Things that piss me off!!

I haven't posted in a while. Life has been crazy. But today I was reminded of a quote or saying that I heard a long time ago "If you're going through hell, keep going". Life over the last two months has been insane. There have been times that I thought I was going to break. Until I remembered "if you're going through hell, keep going." Everyone's hell is different.

For me, this time around it has been one thing after another. And yes I am getting to my coming out story. Since August 1st I have been in a car accident, had my mother introduce my wife as 'my friend', my wife has not been well, we've been in the hospital 3 times with no real answers, my grades have dropped and the not for profit that I work for and I'm so passionate about just might be folding. Nothing but tears.

So how does all this have anything to do with my 'coming out' story. It actually has a lot. I didn't 'come out' until I was about 43 years old. The reason, I was a coward. As a teenager I was terrified to come out. The late 70's early 80's was not the most pleasant time to come out. I knew without any doubt that my mother (who really is the head of the house) would disown me. I was a coward. I denied myself. I played "straight." At the time it was easier. I married a man who would never demand of me great passion. He was a cold fish. It was safe. I had two boys (for which I am forever grateful). But after 20 years of marriage I could not longer hide who I was. I was dying inside. My self loathing was so great that I was slowly killing myself. When I finally left my husband I weighed about 94 lbs (I stand 5'7'').

I slowly started to come out. I started to explore the real person I am. I had a few flings, a few dates and then found the woman who would become my wife. I fell head over heals in love, for the first time in my life I learned what it meant to 'be in love'. It is a wonderful feeling and in three years has not once weakened, but has grown stronger every day. I asked her to marry me.

And suddenly I was faced with 'coming out'. I had to tell my mother. Now you'd think by the year 2010, with gay married being legal in Canada for years and her living in Vancouver which has a very high population of gays that she might have softened towards them. When I told her I had met someone and that someone was a woman, her words to me where "good grief, you are such a drama queen".

I told her I was getting married. She told me to wait. She and my father were in town for a cousin's wedding and I asked her to stay for two extra days to attend mine. Lots of drama. In the end she stayed. She did not enjoy the wedding one bit and made sure that everyone at my small wedding knew about her disapproval. But it didn't ruin my day.

It was months before she could even say my wife's name. I didn't really care. She lives in a different province so it didn't matter. Until my brother's 50th birthday, when she introduced me as her daughter and my wife as my 'friend'. When I confronted her about that she said "I'm trying. I've sent 'her' a birthday card and check and she is your friend isn't she."

I've asked myself a million times since then if I'm wrong to be angry and hurt. My mother's fear of public embarrassment is greater than her love for her daughter. I'm angry and I'm hurt. And she called me today. I didn't answer. I still don't know what I will say to her. And I doubt very much she will want to hear what I have to say.

So why am I sharing this. In the last two months I have stood alone. I have dealt with many difficulties. My wife is very sick and after 8 weeks we still don't know what exactly is wrong or how to treat it. There is no stress greater than this. And yet I have survived all this. I have been walking through my hell and I keep going. The only reason I have the strength to keep going and not turn to my self harming coping mechanisms is because I am finally true to me.

There is such strength in being true to oneself. There is no hiding. In not hiding your truth shines out and in that truth there is a strength that runs so deep that you can overcome and go through whatever life throws at you.

My mother might not accept me, but I ACCEPT ME!!! I am imperfect, but I am real. I am not hiding, I am not weak. So no matter what I say, be true to you. Do not hide your true self. No matter who you fear losing, you lose more by not being true to you. By the time I came out it was almost too late. My self loathing and self harm almost killed me. Now that I am out, no matter the cost, it is less than the cost of being in the closet.

All four accused of the gang rape in Delhi that led to the death of the victim found guilty. There is a sense of relief at the guilty verdict. Those four monsters will no longer be on the streets. All that remains is the sentencing. No matter the sentence there will be no justice. That's my thoughts. Those men acted with no justice, which by definition means:

Noun

Just behavior or treatment.

The quality of being fair and reasonable.

So what is justice. Just behavior or treatment, the quality of being fair and reasonable. Those men did not act in just behavior or treatment. They were not being fair or reasonable. However they were treated justly by having a fair trial. So what would be a just sentence. To give them life in prison so they suffer until they die. Is that just. For me it falls short. Those men brutalized two people, life in prison is not just. It is not fair nor reasonable.

So what about a death sentence. Is that fair and reasonable. I think it's fair and reasonable to the people at large. That way no tax money is going to support them. But is it fair and reasonable to the victims and the victims' families. Death seems like the ultimate punishment, but for me, death is getting off easy.

I do not know what would be a just punishment. Either choice, life in prison or death, does not feel like justice is being serviced to me. One victim died, the other victim will live his life suffering. Feeling guilty that he couldn't protect his friend. How does life in prison or death bring justice to the victims. How does either sentence help the surviving victim.

In reading about Syria being a secular country I've come to realize that that is not completely true. In the big cities of Syria secularism thrived. But out in the country and villages the lines were drawn by religious beliefs. Christian villages, Islamic villages and everyone is very aware of everyone's else's religious beliefs. It seems much the same in the rest of the world. The cities, where there is a higher density of people and greater wealth secularism seems to flourish. But in the poorer regions religion flourishes.

This makes me ask "is religion the sport of the poor", or better put is religious fever the sport of the poor. Do the poor rely more on religion than the prosperous. This begs the question why?

Part of my thinking leads me to think that in larger cities we are exposed to such a variety of people that we do learn to live with these people. We work along side so many different religious beliefs. We understand that the religion doesn't matter, what the person does matters. We rely on people of different religious beliefs. The fireman who comes to my rescue may or may not be of the same belief as me but that doesn't matter, what matters is that he came to my rescue. So that's one thought. In larger cities we need each other so we can overlook and even accept the religious belief's of others.

My other thought is that religion is a great excuse. I am poor because that is how "God" wills it. It seems to me that the more prosperous you are the less you rely on religion. (Not always the case but often). If I go to university, get a degree and get a good paying job, those are the things I've done, not God and therefore my belief and reliance on God weakens. But the poor can simply sit back and say, I am this way because God wills it. I will sit back and allow God to have his way with me and there is nothing I can do about it.

Now this makes me sound like I am blaming the poor for being poor. And maybe to a point I am. But an over reliance on religion keeps people poor. It keeps them downtrodden. They wait for God to do his magic in their lives. It's such an easy excuse. God must want me this way. And the rich who then take advantage of this belief have a flock of sheep that they are able to tell what to think and how to think. Seldom do I hear these preachers (regardless of religion) tell their people to go to school, get an education and rise up out of poverty. And the reason you don't hear that is because these religious leaders know that if do their sheep will rely less on God and more on themselves and the leaders will lose their flock.

Syria is an example. In the cities secularism flourishes, in the poor country side religion flourishes. The US is a great example. The poorest area have the strongest religious beliefs.

Homophobia? What exactly is homophobia? Well lets break the word down to it's root words.

Homo (n)

A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans.

[Latin hom, man; see dhghem- in Indo-European roots.]

Phobia:

Noun

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something

  A phobia is an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder in which the sufferer has a relentless dread of a situation, living creature, place or thing. People with a phobia go to great lengths to avoid a perceived danger which is much greater in their minds than in real life. If confronted with the source of their phobia, the person will suffer enormous distress, which can interfere with their normal function; it can sometimes lead to total panic. For some people, even thinking about their phobia is immensely distressing.

So Homophobia actually means an irrational fear of a member of the genus Homo which includes all humans.

Homo can also be a derogatory shortened for of homosexual. Okay. So lets assume that homophobia derives from "homo" the derogatory shortened form of homosexual. If that the case the Homophobia means an irrational fear of a homosexual.

Now what does irrational fear mean. Many people fear snakes. But an irrational fear of snakes leads the person to panic at the sight of a snake. It doesn't matter if the snake is in a cage, it doesn't matter if it's free. A person with a phobia to a snake will fear that snake in all situations and will exhibit signs of irrational fear. Their heart rate will increase, their palms may get sweaty, they will move into a fight or flight state of being. They may panic.

The medical industry can diagnose a phobia. Because a phobia is real and a person with a phobia has physical as well as mental symptoms that can be diagnosed. I have never come across an article where a single person actually show symptoms of a phobia when it comes to homosexuals. I have never heard of anyone being diagnosed by their doctor as 'homophobic'.

So why is the term 'homophobic' used rather than the more accurate term heterosexist. Media!!! Pure and simple. The media, who for the most part is heterosexist, does not want the "ist" attached to those who dislike or even hate homosexuals. The reason is simple. "ists" are very negative. Racist, sexist, audist. All "ists" put the responsibility of the hate squarely on the shoulders of the one doing the hating. Whereas, a phobia always implies that the 'hater' is not responsible for their way of thinking and behaving. They have a medical condition that excuses their behavior. But there is no excuse for heterosexism.

What exactly is heterosexism. It is the belief that male/female relationships are the only real, valid and valuable relationships. All other relationships are not valid and have no value. It's like racism, the belief that your race is superior and the only race having value.

So were did the term "homophobia" come from and why is it the accepted word used to describe heterosexists. Well I'm guessing (and it is guess), the the main stream (heterosexist) press started using that word and in so doing gave that word meaning to the rest of the world. It's a wonderful word. It excuses responsibility. It softens the truth. Homophobes are actually heterosexists. They are an "ist". But that's too ugly to print and too politically incorrect to accuse someone of being.

I think what saddens me most is that the LGBTQ community accepted that term. So we ourselves are giving these bigots an out. I believe strongly that we as a community need to start using the term Heterosexist if we want to shine the whole truth on bigotry towards our community. I know it's not a common term but until we as a community stop giving bigots excuses then we won't see the real change we need to see. Tell a racist joke and someone in the group will tell you that's offensive. Someone will call you out. Tell a homophobic joke and no one will call you out (or rarely will you be called out)

The G20 is spotlighting the division among the countries when it comes to what to do about Syria. How about we do nothing?

There is no real evidence, at least not that's been made public, as to who actually used the chemical weapons. To me it feels like the use of chemical weapons in Syria was specifically aimed at getting international forces to step in. I feel like the world is being played.

If the Syrian government feels it needs more help to over throw the rebels then the use of chemical weapons makes sense. Use chemical weapons and the US will come in on the side of the rebels. If the US gets openly involved then the Syrian government can count on a few countries openly coming to it's aid. Countries such as Russia, Iran and maybe even China. If the Syrian government is betting on those countries being stronger than the US then the use of chemical weapons to secure foreign aid makes sense.

Just as easily it could have been the rebels who used the chemical weapons. Trying to frame the government the rebels could well have been banking on the fact that the world hates chemical weapons and would blame the government, thinking the rebels would 1)either not have the resources to have chemical weapons and 2) that the rebels would never use the weapons on an innocent group of people. The rebels could well have been banking on UN involvement if the UN believed the weapons were used by the government. At the very least it appears that the US may well get involved. And this can only help the rebels.

Either way, I feel the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a single move in a bigger game. A game being played to involve other countries. With the involvement of other countries either side, the government or the rebels, are hoping for a quick and decisive resolution. Which ever force used the chemical weapons the rest of the world is being played.

The only people who suffer are the people in Syria who want no part of the rebel movement and no part of the government. The people who just want a chance to live, work, eat, see their children grow. And which ever group used the chemical weapons have now seen to it that the people of Syria will live in even greater fear and may well be forced to decide. By the end of the day there will be very few Syrians left who just want to be left alone to live.

We are being played. And for that reason alone I believe that we need to tell the Syrians to figure it out on their own. No country should be supporting one side or the other. No country should be offering military aid or arms to either side. We should only offer humanitarian aid to the many in Syria who are suffering. Other than that we need to stay out of this. Because no matter what, some faction in Syria is attempting to 'play' the world and if the US goes in then that faction wins. And who loses? The people of Syria. The moms, the dads, the grandparents and the children.

I read an article yesterday about yet another judge who reduced a 49 yr old male teachers sentence saying that the 14 yr old victim was mature beyond her age. Then I read some of the comments and they absolutely sickened me.

One male commenter said "better consensual sex at 14 than forcible rape at any age" Ummm really. There is no such thing as consensual sex at 14. I don't care how "mature for her age" she is. A 14 year old cannot know the ramifications of her decision. And this was with a 49 yr old man, a teacher. A man in a position of power over this girl. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. It leaves scares and trauma regardless of how the abuse plays out. Sometimes it takes years for that trauma and those scars to be known, but you can guarantee that the trauma and scars will affect her life forever.

Another comment went something like this, "Young boys become attracted to young girls and that stays with them for life. Young girls are every man's fantasy". So if I'm understanding this commenter correctly men never grow up. They stay as young boys attracted to young girls. I believe that's called pedophilia. As young girls we are attracted to young boys but our tastes grow up with us. As we mature so does the age of attraction mature. We are not stuck in an endless loop of childish fantasies. This is truly sad. It tells me that every man, if given the opportunity, would indeed sexually assault a minor. And because it's "every man's fantasy" that makes it okay.

There is nothing okay about grown men sexually abusing young girls. I don't care how "mature", physically or mentally they seem. A 14 yr old does not have the life experiences to know what she is consenting to. She is mimicking grown ups, but she is not yet one herself. She is mimicking what she see's in the media. She has been sexualized way too young. She has been raised an object for men's desires and fantasies. She has been raised to 'service' men.

Today's society has not moved away from the objectifying of girls/women. We tell our little girls how 'cute' they are, how 'pretty' they look. Everything in the media tells them they must be beautiful to get a man to fulfill their lives. We raise our little girls to be sexually 'aggressive' so they can 'catch a man'.

But sexual abuse is still sexual abuse. I don't care how 'mature' a girl appears. Men need to get control of themselves. And men need to stop circling the wagons and making excuses for other men. As women we really cannot change what is acceptable behavior amongst men. Men must change it. Men must demand higher standards of behavior from other men. Men must work on changing their thoughts. Men must grow up!! It's past time for men to stop objectifying women, but only men can change the behavior of other men.

The working poor struggle. Today, more than at any point in my adult life I'm seeing more people struggle just to get by. It doesn't seem to matter where in the world you live, UK, USA, Canada. Minimum wage isn't enough to live on, politicians who only seem to care about 'staying' on top and corporations grinding us to dust.

The working poor are not responsible for the economy. Corporations, banks and politicians are responsible for the economy. Each country, province or state seems to be owned by the corporations and the banks. And these corporations have the politicians in their pocket.

Canada has weathered this economic storm fairly well. Yet in the richest province in the country we have the lowest minimum wage and this province is owned by big 'oil and gas'. Thousands of people work for oil and gas and these corporations and partnerships are making billions in profits, yet most of their employees barely make ends meet.

I know it's worse in other countries. Why is the economy so bad and why do the working poor suffer. It seems to me that the fault lies at the feet of the corporations. A corporation will do anything for a profit. The CEO's, Presidents, Boards only see profit. In fact they are obligated to produce a profit so their investors make money. So they advertise like crazy, even on social media today. The corporations brain wash us into wanting to buy what they are selling and we buy it, they profit. Media, politicians, corporations are all selling us a lifestyle of luxury that none of us can afford so we go further into debt to live that lifestyle. The big banks love that. We become indentured slaves. No longer do we work for ourselves, we know work to pay off that debt. Indentured slaves.

We are a material world. Some how the working poor need to rise up against the politicians the corporations, the banks and say no more. Corporations do not need to be making billions in profits, profits that go into the pockets of a few select investors, leaving pennies for salaries and the rest of the small investors.

When I look around and see the working poor struggle it really saddens me. The fast food employee who may be a single mom getting abused by customers, the labourer who slaves away to build the foundation of these countries, the sales clerk who runs around on her feet all day, these are the working poor. These are the people this country needs to keep it running. Yet many of us abuse these very people and ironically many of those who do abuse these people aren't just the corporate big wigs, but are the working poor.

The politicians have done a great job of divide and conquer. The working poor take their stress and disappointment out on each other. And by doing so the politicians stay safe.

The only way out for the working poor is a long struggle against the current system or find a way to become your own boss, make your own money and work for no one but you. There are options, but when you're struggling day by day just to get by it's hard to see the options. The working poor must unite and support each other and demand of our government that things change. That corporations making billions must re-invest in the people who keep the corporations running. The working poor must look at options to change their situations.

No matter what, it's going to be a long haul to change things, a long haul for the working poor.

Wow. I've been watching all the moms for the last week or so frantically getting ready for the first day of school. And today the tears, the heavy hearts as their little ones leave home on a big new adventure.

I missed out on all the stress of the the 1st day of school and I'm not the slightest bit upset about it. See I home schooled my boys. No frantic shopping, no new clothes, no easy, fast lunches to figure out. It was wonderful.

Home schooling was a blessing for our family. We kept our stress to an absolute minimum. No 1st day of school stress, no homework stress and no what are we going to do with the kids during spring break and summer vacation.

I was home, full time with my kids. We did what we wanted, when we wanted. It was wonderful. We went to touristy places off season so no long line ups. Museums during the week, no long line ups. We bought family memberships to places like the science centre and West Edmonton Mall and went during the week, again no line ups.

No homework. My kids studied what they wanted, when they wanted. No teaching to the test. My kids learned what they wanted to, they were never forced to memorize, regurgitate and forget. No test anxiety or stress.

No 1st day of school stress. For the most part home schooling or as I like to say unschooling my boys was a wonderful time. How did they do? They did great. One is working and enjoying it the other is on his way to university. They are self motivated. They know how to learn. They are respectful and pleasant young men.

I think today I'm going to write on self loathing and self oppression. More to the truth I'm going to write on how society made me hate myself. I consider myself a child of the 70's. And that really wasn't a good time to figure out that you're gay. Every headline in the newspaper was either about aids or about another gay bashing. The small, upper class town I grew up in was so anti-gay that there was no way I felt safe coming out. I never felt safe in my family so coming out there was out of the question. So what did I do when I figured out I was a lesbian? I hid. But it went further than that. I started to loath myself. My body had betrayed me, my mind had betrayed me. I simply could not be a lesbian. It wasn't acceptable. It wasn't going to happen. From self loathing came self oppression.

I denied being a lesbian. I self oppressed. My greatest act of self oppression was marrying a man. He wasn't a bad person, but there was simply no way that I could love him, or be sexually attracted to him. I was not made that way. But I believed in the saying "fake it till you make it." But that's impossible when you deny your very being. You can't "fake it till you make it." Because, as a lesbian I simply do not have the ability to love a man or be attracted to a man. But still I tried. I lost myself in raising my boys, staying home with them, home schooling them. I quilted, read and kept myself out of my own head.

But my boys got older and I simply couldn't stay out of my head any longer. I started noticing women again. I would daydream about a beautiful woman I had met. I started to yearn for what I did not have, what I could never have. I had loathed myself for almost 30 years and oppressed myself for almost as long.

The problem with self oppression is that no matter how hard you try you cannot forget who you are. You can stay busy, involve yourself in everything around you, but deep down you know you're a fraud. And that takes a tole on a person. Unfortunately, there is a price to that tole. I was self harming and not even realizing it. I was anorexic. I rarely weighed over 100 lbs (I stand 5'7"). I was way too skinny. What amazed me is how many people expressed how beautiful and thin I was. Many women were jealous of how thin I was, when in actuality I was grossly skinny much of the time.

I was terrified of being a lesbian and being anorexic served two purposes. First it was self harming, but also since I lacked the courage to come out, I found men love skinny women. So if my marriage didn't work if I stayed skinny I'd likely get another man. Proving to myself that I'm not a lesbian.

Time went one. My boys became teenagers and didn't need me as much. I couldn't keep busy enough to stay out of my head. I started to notice women. I started to ache for what I believed I could not have. I started to loath myself more and oppress myself even more. Until I finally realized that if I continued in this fraud of being straight that I would die. Self loathing leads to self oppression which leads to self harming. Starving myself was no longer easing the pain or allowing me to feel in control. I picked up a razor blade.

That first cut felt so wonderful. All the pain, the loathing, the oppression left me for just a moment. For a moment I felt in control again. I felt all the pressure that had built up for years simply slide away. I felt strong. Yet I also felt shame. I knew this was not a good coping mechanism, but it's all I had.

I left my husband after 22 years. I weighed less than 90lbs. I could no longer eat. My body no longer knew how to digest and process food. My anxiety was making every day living difficult. I cut and I drank. I knew that I had to be true to me. If I wasn't true to me I would die. I knew I was on the path to death. Slowly, I started to explore what it meant to be a lesbian. I had a few dates, a few sexual encounters with women and then something truly miraculous happened. I met a wonderful woman. She understood my anxiety, she understood my anorexia, she understood my cutting and she did not judge me.

I fell in love. For the first time in my life I was in love with someone. As that love grew, my self oppression disappeared and my self loathing became less. Not because of her so much as because I was finally being true to myself. Over time I cut less. Now I only cut once in a long while. Maybe I won't cut again, but maybe I will. Either way I know I'm not judged by my wife. I have gained weight. But that is a roller coaster, because as stress and anxiety builds I stop eating. It's how I've programmed myself to be. But now I know I will gain weight back and will make it through the stress and anxiety, because by having someone who believes in me, I'm starting to believe in myself.

By finally being free to be me, to be real, no more masks, no more pretending I am healing. All that self loathing is getting less and less. Having supports in my life have made a difference and I think age has too. Because as I get older I care less about what people think. It doesn't mean I don't get hurt, it just means I recognize that it's far less personal than I use to think.

I've been writing about Syria for the past few days and decided today I'd write about another issue. Transgender and which bathroom they should use. I can't imagine what it's like being transgender.What brought this on today is that the University of Alberta has made some non-gender bathrooms. Actually, it looks like all they did was convert some single use handicap washrooms into any gender washrooms. It's a start I guess.

What really gets me is the public's comments. Transgender must be the most misunderstood of all human conditions. I'd hazard a guess that sociopaths are better studied and better understood. And I love reading comments from people who know nothing about an issue, but feel the need to weight in on that issue.

So hear goes. Here's the first comment I feel the need to address. "I wonder how much rapes might increase with this new policy?" Really, because statistics show that transgender MTF are the highest group of rapists? Because being in a single use washroom ALONE gives someone the opportunity to rape someone? What a stupid comment. Transgender people are far more at risk of being violently assaulted and raped than the general population. I have NEVER come across a news article that a transgender person was arrested for rape. I would fear the lesbians a lot more than any MTF transgender person in my washroom.

Next comment: "I don't want to see male 'parts' in the washroom." Okay, what washrooms have you been going to. I don't think I have ever seen a female "part" in a washroom. And I'm a lesbian, I'd notice. Every woman's washroom I've ever been in has stalls. So if you don't want others to see you "privates" CLOSE THE DOOR. Wow, what a novel concept. In the mean time, while you're trying to digest that new concept please tell me what washrooms you're frequenting so I can steal a peek at all the female "parts" you see.

Third comment: "We need to feel safe and secure in our washrooms". Really now. Does any woman actually feel safe and secure in a public washroom. I often hear stories of peep holes and guess what.....the peeper has never been a transgender person. I have had more "problems" from lesbians in public washrooms than I've ever had with a transgender person. The spin off of that comment is we need our "woman's space" And while I agree it's really nice having a woman's space (especially since I really like women) I would like to say that most of the MTF transgender women that I've met are every bit as much a woman as I am. That's why they are going through the anxiety, stress, fear and difficulties of transitioning. That's why they are struggling, risking their very lives to transition. Because they are WOMEN!!!!

All over the news and the #1 trending issue on twitter is Syria. There are so many reasons why we need to stay out of Syria. While the use of Chemical weapons is abhorrent and a crime again humanity, there is still not evidence as to who deployed those weapons. There are many different scenarios on how and who used those weapons. Perhaps it was the government, odd timing though, right before the UN inspectors are due to arrive specifically to look for chemical weapons. It could very well have been the rebels, choosing that timing specifically because the UN inspectors were due to arrive and hoping to make it look like the Syrian government was using chemical weapons. Or what about this scenario, the Syrian government bombed an instillation where the rebels were storing chemical weapons, or the other way around, the rebels bombed a government installation where chemical weapons were stored.

Regardless of who used the weapons there is nothing to be gained by any other country going into Syria, whether in support of the government or support of the rebels. No intervention in the tradition, lets spank them with more violence will help the Syrian people. And the reason why? The country is fractured along religious lines. The current Syrian government is a religious minority. The religious majority wants to rule. And in countries that do not separate religion from politics we must remain neutral. We know from the evidence around us that countries that have separated state from religion are stronger, freer, more developed countries. Why is that? Part of the reason is that in these countries all religions are tolerated and a sort of truce between the religions happens. This then allows the population to focus on other endeavors, like working, building prosperity, developing strong communities and strong countries.

But Syria is fractured. There is no question about that. And when you look at Syria’s history it is to be expected that it would be fractured. You have a country who had it’s borders forced upon it, a ruler who was put in place not by the people but by other countries and that ruler is the religious minority.  If a country is not going to separate religion and state then it makes sense that the ruling body or person or dictator should be from the religious majority. Perhaps this civil war in Syria is the natural progress of a country whose borders and leader where forced upon it. Perhaps this civil war is simply a natural outcome of the way Syria was created.

It’s sad what is happening in Syria, there is no doubt about that. But until the Syrian people settle their religious differences no other country should go in there. There is nothing to be gained. Unless we are looking for another world war nothing will be accomplished by short, strategic strikes. Nothing will be accomplished by supporting the rebels to over throw the government. Because even putting a new, majority government in it’s place Syria will still see conflict, because then the minority religions will fight against the majority. So until Syria is ready to separate religion and state the only we accomplish by going in is murdering more people.

Here I am again trying to understand just what the US and France are trying to accomplish by getting involved in Syria. They are talking swift, strategic strikes. They are talking about "punishing" the Syrian government.

I'm sorry, but who appointed the US and France as mother and father of Syria. By what right does the US and France have to "punish" any country. Don't get me wrong, the use of Chemical Weapons is abhorrent. But having said that what right does any other country have to 'punish' another country.

And exactly what do they mean, punish. The US has said it will attack military installments. Okay, but how many civilians will be in those military installments. The chemical weapon attacked has killed between 355 - 1000 people. Sad, definitely. But how many more Syrian people will die if the US and France attack Syria.

By my understanding the US and France do not plan on helping the rebels (at least openly) over throw the government. This is not about helping the Syrian people. Syria is in a civil war. But the 'rebels' are fractured along religious lines. The US has no intention helping the Syrian people. They only want to punish the Syrian government. With no concrete evidence that it was the Syrian government who used the chemical weapons.

They US and France have no evidence on who used the weapons, but hey, we're the US, "I have said it was the Syrian government and therefore it is the Syrian government". I am the US and I have spoken. That's what this feels like. A swift response must be made. So the US and France will take action with no definitive outcome stated. They will take action without concrete evidence. They will take action simply because the atrocity calls for action.

Yes, non of us want innocents to die. Chemical weapons invoke horrible images. We love all mankind. But that is not a good enough reason to attack another country without all the facts. We want to believe we are better people than those who used the chemical weapon. But how are we better if we will kill as many if not more during the strategic strikes? How will those strategic strikes change anything? How will they help the Syrian people? How does bombing something help the refugees?

I don't have the answer, but I do know that what the US and France want to do is not the answer. What they are doing is appointing themselves the policemen of the world, deciding without evidence and then killing even more people. But who knows, maybe if they kill enough Syrians they can go in and take control. Or US companies can go in and help rebuild, making billions in profit. The US is a war economy. Corporations make billions in profit during war.

I read an old news article dated April 27, 2013 from Washington State that Washington State has filed a bill that would allow discrimination based upon religious beliefs. This bill is in response to a florist who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. Now I'm having a real problem with this. One supporter of the bill said that "no organization shall be made to take part in any ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs. I do not believe simply selling flowers to someone is "taking part" in a ceremony that goes against that person's beliefs.

This bill would allow business owners a legal right to refuse goods or services to members of the LBGTQ communities based on religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs or the more vague, “matters of conscience.”

Now here's were I'm having my difficulties. You live in a country that separate church and state. You own a business that serves the public. I do not believe that any business owner can refuse business to anyone. If you open a store you agree to serve the public. And the public comes in every shape, size, colour, religious belief, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical capabilities and mental capabilities. So this bill would allow discrimination against LGBT because of religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs or matters of conscience. Does this mean that this Christian store own could refuse to sell to the Muslim community or the Jewish community. Fundamentally Christians do not believe in those other religions and therefore should "not be made to participate in those ceremonies". If that argument is to hold.

I cannot agree with that argument though. When you open a business you agree to serve all or serve non. If this Christian store owner is so strong a Christian then they must also refuse to serve athiests, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Wicans and anyone who is not Christian. Otherwise their strong Christian faith is a pick and chose faith. You can't have it all. You can't single out one specific group and say I'm going to discriminate against that group. That's not very Christian. Either discriminate against all groups or be more like Jesus and stop discriminating against any group. But that's not the Christian way of these days. These days the Christian religion has become so specialized in their hatred. As a business owner this florist knows that if they discriminate against everyone who is not Christian their business would not survive. So they pick one group to discriminate against. After all Christianity is not about loving one a other. It's about picking a group to hate and hating that group.

Now I know a bunch of you are going to say, we don't hate gays, we just hate their lifestyle. But that's not the truth. By refusing to sell this gay couple flowers for their wedding you are showing them hate and discrimination. You are picking one small piece out of the bible and out of it's time and using that to justify your hate. So I ask you, are you open on Sundays, do you wear poly/cotton blend clothing. Do you follow ALL the prohibitions in the bible, both old an new testaments. Would you sell flowers to a Christian who is getting married a second time. Because in the new testament there are more prohibitions against getting divorced than there are against homosexuality. God says he does not recognize divorce so any one who marries a second, third, fourth time are committing adultery. Do you support adulterers?

You don't get to pick and chose. And that's the problem with most of today's organized religions. They pick and chose. Either follow the entire bible, have multiple wives, concubines and slaves. Follow all the prohibitions in the bible to the letter or follow non. Try following the principles which is to love your neighbor as yourself, treat others well, do good in this world, volunteer and support charities.

You make a mockery of your beliefs if you can pick and chose what part of the bible you will follow and which parts you throw out. If the bible is the word of God how can you as mere man chose what to believe and what not to believe. How am I suppose to believe in your bible and your teachings when you do not teach everything. When you tell me, oh we no longer believe that because man has moved on. Sounds to me like man is moving on away from your God since you a devout Christian no longer follows all of your bible.

And the state is making a huge mistake bringing something like this into legislation. The state is giving priority to one group over another group. I'm sorry folks, but if you're going to own a business you must be prepared to serve everyone who walks through your doors. Or maybe the state can legislate all discrimination and require store owners to post their discrimination, for example "We only serve Christians" or "We accept everyone" or a great big sign saying "We won't serve blacks". Maybe if the state forced every business to put up a great big sign announcing their bigotry that would avoid this same situation coming up again. Because I'd shop at the one where the sign says "We accept everyone."

It seems to me that there is a lot of speculation and guess work going on when it comes to who is responsible for the chemical weapon attack in Syria. French president Hollande, US president Obama are getting ready for war. The war drums are beating. Both seem to be pointing their fingers at the government. But what if it's a group of insurgents. What if, the insurgents wanted to make it look like it was the government so that the UN and other powers would help over throw their government. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people wanting to over throw an unjust government. But I have a problem with what is happening in Syria.

There are several world governments who will support the Syrian government and sever who seem to be supporting the insurgents. This is not a good situation. If we go in it will be a long and drawn out battle. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither of those campaigns have been a success. Why? Because there is no united, strong opposition. Sure we overthrew the sitting governments, but are the new governments strong enough to resist opposition and to rebuild their countries. It's not looking like it.

I fear the same thing in Syria. We go in, whether the UN or a few countries on their own and it will be a long and hard battle. The Syrian government will have backing from certain governments and the rebels, insurgents (call them what you will) will have the open backing with forces from either the UN or one or two countries. The problem is, once the government is overthrown, who will step in. The country is divided along religious lines. No matter who gets put into government there will be well armed insurgents still fighting against them, because they have different religious beliefs. Yes people it comes down to that.

Until the opposition can truly come together, accepting each person's religious beliefs there will be no peace in Syria, or many other countries for that matter. The problem is not the unfair and unjust government (although that adds to it). The problem is intolerance of others of a different belief. And the willingness, almost eagerness to kill those whose beliefs are different.

The difference in the western countries is that we have separated religion from state. All religions are tolerated. Some more than others. And most of the people in these countries tolerate, accept the differences. The vast majority of people in these countries are not willing to kill, or be killed for their religious beliefs. This brings about a kind of truce and allows the energies of the people to be spent on building the country, not tearing it down.

If we go in, in support of one of the rebel groups, which group will it be? Which religious belief system will be support? And then once they gain power will we support them? Because all the other rebels will still be armed and will not want that government in power because their beliefs are different.

Is what happening in Syria horrible? Yes it is. It brings tears to my eyes thinking about all the people who are being hurt in this uprising. But until the people can put their religious beliefs aside and separate church from state I do not believe that any country should become involved. The UN must stay out and so must the US and Brittan and any other country thinking to become involved. I know we want to help. I  know we hate seeing the innocent people, men, women and children dying. But if we go in we will improve the situation. Until the people of Syria, all the people learn at the very least tolerance and until they are ready to separate church and state there will be no peace in that country, no matter what we do.

All we will accomplish is a "sense" of we did something good. We can sit back here and pat ourselves on the back saying "at least we tried". But until there is a fundamental change in the beliefs of the Syrian people there will be no peace.

If we truly want to see peace in that country, we must go in and educate them. We must work with the rebels to help them overcome their religious bigotry and help them realize that all people are created equal. We must work within any schooling they have to teach that all people have value, that beliefs are a right that must not be forced on others. We must help the Syrian people make a fundamental shift in the way they view each other. We must help instill upon the Syrian people that all life has value, not just those who believe the same as they do.

A Letter From Fred - "Oh Sweet Lorraine" An Amazing Song Written by 96 year-old! (by greenshoestudioinc)

This is one of the sweetest things I have ever seen. And got me thinking. Where is that kind of love today. The kind of love that sees a couple through 75 years of life together. With a divorce rate of higher that 50% and that doesn't include common law. 75 years together wow. Most of us can only dream of finding a love that last 75 years. By why is that? Why is it that today a 5 year marriage is considered long? Is it because we no longer know how to fix things. Is it because we value things over people?

Today's society is  throw away society. A computer breaks, we throw it away and buy a new one, a phone breaks we throw it away and buy a new one. Things today are not made to be fixed. They are made to be replaced. I remember my grandfather's garage was full of things that he was fixing, toasters, electric frying pans, a tv. He was always fixing things. Out at his farm he had old tractors and combines and he was always puttering around, fixing them. The same could be said for his relationship. He was always working on keeping his relationship working. My grandparents were married over 60 years. My parents are much the same. They've been married over 50 years. They are always working on their relationship.

My parents taught me the value of marriage. They taught me the value of affection. I do not remember a time when I wouldn't see my parents holding hands, or my mother doing dishes and my father coming up behind her and wrapping his arms around her. When my father would come home from work, my parents would spend 1/2 hour to an 1 just the two of them, sipping a glass of wine and discussing their days. Then it was dinner time. As a kid I hated that but as an adult I understand the importance of the two of them connecting every day without distractions.

Today I see couples out for dinner and each of them are busy texting. I see families that are so busy they have no time to sit down to a family dinner. The excuse "I want my kids to have every opportunity" But what about the opportunity to learn how to connect to people? What about growing up seeing a loving couple as an example of what a healthy, strong relationship looks like. This video is about a 96 year old man who lost his wife after 75 years of marriage. You can bet that at some points in those 75 years their marriage needed work. And coming from a generation of "fix it" they fixed their relationship and stayed together.

Today's world feels like a throw away world. And relationships seem to reflect that. I'm not saying that all relationships are worth saving. Sometimes, not matter how hard you try, the relationship can't be saved. And sometimes there is abuse and those relationships must not be saved.

But like everything else marriage is worth saving. Love is worth saving. But it needs work. Do the little things everyday that tell the other person how much you love them. Put your phones away, turn off the tv and connect with your loved one. Remember what it is that first attracted you to that person and keep doing those things. Today we get so caught up in doing things that we never slow down and just spend time with our partner.

Looking at my twitter trends this morning I was more than a little disturbed to see a #cutforzerrie trend. Most joked about "cutting cake" but a few tweets were dead serious and this disturbed me. One picture in particular where the poster had indeed used a razor blade to cut their forearm. Disturbing and disrespectful.

Cutting is not a joke. Never has been and never will be. There are many reasons why someone self harms and many different ways people self harm. Cutting is one of those ways. People who cut are tormented. Some cut to feel pain, some cut because the pain inside is so great they need a physical outlet, some cut to purge the demons from within, some cut because their self loathing is so high and some cut for attention, screaming for help.

By starting a trend like this the fan base is showing nothing but disrespect for people who are suffering. Even joking about it and putting up pictures of cutting a cake is disrespectful. People who cut need help, not ridicule. Would any of you joke about a down syndrome person? Would you walk around pretending to be down syndrome? Would you buy yourself a wheel chair and pretend to be a paraplegic. I highly doubt it. But you'll ridicule cutters. Nice people, real nice.

But the part that really disturbs me is the picture of the person who did cut. Are you really that stupid. Unless you are a cutter and are using this as an excuse to cut. But I doubt you are a cutter, your forearm had no other scars on it. And so I ask, are you really that stupid? To cut over someone getting married. Okay, so you have a fan crush big deal. Step back into real life here. You're a fan. He's getting married. Big deal. You've never had a relationship with him. You never will. If your fantasy is so strong then his getting married really shouldn't affect that. By cutting over a stupid fan crush you are showing your complete lack of maturity. Cutting is not cool. It does not show anyone how loyal you are to your fan crush. It just shows how incredibly stupid you are. You will now have the wonderful experience of either having to explain to everyone why your forearm is all scratched up or you'll have to wear long sleeves for the next year or so to cover the cuts and scars. Lucky you!