Can Good Intentions Be Used For Bad Things?

I am not going to say that the sex offender list is a bad thing, nor am I going to say that it is a good thing. After all, registering as a sex offender has its benefits and uses since it allows the police to know who has been convicted of sex crimes and where they are living. HOWEVER, the downside to that is that a persons past should not be used to decide their guiltiness or involvment in present day crimes. The past should only be used to decide their punishment. After all, I could have spent the last 5 years breaking into cars and stealing small sums of money, but 5 years of being in trouble with the law has taught me not to do that anymore. Does that mean, because of my past, I should be sighted by the police for every single stolen car or penny stolen in my area? Do I deserve the right to be held innocent until proven guilty or should I be hounded by the cops looking for an easy arrest? Mind you, while Okham's Razor is usually true (basically, when given the choice of multiple solutions, the easiest one is probably true), when it comes to humans I dont think it should apply.

Can a leopard change it's spots? There are some crimes that are commited that are, argumentally, just a spur of the moment crimes that could be chalked up to teenage immaturity or boredom, like joy riding in a stolen car or taking $40 from the register at work cause you want to go drinking that night. So, if these crimes are just a one time deal, then why cant people accept that maybe sexual offences might be a one time deal as well? One statistic shows that "...out of 29,000 sex offenders, 14% of all had a recidivism tendency, with 13% child molesters and 20% of rapists were rearrested for new sex crimes". Granted, statistics have been argued to be '..used by some the way that a drunk uses a lamp post", meaning that we can always find statistics to show our point. But the main thing to ask ourselves is do these people have the right to be presumed innocent or does one bad deed in life have to haunt you for the rest of your life?

On the flip side, as someone that does contemplate having children, I would say that the safety of my children come before other things. I would like to know if someone living next to me, or down the block, has had a history of child molestation, or raping women. Though, as to what I would do in that situation makes me wonder and I often ask myself the pit and the tiger question constantly and cant seem to get a solid answer. I would like to think that I would do the honourable thing and treat the individual as any other and teach my child that while not to be afraid or treat them as a horrible individual, but treat them with the respect that you would any other person but be wary. I wouldnt say 'go into their house, play games with them in secret and of course, take a ride with them in their van if they ask', but I wouldnt say that about any person. I would teach common sense and safety. Dont talk to strangers, dont get into vans with strangers, dont go into a strangers house unaccompanied by an adult and, when my child is old enough, know proper safety defence moves so that while you wont fight to hurt someone as an offensive, you will at least learn defence. However, that would be the honorable answer, but the truth is that I often wonder if I would teach my children to stay away from that person, dont go near them, dont talk to them and, if they come near you, to run in the opposite direction as fast as you possibly can. Pit and the Tiger, Pit and the Tiger.

I just dont know....keeping a list for the police could violate the individuals right to privacy, but keeping information from the population could violate the rights of the society for safety. Publishing that list on the internet or in the world, now that just goes too far. I mean, are we going to start publishing the names and addresses of murderers now? if that is the case, where is Karla Holmoka? what is her real address and phone number? What about speeding ticket, accident reports and other offences? I mean, I would like to know if my neighbour has any offences for car theft so that I can lock up my car at night, or if they are known burglars so that I can buy more gates and bars for my house. How about if they have any car accident reports on their record so I know how good or bad a driver they are so that I know whether to park my car in the drive way or in the garage so that they dont smash into it coming home.

How much information about or neighbours is good information and how much of it is bad? And what happens when information given to the public is used in a bad way? Like the case just recently where a young man shot two registered sex offenders whose names and addresses were posted on a website. Could this have been an act of vigilante behaviour, where a young man watched too many movies of "The Punisher" who felt that these individuals hadnt been punished enough and thus became the 'hammer of god' to protect society? Could this be an act of vengence where the offenders that were targetted committed crimes against a family member and this is the families way of punishing the men? Perhaps it is a case where the young man was abused or sexually molested as a child and, after being tormented by inner demons for so long, decided to try something to help ease the pain. All this is specuation since we will never know the truth for the young man killed himself.

So, should the information be taken down? yes..for the use by police...should the information be given to the public? possibly in certain amounts...am I right in my thinking and all? who the heck knows...Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? only The Shadow Knows....



http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n041706A.xml
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060416/maine_shjotings_060416
http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/issues/sexoffender_attachments/$FILE/civic%20research%20institute%201105%20-%202.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9227684

"A rose by any other name"

Would it still smell as sweet? What is in a word, what is in a name, and what, if possible, makes a word or name something horrible? I mean, we have all heard about labels and stereotypes. Growing up, I was always called a 'nerd' or 'geek'. I was a member of the 'odd squad' or 'nerd herd' that walked the halls of my esteemed place of learning. There were the jocks, the valley girls, the space cadets, the stoners...we all walked the halls and we all wore the labels. Most of the times we all wore out labels proudly since they defined who our friends were and what we were. Us nerds (at least some of us) were happy to be called that because that meant we were smart, intellectuals but also meant that we were shunned by the other higher ups on the label food chain. The Jocks were proud to be the jocks because that meant that they were the athletics, the cool guys, the ones that got praise for the school in the way of athletic trophies and such. The stoners, well they were just happy being called that because that meant that they were going against society, being a rebel, doing their own thing and finding peace, love and happiness in the form of herbal usage. No matter what we called ourselves, we were those labels and they stuck with us.

These labels that were given to us could be changed. After all, all a jock had to do was open a book and start to study, lessen their dedication to sports and parties and all of a sudden they could be reduced down to a nerd. A nerd could climb out of nerd-dom by taking an interest in sports and actually showing that they had real talent for the sport, but at the cost of losing their academic status. Nerds would shun nerds that became too interested in sports and ignored their academics, just as a jock would be ignored by other jocks or such by simply making one false move like helping a nerd out that was being picked on.

Then there was the deeper labels. The ones that were only spoken of by certain people and shunned by many others. These were the racial labels of chink, pole, jap, honkey, kuggy and the forever banned 'N' word that I have never ever been able to bring myself to say. Even hearing someone say it makes me turn my back and walk away from them. These were labels that no one could change no matter what you did. Only a scant few people used these labels in my school, mainly out of anger, but they were there. These are the labels that are not only used in high school but carry on with us through out life. Mainly because we can not change these labels by doing something different. After all, a chinese person may be called a 'chink' by some people and they can not stop being chinese by not picking up a book and take an interest in sports (as a nerd can become a jock) or a 'honky' cant stop being white by suddenly picking up a pair of chop sticks and putting down the fork. Some labels will stay with us for all time.

The one thing that struck me the other day was, what exactly makes these words bad words? is it bad if the person being called the word thinks it is bad, or is it bad if the person calling the word thinks the word to be bad? I mean, when a chinese person is being called a 'chink' do they sit back and take offence to it and say "that is a derogatory term, dont use it" or do they just say "it is just a word to describe a person, nothing wrong with it"?

I was reading an article the other day and a word was brought up. Ang moh, a word that was later described in the article to describe caucasians. Now, I had heard this word before in 2002 when I was visiting a friend in Singapore (that later became my girlfriend) and I always figured that it was just a word like how we have Eskimo to mean the native culture over here in Canada. I asked her what it meant, in 2002, and she said it was just a word to describe a caucasian. At the time I let it go and accepted it, but now I sat back and thought about it so I did a little bit of searching on the net. Apparently, according to a 'singlish dictionary' online it is "Hokkien for 'red-hair'. A pejorative term used to describe Caucasians" Perjorative meaning 'belittling or demeaning'. Ok, so when I asked my girlfriend if there was a difference between ANG MOR/ANG MOR NANG/ANG MOR GAO she said 'no, they are all used to describe caucasians'. Now, the definition of ANG MOR GAO would be 'red haired monkey'. Call me a little on the crazy side but I figure any term that classes me as a monkey I might take offence to in any fashion.

So, now that got me thinking, when did this word Ang Moh suddenly become offensive to me? when I heard it long ago and asked someone what it meant and was told just that it was a term to describe caucasians I didnt take offence, but now that I now it is a belittling term, I take offence. Was it always an offensive word and because I didnt know it was offensive I took it to meaning something nice and normal? like, if someone from China comes to Toronto, hears the word 'chink' and asks someone what it means and they answer "it is a term to describe people from china...no disrespect", does that mean that chink now has no disrespect, or does it always have disrespect but the person doesnt realize it?

Are words like items in real life where it is the action and usage of that item that makes it bad or good? a hammer in your house is neutral, it is neither a good nor bad hammer. You take that hammer and use it to break out of a burning building, saving the lives of yourself and your loved ones and suddenly it becomes 'my lucky hammer' or 'the life saving hammer'. However, if a burlar breaks into your house, finds the hammer and uses it to kill you and your whole family, then suddenly the hammer becomes an evil weapon of destruction. Are words the same way? are they just neutral things sitting in a dictionary somewhere, totally devoid of any real badness or goodness, but when used in a certain way or by certain people do they take on goodness or badness. Like when my girlfriend is talking about her day and says "yeah a couple of ang mohs stopped me on the street on the way home and asked for directions". That is not bad, just she is describing who stopped her and I know that she means caucasians. But, if someone says "what do you expect from an ang moh?" then that would imply something bad and derogatory.

Who makes the evilness in the word? is it when someone knows what it means and takes offence to it, or is it always there and even though they dont know it is there, it is still bad because we all know what it means? Now I wonder...should I take offence to ang moh, or let it slide and accept it not for a bad thing but simply because that is what I am. The word is used to describe caucasians, I am caucasian therefore I am an ang moh, but I am surely not red haired and I am not a monkey by any means.

"I decide who lives or dies"

Chilling words, arent they? first time I heard them was in an episode of The Pretender where he begin to learn about Jarod's evil equal in the TV show. As everyone knows, all life has to balance equally for there to be a good story line or struggle. After all, Superman had his Lex Luther, Batman had the Riddler/Joker/Catwoman/Dr.Freeze/Penquin (among others), Dr. Samuel Beckett had 'the Evil Leaper', of course God has to have Satan and Sherlock Holmes had to have Professor Moriarty. If there was only one side in the world, then there really would be no point in going through the motions of life because then there would either be absolute hell on Earth and death abounding, or there would be nothing but good and peace..but even then you could argue that we would never have absolute hell or absolute heaven because no matter what happens there would always be someone a little more evil or a little more good than the next guy.

Anyways, back to the mind meander. 'I decide who lives or dies', those words often creep into my mind when I am thinking of things that happen in the world. Does anyone truely have the right to decide who lives or dies? Recently, while working at serving supper on the camp line, we had the news on in the background and I caught snippets of the conversation topic. The topic being the pandemic of flu that is coming, or at least is expected to come, to North America. Wasnt sure if they were talking avian flu or mad cow or perhaps a new strain of the common flu or influenza or something that would wipe out mankind. The main gist of the situation I gathered was that the doctor are really not expecting the best and there is a chance that this might be something in the lines of The Black Plaque that struck England in 1347A.D. that basically took out 1/3 of the total population. Granted the disease is different, but the outcome might very well be the same, mass deaths and major population decrease.

However, on the bright side the Canadian and American gov'ts are producing vaccinations to help stop this plague from going through the country and killing everyone. The articles I have read said that they have come up with a cure, or at least a vaccination for it, that could help us survive. I believe the Americans are stock piling the actual vaccination for the existing avian flu and the Canadian gov't is stock piling a mock vaccination that can be modified to attack strains of the virus that mutate. The news show then started to talk about how there really isnt enough medicine to go around to the people of these countries, so it might come down to the fact that we have to choose who gets the vaccinations and who doesnt? who are the people that will live through this terrible plague if it does hit Canada in full force and who are the ones that are going to be walking through the viral mine field hoping not to get sick and die?

"I decide who lives or dies" Now this comes back to haunt me. Some of the proposed plans that were brought forward was that the rich, powerful and prominant members of Canadian society (politicians, lawyers, doctors); or give them to the children under a certain age (perhaps 20 or 16) to guarantee the future of canadians since after a certain age we have pretty much outlived our lives; or make it a lottery and put all canadians into a hat and draw the names out and give the cure to those names. Each plan has a possible wrongful action or downside to it. With the doctors and politicians, why should they and their families have special treatment over the ditch diggers or lower educated of this country? does money and smarts buy you a way to health whereas being of a lower intelligence means you are expendible? We already know that money and power gets you better police protection. Anyone that doubts this, try living in a ghetto or run down part of a major metropolis and call for police help to a robbery and then live in a rich upscale suburb and call for a robbery..time how long it takes for the police to arrive...OR, how many people in the poor neighbourhoods go missing or are kidnapped but dont get police or national news coverage, but a millionaires son gets kidnapped in Vancouver and it becomes a 'police priority' and the whole force is out there to find the person. Then we should give it to the children so that there can be a future for the human race and all. Problem with this is who is going to help raise the children to know right from wrong? while I really do believe that there are some good minded children out there, the mass majority of the MTV/Britney Spears/Boy Band generation are the type of people that I really dont want working the fry machine in mcDonalds, let along being in charge of the new world order of Canada after the flu has killed maybe 1/3 of us off. So, the logical one would be the lottery. Problem is, what do you do when a 44 year old person with terminal cancer has been drawn to give the medicine to but the healthy child of 6 hasn't? isn't that a waste of medication to save the life of someone that is going to die of cancer in perhaps a couple years, or months, but let a healthy 6 year old die? but, then if we are questioning that, then how do we rate who is 'saveable' and who isn't? A person with cancer can get treatment and live, but a perfectly healthy person of 34 can have a sudden heart attack and die. Then again, in the lottery, what about convicted criminals? Canadians already have given them the right to vote and give them bribe/bonus rebate cheques during election time, so why not include them into the lottery? But, then is it fair that a person in prison for life is going to get the medicine while a law abiding citizen goes without? But if we dont include the prisoners, then havent we basically put them all on capital punishment since it was their crime that excluded them from the lottery so their crime has killed them. For a country that doesnt believe in the death penalty, that might be a hard pill to swallow. Then there is the problem that if we do not allow for criminals, at what point does their crimes make them ineligible for the medication? mass murder? rape? self defence? robbery? What crime is punishable by possible death and what crimes arent?

"I decide who lives or dies" Could you be the one, sitting on the hill, having to make these choices? Is there a possible way to save all the people happily? And, for those that do get the medication and have to watch the others die, can they really go through life knowing that having the medication themselves caused the death of another person because if they didnt get it, someone else that died would have and that other person would be alive today. Then what about the world? if Canada can treat everyone, do we turn our backs on those that are living in other countries that want to come to Canada for the medication? Who will be the one that gets to say "I decide who lives or dies" and where will you be when that decision is made?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/02/23/bird-flu050223.html
http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/health/a/pandemicfluplan.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/03/22/pandemic-antiviral050322.html
http://www.newstarget.com/006119.html
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/28012005/n4.shtml

Health Care Myths of Canada - Debunked

Now, from what I have heard about Canada, having grown up here all my life, was that Canada has one of the best health care plans around and that we have free health care. No doubt, this bit of news has brought many an happy immigrant from other countries to Canada in the hopes of getting free medical assistance for ailments that would cost them dearly in their country where there is no free health care. Even some of the sites I have read written by people but not gov't approved suggest that Canada has free health care. I mean, by reading the wikipedia pages one would assume that it is all free, no cost to the common citizen. However, after a bit of digging (and actually being told this), I found that there is no such thing as free health care in Canada. At least, not free health care in Alberta. Seems that for each province, there is a premium that has to be paid. When I was living in the NWT, we didnt pay anything but now that I am in Alberta, I see that I have to pay $44/month to get this 'free' health care. Granted, it is a small amount considering that this $44/month gives me access to all doctors and I could go and be examined for cancer or any other major illness at no more cost than $44/month. This $44 being reached by taking your annual tax income and doing strange division and percentages to it.

The thing that it doesnt cover is the cost of drugs or other higher releif. Makes sense, doesnt it? it is like paying $40/month and being able to take your car into a garage at any time, have them run complete diagnostics on it, tell you what exactly is wrong with it and tell you what you need...THEN charge you an arm and a leg on parts, but not the labour...you can go to a doctor, get a complete physical, tell you that you have a disease that will kill you in 1 year unless you get medication, but then charge you $500/pill to get this done...and unless you pay for extra health/drug coverage through a private organization, you are going to be up the creek without a paddle.

However, dont get me wrong here, I love our medical system and wouldnt change it for the world. Just now I am faced with a moral/cheapskate dilemna here. On one hand, I realize that the whole medical profession is bogged down and in need of major reform in that the gov't is constantly cutting funding to hospitals causing less and less doctors/nurses to be hired and the poor people are run off their feet constantly with hypocondriacs that come in for a full batter of tests for a hang nail or upset stomach. So, on one hand I want to pay my premium and only go to the doc when things get bad. HOWEVER, the Scrooge McDuck in me says "I am paying $44/month for a service that I might not use for an entire year? screw this, I am going in and getting a physical every single month just to make sure that this $44 is not being wasted" Thus, making me the hypocondriac in the previous statement, bogging down the medical system, taking away precious time from really sick people that are in the first category as well of not going to the doctor unless they really really need it.

Wish that the Gov't could figure out a way to give everyone better health care, less wait times and treat us all like equals (no free health for some people like natives but charge the immigrants an arm and a leg for just coming to the country), treat the seniors with respect that they deserve because even though they may complain about every ache and pain it was their hard work and taxes that have given us the money now to have health care (just as it is the youths taxes that will help the health care in the future)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)
http://www.health.gov.ab.ca/ahcip/faq.html
http://www.health.gov.ab.ca/ahcip/faq/premiums.html

Insanity - Real or False?

A question has always been lurking in the back of my mind constantly so I thought I would get it down and out of my head once and for all. Insane people, do they really know that they are insane or do they think that they are normal? I mean, at this very moment, I could be considered insane by others but sane by myself, but would I really know it? Do we all really know what is going on in our heads, or are we all just subject to our own little bias and nuttiness. I mean, the obvious extreme insanity is quite apparent when looked at in relation to the 'normal' people of society. You walk down the street, going to work, dressed in a suit and tie and there are nearly 50 people on the same block as you, dressed in shirts, ties, business skirts and other items of business wear and then all of a sudden you see a guy walking down the street with a rubber ducky under one arm and water wings on, ratty old bathrobe wearing one bunny slipper on one foot and one doggy slipper on the other, mumbling and talking to people about how he is the "2nd coming of Christ and that I am here to save your soul so pick up your crosses, follow me to the desert where the rich bounty of milk and honey flows and it is heaven, if not a little sticky". Obviously that lone individual must be insane and he might be spirited away to an asylum for 'his protection and safety' and then we, in our suits and ties, go about our day, going to the job, coming home, sleeping and doing the same thing again and again until we die. I think it was in 'Speed' that had a good point on this one...the main character said that 'you get up, put on a suit, go to work every day for a little pay and at the end they give you a gold watch....if that is not insanity, I dont know what is"

However, then if insanity is only in relation to the people that are around us and we measure the intensity of insanity by how far off they are from the people that are around them, then wouldn't it stand to reason that once the crazy person gets put into an insane asylum, where the majority of the population think they are Joan of Arc or Jesus, then wouldn't the guards and wardens be classed as insane and the insane be sane? If that is the case, should the insane people be set free or at least the guards and wardens be removed from the population and put back into their own little world like we did with the insane people?

Then there is the process of 'curing' the sick person. I remember a joke once that went something like this:

After 5 years of intence psychological therapy the doctors turns to the woman and says "you are finally cured and can lead a normal healthy life" at which point the woman looks at the doctor and then bursts into tears. The doctor, totally bewildered, asks "why are you crying? I told you that you were cured" and the lady, through the tears, looks at the doc and says "look at it from my point of view...5 years ago I was Joan of Arc...now, I am nobody"

so, if we are insane, why bother curing us? if we are insane and in danger of hurting ourselves, then who are the majority to judge? after all, it could be considered insanity lighting up a pack of cigarettes every day, sucking smoke into your lungs and increasing your chances of death, and yet smokers continually walk the world unhindered. If we care that someone is about to jump off the building cause they really think they can fly, then shouldn't we be concerned about the person that works 18 hours/day and tries to put themselves into an early grave with stress, work and frustration? is the deciding factor the usefullness or their destruction to society? the jumper is not going to help society in any way and, in fact, is going to be destructive to society cause public death lowers morale and makes people think of their own mortality and questions whether or not they are happy, not to mention if done wrongly can cause damage to personal property (jumping off a building and cracking the sidewalk, landing on a car, landing on a person, or jumping in front of a train and causing damage to the tracks or train itself). Whereas the work-a-holic pays taxes, raises the bar for those around them to succeed better and helps the public get things done and the world to run smoothly. So, the work-a-holic is not a danger to themselves because they help the world and society but the jumper is a problem cause they don't do anything for society...

in the end, who is insane and who isnt?