what I get for leaving my window open to allow for circulation). This time, I didn't hear anyone tell them to shut up, which I might have expected; perhaps I could have been the one to lay it on them, but why deprive myself of the wonder and amazement I experience when observing human behaviour? That's the psychologist in me, I reckon. As I was saying, at that point, I thought to myself how much longer these people might live, wound so tightly, their souls would make for exceptional snare drums.

So much more lies beneath Suburbia's pristine shell. Within these pastel houses, some are drinking away their sorrows (or using other substances to achieve a similar end), some are screaming at their teenage children for staying out all night, some are about to have a heart attack or stroke, and others have other reasons for their misery. Many waste away in front of the television set, and all are drowning in the sea of expenses necessary to maintain the illusion.

But wait, there's more! I imagine in every other household, there exists some form of mental illness as described by our latest source of dogma, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - going even further, I might be so bold to claim there is a general disharmony in just about every household. Drug dens have begun operation on our quiet residential street, but not to worry, folks, for your kids won't have to venture into Skid Row to buy their pot! Nowadays, the local residents have taken to complaining about the influx of "immigrants"; how ironic, given that most of these people were once "immigrants" themselves (in my neighbourhood in particular, there is an increasing Middle Eastern presence that is starting to vex the White residents; they worry that the Muslims are taking over as indicated by their television sets, despite the fact that most of these new residents are Christian - further along the ladder of irony, Christianity happens to be the precursor to Islam). Lest we forget the ever-pervasive panic over losing all of our wonderful stuff. Television tells us to beware of the criminal element who will steal our children and DVD players in the night, but won't tell us why.

My mother always wondered why, growing up, I was always so negative. When I see my neighbourhood - and I mean see my neighbourhood for what it is - I wasn't the only one; is it any wonder why, immersed in negativity, I was mired in depression for so many years? How often have I heard how "good" things are in Suburbia? I hope my latest entry has served to question such an assertion, if not smash it altogether.

Someone once commented on this place resembling a cemetery. The more I think about it, the more I see the resemblance: much like a cemetery, we have these decorative dwellings for which we paid exorbitant sums of money, and lie dead within them. Appearing seems more important than being, than living. This place is a cemetery, though it doesn't have to be, if only we could just let go.

Look carefully at the image you see before you, for it is cracked, and through these fissures will you see the truth. Soon, there will be nothing to conceal the truth - the fact that it has remained hidden has exacerbated the problem. I must clarify, this shell will not crumble with the physical infrastructure; rather, it will dissolve as do our ignorance and fear.

In Christian folklore - I was raised as such, so these examples are readily available - it is said that Jesus the Christ will return, and when he does, we will stand naked before him, i.e. we will not be able to hide anything anymore. If you ask me, I don't believe he ever left; in fact, I wonder if we really need a Jesus Christ to see what is.

A Lamentation

Yesterday morning, I awoke to discover that two suspects had been arrested for the murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford, or "Tori" as she is more affectionately known. For those who may not know, Tori went missing in her community of Woodstock, Ontario, on the afternoon of 8 April, and is now presumed slain. The media were thrown into a frenzy upon news of these arrests, pledging to keep the public updated on any developments as they unfold.

I cannot imagine losing a child, especially in this manner. Young Tori would have celebrated her ninth birthday this July; now, her parents must prepare for her funeral. There is much sadness and anger among the community at large - both the town of Woodstock and the greater community connected through multimedia - over the demise of this child. My heart goes out to the Stafford family and the friends of Tori, and whomever else she might have touched during her short time on this planet in this form.

While watching the coverage on the television, I could not help but wonder why this girl received so much attention over others. I lament not only the loss of Tori, but the lack of attention given to children the world over who are missing or slain. Each day, in our own backyard, so many children go missing, yet are not even worthy of a footnote - I have to traverse the Internet to come across websites such as these to ascertain the whole picture.

Furthermore, where is the grief for children of war? We have an insatiable need to crucify perpetrators here at home, but say nothing when we kill children overseas. How many children in Iraq have been slain in the last six years? How many more starved during the previous decade of sanctions? How many are killed by the landmines with which we've littered foreign lands? Or by the ordinances still stuck in the trees of Cambodia to this day? How many children have been killed in Sri Lanka? How about the plight of Aboriginal children, a fate wrought by us when we came to this land and decimated their ancestry?

My intention is not to detract from the tragedy of this young girl's premature demise, but it seems we pick and choose those for whom we feel sorry. Victoria Stafford is now a martyr; a little White girl in bright lights to prompt us to shake our fists with rage. Of course, little or no attention will be lent to why the defendants did what they did - in Canada, motive is not necessary for a conviction, so why bother? What's worse, while the media fixate on little Victoria Stafford, thousands of children die by our hands the world over without so much as a peep.

I don't want to say it, but I'm afraid I must: when I watch the news in this country, I gain the impression that I'm only supposed to care about White people. I imagine there are examples to the contrary - for instance, the Ottey sisters in Toronto - but these seem few and far between.

Personally, I feel we're all guilty of the deaths of Victoria Stafford and every other child on this planet. We create and perpetuate the wretched conditions in which children must live, then throw up our hands in bewilderment when they are claimed by them; our propaganda only serves to exacerbate the situation.

Is the death of a child supposed to be some sort of divine justice? Perhaps this justice is being served to us for our sins, that these are signs telling us we need to wake the fuck up already. The bogeyman does not claim these children: we do.

Void at Birth

Controversy stemmed over President Barack Obama's commencement speech to the graduating class of the University of Notre Dame; at the centre is the difference of opinion over abortion. Traditionally, the Democratic position has been to favour a woman's right to choose, an opinion in which many students of this independent Catholic university do not agree; some went so far as to boycott commencement and protest the coming of Mr. Obama.

This event had me pondering the issue of abortion. The more I think on it, the more I wonder if we should be treating this in isolation. Personally, I would rather not see the abortion of a foetus, but that is not a decision for me to make, seeing as how I have no right over a woman's body. Having said that, I do not believe a wholesale ban on abortion is the answer, nor do I truly understand the position of those who profess to be "pro-life".

For starters, it seems the right to life of a foetus ends once s/he starts breathing on her/his own. Children are routinely shortchanged, either by having to live in poverty or receive a substandard education, yet this is rarely, if ever, addressed. The same lobby groups who extol the rights of the unborn do very little for them after they are born (except, of course, tell them to pray).

And why is there such a need for abortion in the first place? How many young women run to the abortion clinic out of fear of persecution of their peers and authority figures? How many pointed fingers and whispers of "whore" can a girl endure? How many of these "pro-lifers" realize their actions are exacerbating the very problem they profess to combat?

And what is so wrong with homosexual couples adopting children? If heterosexual couples are unable to raise these children for whatever reason, would it not be wise to allow another set of parents, regardless of sexual orientation, the opportunity to raise them? Would we rather the child be denied this right to life than be raised by two parents of the same sex? Is it wrong for a child to think it is perfectly fine for someone to be homosexual?

And where do these "pro-lifers" stand on all these wars we are fighting? How do most of these young women and men end up as soldiers? Do they not have the right to life? Do Iraqis and Afghanis not have the right to life? Where is the anti-war cry from the pro-life crowd? Why, for the most part, do I see the "pro-life" representatives in Government so eager to send these children off to war? Are they protecting the unborn so as to keep the war machine going? More fodder for the cannons?

If Barack Obama is right on one matter, it's the assertion that there needs to be dialogue on this issue, and this dialogue cannot be of the token one-side-versus-the-other variety. We need to realize the consequences of simply taking a stance for or against. We need an environment far more nurturing to young women than the one we have now so that they know what options are available to them. There are many infertile and same-sex couples who would make outstanding parents; why are expecting women not in contact with them? Why are these women forced to decide between raising a child in a hostile environment or annihilating it altogether? Where is the love and support from the community?

If some people wish to call themselves "anti-abortion", fine. My hope is that they realize the consequences of adopting the "pro-life" label, for there is much more to life than simply being born: one's right to life does not become null and void upon birth.

When we seek to win, we end up losing.

The President of Sri Lanka is claiming victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or, as we Western folk know them, the "Tamil Tigers". Many are hailing this as a victory for humanity - after twenty-six bloody years, the forces of good have finally rid the world of these awful terrorists. We can now sleep more easily knowing the righteous forces of the Sri Lankan government have the situation under control, and that those evil Tamil Tigers will no longer bother any of us decent folk.

If you asked most of the Western world for their views on the situation, they might just tell you what I have illustrated in the above paragraph. Sadly, too many people think this way; without putting forth any effort to investigate further, we accept what is fed to us by our authorities, and usually, they conveniently omit the perspective of the other side of the conflict. Of course, I cannot lay blame on anyone for their ignorance - after all, they're only playing their bit parts to perfection - for how many of us have ever been taught to think critically about anything? The lesson is always to accept whatever comes our way at face value, never judge for ourselves. Is it any wonder why so many of us lack confidence in our own reason? That we're constantly seeking validation?

This is why wars are allowed to manifest as they do. Ignorance bestowed upon generations and subsequent generations results in our hating and seeking to destroy one another. The lesson being taught here is that "we" are good and "they" are bad. What do you think the Tamil people are telling their young about the Sinhalese? Do anyone even care to ask why the LTTE even exists? Or is it convenient for us to tell ourselves they're simply "bad" people? Do we not bother to think that, just maybe, the LTTE feel the same way about their Sinhalese counterparts: that they're inherently "bad"?

Time and again, we've been seeing the same bullshit production on display in our "theatre of terror" (I forgot who coined this phrase, but thank you). Right now, one of our hot topics is the ongoing strain between Israeli and Palestinian people, and the constant denouncement of Hamas as "terrorist". Imagine me gathering my friends together to lay a stomping on you, and the moment you strike back at us, we tell the world what a "terrorist" you are for daring to fight back. Imagine we continue to beat you on a daily basis. How long will you take this lying down? Do you feel good about it? Do you reckon you'll gather your allies and lay a good old-fashion ass-kicking on my comrades and me? Will I have to kill you and your allies for this to end? Will your allies not have allies? Will their children not grow up looking for the people who killed their parents?

Are we serious about ending this horrible practice of war? If we think we need to fight wars to end war, I'm afraid we're deluding ourselves and paying a monumental price for our error. If I haven't said it enough, violence begets more violence. We cannot kill a people and expect violence to end because the violence is not just within them but ourselves as well. Through might, we do not prove we are right; rather, we prove we will smite you to tell ourselves we are right. Do we wonder why the Sinhalese-controlled government of Sri Lanka does not allow the press into the war zone? Is it because it is "too dangerous", as they tell us, or because there is something they do not want the world to see?

In that geographical region where no journalist is allowed to venture, there is indeed something they do not want us to see, something they are afraid - nay, something we are afraid to see, though we need not travel to that part of the planet to see it. To see what is really happening in Tamil Eelam will frighten us to no end, for we will be seeing ourselves, and that is something we seem to fear more than anything. How many times have we been offered glimpses into ourselves and have quickly pulled down the blinds? We saw ourselves in the photographs from Abu Ghraib. We saw ourselves in the images from Viet Nam. We saw ourselves in Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment. We saw ourselves on board the Enola Gay as it dropped that first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. We saw ourselves in World War I, supposedly the war to end all wars. Somehow, we continue to do what we do, we continue to blind ourselves to ourselves. Still, we do not wish to believe we are capable of killing, of behaviing with no regard for our fellow human being, for the community around us.

We can end all of this very quickly and easily once we stop being afraid and look into ourselves. Perhaps we are beginning to do so; in part, we have our sisters and brothers from the Tamil and Palestinian communities to thank, for their actions have shown, to the rest of us, that these people are not the bogeymen we perceive them to be. I don't know if any of these people would stand up and speak out on behalf of evil; if we listen, we learn that they think and feel just like us - I can't believe I'm actually using this line in 2009, a time when we have supposedly overcome our own racial prejudices - that they believe a wrong is being done to them and are determined to do something about it.

I can delve into the wrongs being done to the rest of us - the most obvious being this robbery we call an "economic downturn" - but I feel that, over the course of my writing, I've made the message clear. Sooner or later, the rest of us will have to stand up, else drown in the river of shit that will come at us after we can no longer flush away the crap with which we are too afraid to deal. The ones we call "authority" would rather we not see ourselves, and as such, are quick to perpetuate the "Us versus Them" fantasy. All dreams come to an end; do we desire a rude awakening adrift in a current of shit?

The cracks in the foundation are propagating faster than the masons can fill them with mortar. Why fill them with mortar, you ask, when it serves as a mere bandage? Well, that's what a reactionary solution is, my friend: a bandage. Our approach thus far has been to slap one on any and all wounds and hope the bleeding stops. I'm afraid that won't happen this time; the cracks are too many and too great, and the palace is on the verge of collapse. It's time to let it go and face ourselves, for when all is said and done, we are all we will have.

Everything we think about the world, every belief we hold will come tumbling down very soon, and there won't be a thing we can do about it.

When we seek to win, we end up losing.

Let go.

Are we listening?

The sun shines brightly, the flowers are in bloom, and here I am, sitting inside, hammering away at these keys without any idea as to what direction I want to take this entry. Of all the sitting and observing I do, there must be something for me to share with all of you.

I suppose I can begin about two night ago when I had a chat with my friend about attachment. He was troubled over an event in which someone he knew - a friend or relative, I'm not exactly sure - insisted her children wear a certain brand of garment; he couldn't understand what the big deal was. Perhaps it means so much to this individual because she identifies these brands with acceptance in society; that is to say, by having her offspring seen wearing this brand or that, her peers view her as competent, able to keep up with the Joneses, as the old saying goes. Of course, we couldn't end our discussion here, for it spawned the question of how she came to harbour such a belief. Why are certain brands associated with "success"? I used, as an example, the hooded sweatshirt I was wearing, an ordinary garment without anything exciting printed on it, and compared it to an identical garment in every way save for the one difference: it has a brand printed across its front. Each item can cost the same amount to make and use the same materials, but because one is distributed by a more popular brand, it is worth more. We pay exorbitant sums of money not for items, but for the names on them. This never ceases to amaze me; it certainly amazed my friend.

So society won't accept me if I do not dress a certain way or wear a certain brand or own a certain car, et cetera, et cetera. Doubtless you've heard this all before. Can we expand this to include how we view people? Do we view certain figures in the same manner as we do these brands? Lately, I've done some reading on deference to authority; suffice to say, I've opened my eyes to some fascinatingly frightening stuff. I learned that we can convince nurses to administer lethal injections to patients simply by posing as a doctor. I learned that I can don an expensive three-piece suit and people will take me seriously. In short, people aren't listening to me; rather, they're listening to my brand. Scary, isn't it? Might this remind you of what's happening around us? Do we defer to certain people based on their titles, threads or trappings, as Robert Cialdini called them? Are we more likely to listen to someone because s/he has the Conservative/Liberal/Socialist tag attached? Or because he is a he or she is a she? Or because this individual is affiliated with a particular ethnic or religious group?

How about when we perceive ourselves as the authority? Recently, I observed a debate between two individuals hailing from different campus social enclaves. I could have easily taken a side and joined the fray, but I opted for standing aside and watching what the two were doing. Much like the war they were debating, their discussion waged on and on with no end in sight, each side just as eager at the other to fire shots at her/his counterpart. I doubt if any of them were aware of the connection between theirs and every other conflict, bloody or no, the world over. To me, it seemed each side perceived her/himself as the authority on the matter and that her/his solution must be told, come what may.

It's amazing how something so superficial has enough power to get us to stop listening. There are certain elements who love nothing more than a docile populace and aim to keep it that way. Hey, if our attachments bring us comfort, why bother ridding ourselves of them?

Malcolm X once said, "If you take up arms, you'll end it, but if you sit around and wait for the one who is in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you'll be waiting a long time." What is "it" we need to end? War? Suffering? Exploitation? Ignorance? How does "it" end? Are we going to wait for an authority to tell us how to end it: By buying more stuff? By voting for a certain party? By praying?

How do we become free from all of this? How do we arm ourselves?

Listen.