What is Thanksgiving all about?

The good news about networking technology is we have instantaneous access to information 24/7. While this helps us find the info we seek. It also brings a lot of info we don't seek and that info that arrives in our inbox, our FB or Twitter feed, our favourite news wesbsite is almost always the info we completely disagree with. Hence an internet battle is born!

With Thanksgiving in North America happening over the next month the Thanksgiving debate re-emerges. One end of the debate thanks Columbus and the pilgrims for discovering America for Spain and settling it into the civil utopia they believe it to be.(who are pilgrims? how do they link to Thanksgiving? do a search and you can read more) The other end of the debate thinks thanking Columbus for invading an already inhabited territory and conquering/destroying an existing culture is a myopic view of history. It's also viewed as insensitive to the ancestors of indigenous people who Columbus and the following waves of europeans invaded.

So here I am, since I can remember my family has celebrated Thanksgiving. Not because we're happy North America was conquered and colonized, but because it's one of those very rare times that you can slow down, and get together with friends and family and reflect a bit. However, I grew up in Millwoods and the other side of the argument isn't lost on me.

What does Millwoods have to do with Thanksgiving you ask? Well, for me, it has a lot to do with it.

Millwoods was a suburb of Edmonton, Alberta that was designed and developed in the 1970s. In concept, it was to be a neighbourhood that was a city within a city. It walked away from the grid style designs of other neighbourhoods and incorporated an element of social planning that would cross socio-economic boundaries. No longer would there be a "wealthy only" neighbourhood and a "poor only". No longer would neighbourhoods be "little italy" or "china town". The neighbourhood would be a homogenous mix of every and any lifestyle you could think of that would lead to better understanding and tolerance of the factors that divide us.

I moved to Millwoods when I was in grade 1 and grew up there, almost entirely, until I was well out of High School. I am the now loathed "White, Hetero, Oilfield working, Christian, male", but at the time I had no sense of identity other than I was a boy and I was Canadian. Looking back I can honestly say that while Millwoods may have not achieved the idealistic dream of it's designers and champions it did succeed and I give thanks for my time there. It helped my vocabulary and my understanding of a lot of things that are now mainstream in this world.

While I did grow up learning to celebrate thanksgiving and learning what it was about I also learned a great deal more. I learned that many of my school mates were "refugees" (I had no idea what that meant in elementary). I learned that many of my school mates were not born in Canada. Many of them spoke other languages. While all of us were "catholic" since we went to catholic school our values were slightly different. The concept of family was different, the concept of honour was different, conflict resolution was different.

My first friend in Millwoods was MW. He was one of my neighbours on the street. He was white, had an older brother and a Mom and a Dad just like me. However, I noticed that he always called his Dad by his first name. After a few grade 1 type questions to my Mom and Dad I quickly learned that MW's Dad was a "step dad" and that his Mom was "divorced" and to be honest... it didn't make a damned difference. MW was still MW and life went on.

Other friends on the street were MO, DW, CW, LB, PF. They were a true homogenous mix that was representative of Millwoods. Most were "white". However, one family was a "interracial" family. They're Dad was black (from the Carribean). Another family was Chinese who had "immigrated" to Canada and yet another family claimed to have "strong Irish roots".... but in reality they were Canadian, born and raised.

My first friend in school was JB. JB was an only child. This was different for me, didn't all families have multiple siblings??? Not only was JB an only child he only had one parent, his Mom. Once again, I learned about "divorce" but also learned that not everyone automatically gets a "step dad" when their parents divorce. I also made a few more friends in elementary school.

There was JF. JF was from Peru. He had 2 siblings and a Mom and Dad. Hanging out at his house indicated they were far more devout to the catholic faith than I was. There was also AS. AS lived just down the block from JF so the 3 of us hung out quite a bit. AS was from South Africa. He was white and had that funny South African accent that wasn't British and wasn't australian. AS had many stories about "apartheid" and what it was like from his viewpoint and how his family didn't want to be part of it any more. Then there was MS. MS was from Chile. He had a LOT of brothers. Through MS I met a lot more people from school and Millwoods that were Chilean and I got to learn about "regimes" and "military coups" and "corrupt governments". Chile really didn't seem like a place you wanted to be, but apparently it's extremely beautiful!

But this wasn't it. Most people label Millwoods with "one race". It's filled with "asians" or "pakistanis" or "Indians" or "Lebanese" or "philipinos" but the truth is Millwoods is just filled... with everyone!!! I had friends that came emigrated from Poland, Ukraine, Chile, Equador, Columbia, Costa Rica, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, South African, India, Sri Lanka, and some even came from  away mystical lands like Toronto and Newfoundland!

Each and every friend I met had something new to share. A story of their culture, their language, their values, their "homeland" their struggle. I learned about civil wars from a perspective that no Social Studies class could explain. I learned about the differences of Ukranian Catholicism and Roman Catholicism... not from Religion class but from hanging out with my Ukranian Catholic friends. I learned about Buddhism, I learned about bannock (oh my goodness how I love Bannock!!!). I learned how to swear in about 5 or 6 different languages (I'm sure that'll come in handy some day). I learned about the tight knit Philipino community and their very broad sense of family. I learned about Shiva and Kali and I learned about "arranged marriages" (from more than the stereotypical definition of it). I learned about cricket! (but I still don't understand it!!). Later on I learned about "homosexuality" and understanding what a horror it was (and probably still is for some) to grow up not being able to identify yourself amongst friends and peers for fear of being alienated or persecuted.

I also quickly learned about "haves" and "have nots". When you're 8 years old you don't notice if someone is wearing a "polo" or "esprit" shirt and you don't notice "nike", "converse" or "adidas" shoes, but you do notice who has money when you're at the corner store at lunch and you do notice those who got those "cool" gifts for Xmas and who got socks and underwear. However, that never seemed to get in the way. I remember my Mom and Dad explaining to me that it's alright to share, but be careful about being "patronizing". Just because someone does not have what you have, does not mean they want it, or need it.

20+ year later I look back. I no longer live in Millwoods. I have seen the news headlines about drive by shootings. I've talked to friends that still live there that talk about some of the racial segregation/isolation that has happened. I do not think Millwoods has achieved Utopia, but I still think it's one of the best places to grow up to get some perspective.

If it wasn't for Millwoods I wouldn't be able to enter some of the conversations I do with tact. If it wasn't for Millwoods I wouldn't understand religious "dress" and what they mean to people. If it wasn't for Millwoods I wouldn't be able to talk to someone with empathy about oppression, prejudice, murder, illness or poverty. If it wasn't for Millwoods I just wouldn't be who I am today.

So what is Thanksgiving all about? For me it's about giving thanks. I shed the history of the day, but I also remember that it isn't all roses.

Is Homosexuality a solution?

To wade into a controversial subject should be fun. :)

Here's a hugely loose theory.

Homosexuality is our species' solution to the problem of overpopulation.

(Please wait before you send emotional mail)


A few articles and blogs I've read lately want me to draw lines between a few points.

Recently I watched this video posted on unworthy. There's a few similar experiments. The interviewer hits the streets and asks random people "Is homosexuality a choice? or are they born that way?" The classic Nature vs. Nuture argument. The follow up question is "So when did you choose to be straight?" When people reason the question most come to a conclusion that they didn't choose to be straight. It really leads people to believe that you are born with a sexual preference.

What I don't believe is the dichotomy. Gay or Straight. Hetero or Homo. There's also Bisexual (which most people associate with being gay) which is much different. If you really want to look at the spectrum of sexual preference you can also consider beastiality and necrophilia. I mean… do you really think someone made a CHOICE to have sex with animals outside our species? or humans that are dead?

I also don't believe in appealing to ignorance. Just because people don't remember making a choice does not automatically prove you were born a certain way. Perhaps is a was a subconscious choice. Perhaps it was something subtle in the environment that formed your sexual preference.

So I look a little deeper. Specifically at Alice Dreger's TEDx talk. While she doesn't speak about sexual preferences she does speak about the complexity of anatomy and gender. While there are typical "Males" and "Females" there is a lot of variation that nature has defined in-between. She also talks about classifications and categorization as being something created by humanity (not by nature). Very rarely will nature create a dichotomy. While nature will often create "typical" things it will always create anomalies. But why? Are the anomalies mistakes? or are they version 1.2? not a mistake, just a different version to address changes in the environment?

So then it goes back to "Is sexual preference a choice? just not a conscious one?" Did the sexual preference get chosen for us? Perhaps based on an early experience? I found this article talking about early childhood experiences creating small changes in our DNA. If their theory is right it could be possible that your sexual preference WAS a choice. Perhaps executed genetically, so you didn't realize it was a choice, but nonetheless, based on an early life experience your body/genetics choose a specific sexual preference over others because of it.

So now you can say "Thanks Mom! Thanks Dad! Thanks mangy dog down the street that scared the bejeezus out of me when I was 6 months old! I am (Hetero/Homo/Assexual) because of you!!" Woohoo! You're off the hook! Your sexual preference was a choice… but perhaps not yours. It WAS a genetic thing. You just weren't necessarily "born" that way.

OK, so now you ask… How the hell does this relate to overpopulation???

Well, if you read through some of Charles Darwin's work and a number of other blurbs on "Social Learning" or "Societal Learning" there are many theories out there that explain how species start to behave in groups to address certain problems. For instance, recently I read "The Wisdom of Pyschopaths" which theorizes the world is becoming a less violent place, but a more psychopathic place in order to deal with societal changes (We can't just wander around clubbing each other to death to solve problems anymore). but how does an entire species start trending it's behaviour?? I mean this is supposed to be "learned" right? You make a conscious choice to start behaving in a certain way, don't you? and in order for approximately 7 BILLION people to all start moving in one direction of behaviour, it'd have to be a stellar training class.

Then I came across this article that theorizes that what you learn can actually be passed down to your ancestors. What if the choice you made that "Plastic is better than Paper" got taught to your child through genetics? Perhaps not that specific or not that quickly, but generation after generation we start teaching our bloodlines that something is acceptable or something is not. Of course, learning is based on your environment. The article linked above states that mice learned to fear the smell of a cherry blossom. So perhaps as humans we learned to fear homosexuality…. but why???

So here's the punchline…. and it's a loose theory at best. I've, by no means, tested this. If everything about is true!! (and most of it is just theory that has been partially explored).

What if…. millions of years ago, our ancestors armed with their survival instinct saw that homosexuality did not produce offspring and meant the end of the species. Therefore they sought to strike down anything that was homosexual to ensure the survival of the species. This learning is passed down, genetically and socially, from generation to generation. Until one day, as whole, we humans start to realize "Wow… there sure are a lot of humans on this planet and if we keep reproducing like this it's going to be disasterous". So subconsciously we start making choices, in our mind, imprinted on our DNA, passed down to our children, who slowly…. start becoming homosexual… to address the problem of overpopulation.

Of course, this doesn't work overnight. Homosexuals are oppressed, stigmatized, killed. This goes against our current "learning" that homosexuality is bad for survival. However, in the back of our heads, we all know that the overpopulation is still not slowing down. So, now we move into our current age. We are slowly learning to accept homosexuality… and slowly, but surely, more people are "born" (or perhaps choose) homosexuality because of it.

On a grand… subconscious, species scale we've made the choice to save us from overpopulation!

and now someone says "Hey!!! Homosexuals can reproduce!!! They can still get in vitro fertilization! They can still adopt!" So how does this really address the problem or overpopulation??

My thought around that is… Heterosexual reproduction is largely an accident. Heterosexuals because sexually mature, get urges, have sex and…OOPS! someone is pregnant. Homosexuals get urges, have sex and ….. hmmmm… not much happens…. UNLESS THEY MAKE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE!

and given the world we live in I think a lot of people are making conscious choices to have less kids. So, yes, I still think it's a solution to the problem.

Now you may leave hate comments or send hate mail. :)

Why are we not getting the results we desire?

I recently viewed a TV interview with Russell Brand where he made a believer out of me. For many years I have teetered from one side of the fence to the other. From apathy to involvement in our political systems. I've held just about every belief there has been. I thought, "why vote? it doesn't change anything." to "you must vote! It is your duty as a citizen! You must exercise the rights your forefathers fought to give you!"

But when I saw Russell Brand in the interview I was slapped in the face with a fact and it left me with one question. Why aren't we getting what we want out of our political system? our educational system? our economic system? our justice system? The fact is that it's not working. Russell was right, and it didn't take any amount of profound thinking to come to the conclusion. We have massive inequality. I'm careful not to use the word "poverty" here as many educated, studious people will argue that "studies show" that our quality of life is rising, that the poverty issue is getting better than it was 100 years ago. However, we do have massive inequality. The cliche applies, "the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer".

Inequality. Inequality in pay vs work. Inequality in Justice vs crimes. Inequality in health vs wealth. Inequality education vs opportunity. There always seems to be a certain elite group of people that exude the most horrendous behaviour, some of it criminal behaviour, and never get the consequences that you or I would get. Politicians lie about spending, drinking and driving, abusing power for personal gain. Those same politicians get caught and walk away free. CEOs and Leaders of multinational companies get compensation nearly 500 times that of a regular worker and when they do a poor job, not only do they get fired, but they get multimillion dollar golden parachutes. Celebrities can commit murder, posses drugs on multiple occasions yet avoid jail time. Bankers can defraud entire COUNTRIES of trillions of dollars and be allowed to continue operating with bonuses instead of punishments. Yet if the average person, like you or I, would do any of these things we most certainly would wind up bankrupt, without a job and only a few months or weeks of money in the bank or in jail.

A famous quote "Stupidity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". And that's exactly what we're doing.

So Why are we not getting the results we desire? I believe it's because the system is delivering exactly what it was designed to produce. Voting doesn't matter when there is no real choice. Banking doesn't matter when you don't make enough money to pay the bills, let alone the interest rates. Using our courts does not matter when you need boat loads of money and time to get the smallest change.

The funny thing about revolution is it keeps coming around. Rome fell, the Ottoman empire fell, Britain fell, and the US will fall too. My question here is When will the next revolution come? and will it be just a political revolution in a country? or a geopolitical revolution that shakes our very world and it's systems to the core?

I believe that there are people and powers that seek to keep things from changing, but that only lasts for so long. We cannot live in a world where change is happening at an exponential rate without our systems changing along with it. When we can communicate ideas to the world in seconds, when we discover technology so fast that the latest and greatest equipment is outdated within days after it's discovered there is no way the systems of old can hold.

So what will the new world systems look like? Will it be even more and drastically inequitable? Will it be some sort of utopian state? What will our economic models look like if machines eventually do all the work for us? What will financial systems be like if noone uses money anymore?

What will you do when revolution comes?

Why do you want kids to stay in school?

On Friday I was on an unusual schedule. I worked from home and took the train in for a Dr's appointment for 1pm instead of commuting in at regular hours. I actually enjoy running on an "off" schedule as it helps me change my frame of reference, working while others aren't and vica versa.

After my doctor's appointment I was walking to the office and came up to the train station that I normally get off at and witnessed to men (perhaps boys) get off the train. They immediately piqued my interest as they were wearing fairly extreme attire. One was "sagging" as much as one can sag without exposing their junk (actually it was quite impressive that the person could actually move without their pants falling off). The other had bleached white hair that was cut into a very low trimmed mohawk. Both were fitted with usual "street" wear that screamed "I'M A BADASS GANGSTA!!!". As they walked by, with lit cigarettes hanging out of their mouth I noticed on the back of one of their shirts the saying "Gangster is as gangster does" and two things when through my head.

1. Hey! That's grammatically correct!
2. Stay in School kids.

And it made my think.... Would "staying in school" really help these two individuals? and why do we assume "staying in school" is the path to "staying out of trouble" or "a good life"? I really think that the whole "Stay in school" philosophy is old and is not much more than a fear tactic. I think of the TEDTalk "The danger of a single story" where people often hear one idea and immediately conjure up a stereotypical story about a person, a group of people or even the idea itself.

In this case someone says "stay in school kids" usually when referencing someone who isn't fitting the normal mold in life. Someone who is not wealthy, or behaving respectfully, or in a state of despair. I'm sure almost everyone remembers some point in their childhood walking past a beggar in the streets, or sitting next to an addict on the bus and their parents, chaperone, friend, or collegue pointing them out and saying "stay in school kids". As if the absence of school was the single contributor to these people's woes. The lack of reading and writing skills led to addiction. The lack of health class led to a person becoming schizophrenic or not attending math class made someone choose to drop out of school and pursue life outside of academia.

I really think that using this phrase "Stay in school kids" is dangerous. Our educational paradigms are being challenged. With the introduction and growth of the internet and smart phones and other mobile devices, we no longer have to rely on schools and educational systems as being the only avenue to information. 20 years ago, conducting research was something that usually had to happen in close proximity to a library. Now that literature and information is at your finger tips. Getting an "advanced education" involved paying thousands of dollars to a university or college, committing day time hours to attending classes and ensuring you were in good political standing with your professors. With the invention of Edx, MITx, iTunes U, and Khan Academy this level of education is free, available in whaterver timeframe you want and doesn't require kissing a professor's ass to get a good grade... I even question if grades are really relevant anymore. Are they?

We used to use degrees, grades, certificates as a way of proving someone had a minimum level of knowledge in a specific area. That they could apply critical thinking skills. We still do. Employers still demand higher levels of education, but I wonder if they're getting the return on investment. I often see employment ads that state "Must have a bachelor's degree." It doesn't state what relevant field of study they're looking for only that the person has a bachelor degree. When I asked hiring managers what skill or qualification they were hoping the degree would prove I often get shrugs and puzzled looks. They don't know. Most cannot translate how a "degree" will demonstrate the job performance they're looking for in that particular job.

I then start to ask "What was the education path for successful people?" and what I find is that a lot of people didn't "stay in school". Einstein, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs are classic examples of those who didn't stay in school. I do not see anyone accusing them of being unsuccessful. However, they are just a few (and I realize they are extreme cases). Interestingly enough, 2 of those 4 are still alive and I wonder if it's the start of a trend. Others who did finish the formal path of getting degrees only view the academic portion as one element to their success. Seeking and getting the right experience and mentoring were critical elements to their success. Also having a passion for their field was huge.

(Please note.... I have not done extensive interviews with thousands of people. This is just casual conversation and reading I've done. Ironically, I'm sure the academics who read this will want to tear my thoughts apart with arguments like "you haven't done proper research" and "where's the peer reviewed documentation to prove your theories?")

So I question.... is the saying "stay in school kids" outdated? cliche? even dangerous?

Are people starting to realize that formal education is not the best (or only single) path to "success"?
Should we be showing there are more ingredients to "success" than just education?
Should we be telling our kids "stay in school.... and make sure you get out and experience the world!"?
Are employers missing out on opportunities by excluding hiring informally educated individuals?
Are employers missing out on diversifying their talent pool by only hiring formally educated individuals?
How will employers gauge this in the future? What will employers ask for instead of "a degree"?
how will educational institutions deal with this trend? As most of them focus their marketing on "get your degree here! Our degrees are the best!"

Who is at fault? Rape

Recently saw the video linked here.

At first I was offended. I thought that the poet was trying to say "It's this girl's fault that she couldn't have enough self esteem to stand up for herself and she got raped". Then I started thinking about the story he told as a precursor to the poem and I wondered.

Was he really trying to say it was her fault? or was he trying to say it was his fault for not helping her realize her self worth?

I watched it 4 or 5 times and tried to find deeper meaning and realized I was just asking deeper questions of myself. To the point where I wasn't even asking "Who is at fault when someone gets raped?" I was asking myself... "What would I do if I got raped?" "What actually drives people to rape others?" and an even better question.... "What can I do to help?'

I remember watching a video many years ago about a South American activist who came to New York to talk about the activities he and his "followers" were taking to battle oppression in Brazil and during the question period of his presentation someone asked "What can we do to help? What should we do to stop similar behavior in America?" The man responded with something like (I'm paraphrasing here) "When you're in dire straits you don't spend a lot of time questions what you can do. You know what you MUST do and you do it"

So then I asked myself "WHY aren't I helping?" am I not in a situation where I feel the need to help?

Which is more important? The Question or the Answer

I've been raised all my life to believe that "having the answer" is good and "not having the answer" is bad. My parents taught me this when I was young. My teachers taught me this in school and I'm reminded of it almost any time I have a conversation or play a game.

From answers a poll, to taking a test, to participating in a contest. The second someone asks a question and you have the right answer you are praised. If you have the wrong answer you are considered "stupid", "incompetent", "unwise", "inexperienced". I believe the reinforcement behind this behaviour is mainly from school testing where you get a "pass" or a "fail" depending on how many questions you answer correctly. As we grow into adults this fear of failing translates into people being scared to answer questions. We've all heard the saying "better to let someone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Yet, I think this behaviour actually goes further than that. Not only are people scared to answer questions, they are scared of questions.... period.... and the more complex the question the more fearful people are of it.

Yet, I observed something else. When you challenge (or question) someone's deeply held beliefs they usually fight back..... swiftly! and with zeal! Tell a deeply devout Christian that Jesus didn't exist and you will watch them enter into fight or flight mode. Either way they go it's usually accompanied by a spew of statements that they believe to be true. In this state of fight or flight I believe that people are actually vulnerable to suggestion. They have no choice but to think critically about the subject matter to defend their belief.

So therein lies the key. To me, the question is more important than the answer and going forward I want to focus on questioning things rather than ever getting to the "answer". This blog will not be an exercise in swaying people's opinions but truly exploring questions in an attempt to get people thinking.