As the shades of denial and disbelief arose and then fell away, the questions, tinged with judgment, arose. How could they do this? What would possess someone to take such steps? Why do we do such abusive things to the planet?

From there, my mind wandered into associations, including how it looked like a golf course. I have long had an intense dislike for golf, largely because of the way in which the land is tamed and often poisoned in the making and maintaining of the game course. Golf also seems to be the game of the power elite, the courses the breeding ground for many of the political and corporate deals that lead to widespread human suffering and destruction of the planet.

Finally, after all of that, I was left with nothing but silence and seeing; just witnessing what someone else (or a group of folks) had done to a particular place, sometime in recent history. It was a surprising, almost stunning, experience. Only so because of the extremes present.

Our modern landscape is riddled with this kind of stuff. Not only absurdities like the place described above, but also grand-scale absurdities like giant parking lots, stripped mountains, miles-wide oil fields, abandoned coal pits collapsed upon themselves, poisoned rivers and lakes – the list goes on.

Below the surface of the land, and beyond our vision, fuel pipelines snake through the soil, breaking the natural order and rhythm of life. So, too, do buried and abandoned piles of human-produced garbage and toxic waste, threatening the health and wellbeing of everything trying to live around it. In fact, a lot of the modern-built world is absurd. It represents actions far more about destroying life than enhancing it.

Humans are not superior to other species. We are of the earth, not above it. If we truly want to address climate change and environmental crisis, we’ll not only need to resist corporate plunder of the earth, but also collectively transform the way we see and build the places we call home.

Photo Credits

Photo from Flickr – some rights reserved

When I researched the game it became obvious to me that this game was one of a submissive positioning, but why on physical entities? Scanning through the images on the internet, the faces of the ‘game’ players were of a numbed, docile and submissive array of societal experience and expression. In a world where most of us have succumbed to the concepts of capitalism and consumerism, have we become submissive? Are we expressing our chains to it through our subtle insertions of games like this? Are the objects we are planking on, and over, now our owners and our own undoing?

American consumerism is at an all-time high, leaving many families with insurmountable amounts of debt. We have submitted to capitalistic ideals and cannot find an escape route. Lying down on the objects creates an almost surreal confession of the power they have over us. Finding obscurity while planking is simply a way to express the relative experience of the new world of buy and pay. We are bought, and we are planked to these objects like no other generation before us. We have consumed our planet to the point of animal extinction, polluted oceans and global warming.

I looked up the history of planking and soon discovered images of early slave ships showing people chained down in the same submissive position, unable to escape and to be free from the hateful ownership of history. As society inserts an obvious connection to a human history of racism, have we also unknowingly projected our own experience onto what is now a universal one – materialism and product consumption through spending? 
 
This is where history inserts itself into the present and societal norms are questioned – as they should be. Is it normal to want to live a life filled with products and objectification? Racism has now become a platform for politics in the US and if we don’t look more closely at why cynicism relies on us being divided, we will never find a cure for hate. We will indeed be planked to the past and smothered with consumerism if we don’t finally look at why we need to be submissive.

The whole functioning of the ‘haves’ is to make sure anyone who doesn’t have, doesn’t get. We become almost systematically mesmerized with the accumulation of ‘stuff’ and are losing our moral compass and compassion. Think of the Black Friday sales where people are pushing and shoving to buy one more thing to bring home and yes, to be planked to.

And if people do not have, they will find an escape route to get it, as history proves over and over again. As American politicians rally for support for votes, they are also cynically bribing the population without wealth, blaming the minority populations for the lack of it, and for the taking of it – planking people once again to hate, all in the name of consumerism.

It’s a long, painful history that continues to repeat itself. The greatest thing we can do as a human population is to finally break the chains that our minds have been tightened with; release our intellect to combat the immoral and unethical need to submit one’s self to anyone or any ideal. Then and only then will we be a true democracy. Then and only then will the game of planking end and the world will stop looking for scapegoats. Change is only possible through awareness.

Photo Credits

Photo by Melinda Cochrane – all rights reserved

Watching her out the window, Mom said to Dad: “She’s gonna fall.” Dad responded with: “Probably.” Mom asked, “Do you think we should go out there?” As they continue to tell the story, more than 20 years later, they shrugged at each other and watched as my sister did indeed fall off the beams.

Bad parents? Not at all. Why? One: my sister bounced right back up and kept going. Two: she learned early, as did all three of us, that there was nothing to fear in taking a risk like that. Sure, she could have gotten hurt — she didn’t — but my parents also could have run out there, screaming, and stifled an adventurous spirit.

It’s Not Cute

I don’t have kids, and probably never will, but I still find myself surrounded by little girls. Many of my friends have them, and my sister has one who will be five later this year. They are cute.

What isn’t cute is when the collective world encourages “the cuteness” of their fear of something. Anything. From picking up a bug or even being near one to a fear of playing a sport. I’m not saying these little ladies’ fears aren’t legit. I fear standing on chairs and driving across bridges, but my parents have never told me it was cute to be afraid.

Author and former San Francisco firefighter Caroline Paul recently wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times about why we teach girls it’s cute to fear. Paul points out that when we encourage girls that it’s cute to be afraid, we are discouraging them from taking calculated risks.

I don’t mean engage in risky behaviors that will jeopardize health or welfare, and it’s obvious that Paul doesn’t mean that either. That’s not cute. Paul and I mean self-esteem boosting risks like picking up and moving across the country or around the world or leaving a cushy job for something unknown and exciting.

When fear is encouraged by those around us, like our parents and caregivers, our self-esteem is hampered both automatically and because we cannot recognize the good risks from the bad ones.

It’s a Fear of Failure

Teaching fear is teaching complacency. This in turn teaches kids that it’s not okay to fail. Perhaps that sounds backwards, but think about it: if kids are afraid, they won’t try something. When we try things, there is a chance we could fail.

Dr. Laura Miele-Pascoe, a professor with Ohio University’s Masters in Coaching Education, extolled the virtues of teaching kids the positives of failure in an article for Psychology Today last year. Going further than Paul, Miele-Pascoe encourages parents, coaches, and educators to discontinue the practice of Everybody Wins.

When I was a sports reporter and then an educator, I disliked this practice. It may encourage a certain level of camaraderie, but it also teaches kids failure is not an option. Miele-Pascoe states correctly that “children will be exponentially more distraught when they inevitably face them later in life.” The earlier children are taught that failure is not a bad thing, the more they will draw from it.

In her article, Miele-Pascoe uses her daughter’s softball play as an example. Thrown out between second and third base, her daughter used that failure as motivation to run harder during her next base-running opportunity, thus leading to success.

The older we grow, the more we begin to see failures as opportunities for success. One of the habits of truly successful people is using failure as inspiration for innovation. Both Paul and Miele-Pascoe note that teaching fear and discouraging failure only discourages girls from seeking out such ambition.

Don’t Fear Success

In today’s world, so many women are taught to fear success. We are discouraged from ambition. It starts at a very young age when we are taught that we should fear riding our bikes down that giant hill or when we are told that hunting is a boy thing.

We need to stop encouraging fear in our girls. Then we will start encouraging them to be adventurous in all they do, in work and life.

Photo Credit

Photo by AmberStroce on flickr – Some Rights Reserved

Guest Author Bio

H. E. James, MBA
Hattie is a writer and researcher living in Boise, Idaho. She has a varied background, including education and sports journalism. She is a former electronic content manager and analyst for a government agency. She recently completed her MBA and enjoys local ciders.

Follow Hattie: Twitter | Linkedin

Images of angry youths rioting and tearing up a city are portrayed, the word ‘thug’ being used to describe them. What is missing in the description, however, is an accurate portrayal of the state of poverty that led to the protests. Issues like city housing projects and people with little or no choice need to be depicted as the leading cause of why any group of marginalized poor would set about ripping things up to make a point.

Lets take a journey…

• The Russian revolution of February 1917 involving demonstrators clashing with police over collapsing economic and social issues.
• The 1910 and 1911 Tonypandy riots between police and coal miners, causing Churchill to call troops into Wales to control the situation.
• The Kileler incident in Greece, a clash between landowners and farmers where the militia was called in for control.

The riots at sporting events in England in the 80’s, where youths were also seen as thugs when they prevented families from attending the events, are yet another example of disenfranchised youth using their voice, or what they believed was their voice. The historical list could go on.

The riots are not unique. When the poor are being systematically neglected and worse yet, ignored, is it not to be expected? It shouldn’t be surprising that an incident such as a murder by those who represent the system would lead to a revolution. These revolutions are intended to bring the bigger issues to the forefront, such as why those living in poverty are being ignored and why there is disproportionate representation of who is poor in America.

This is the fuel of revolution – are we to expect people to sit back and watch it happen year after year? Are mothers to expect little for their children if poverty happens to be the curse of their existence? No. When a city is shut down by poverty, it doesn’t ask for justice, it shouts for justice. To be a silent global citizen is to approve of the violations against the poor. Poverty has no line of division but when it does, we need to stand as one, speak as one and as humans, seek answers to help.

What answers do you look for? If you are not asking why Baltimore happened, you too are part of the problem. A silent nation creates an angry nation.

Photo Credits

Photo by Melinda Cochrane – all rights reserved

Follow Your Bliss

My favorite scene in the 2009 film Up in the Air is the one in which Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is sitting across from yet another victim of his company’s “services” – terminating employees for firms that don’t want to do the dirty work themselves. Bob is of course very angry and he is crying. He is concerned about what his children will think of him now that he is jobless and unable to provide them with what they need and want. Here is what Ryan does:

RYAN: Your children’s admiration is important to you?
BOB: Yeah. It was.
RYAN: Well, I doubt they ever admired you, Bob.
BOB: (looks up shocked and pissed) Hey, asshole, aren’t you here to console me?
RYAN: I’m not a shrink, Bob. I’m a wake-up call. Why do kids love athletes?
BOB: Because they screw lingerie models.
RYAN: No, that’s why we love athletes. Kids love them because they follow their dreams.
BOB: Yeah, well I can’t dunk.
RYAN: But you can cook.
BOB: What are you talking about?
RYAN: (Picks up Bob’s resume.) Your resume said you minored in French Culinary Arts….How much did they first pay you to give up on your dreams?
BOB: (flat) Twenty-seven grand a year.
RYAN: And when were you going to stop and come back and do what makes you happy?
BOB: Good question.
RYAN: ….I see guys who work for the same company their entire lives. Clock in. Clock out. Never a moment of happiness. (Pauses for effect.) Not everyone gets this kind of opportunity. The chance for rebirth. If not for yourself…do it for your kids.

Bob’s eyes begin to water again. He’s a changed man.

Is Ryan serious about encouraging Bob to go back and follow his dream again or is he just leading him on so he can get him out the door and move on to the next “terminee”? It really doesn’t matter. Does real life imitate life in the movies? Maybe not. But that is not the point. The interchange between Ryan and Bob is there to make us think: Am I doing what I absolutely must do to be myself? Is there any reason I cannot be doing what I love to do right now? If I cannot follow my bliss at this moment, can I make and follow a concrete plan to do so in the future?

***

In a recent TED Talk, entitled “Enough with the Hero’s Journey Already,” speaker Colin Stokes lampooned Joseph Campbell’s concept of the hero’s journey, or the monomyth – which involves following one’s bliss – by pointing out that the heroes in the movies he watched while he was growing up in the 1980’s were all like him: white, male, straight, and able-bodied. Using the terminology of the monomyth, he told his audience that he learned that he was not the protagonist in his life when he embarked on “a journey of some significance…and crossed a threshold into a strange new world…parenthood.” Stokes’s argument is similar to Miya Tokumitsu’s in that he equates the hero in the hero’s journey with a narcissist member of a privileged elite.

The real point of Stokes’s talk is how we take for granted the built-in biases of our culture and society, how we fail to recognize that we have often been the antagonists in the lives of others – racial minorities, women, the disabled, the LGBTQ community – a situation he came to fully recognize when he saw films like 12 Years a Slave, The Butler, and 42. At the end of his talk he says, “When white people like me go to 12 Years a Slave and The Butler we might feel excluded; we might even feel antagonized. That’s probably a good thing; at least it has been for me. It’s one of those moments where I’ve been jolted off the monomyth into real life, where I’ve had to ‘protagonize’ someone else and ease up a little on the heroism and … grow up.”

Like Miya Tokumitsu, Colin Stokes employs a construct of convenience to shore up his argument. While his essential point is valid, his representation of the hero’s journey reflects either a deliberate misinterpretation or a lack of understanding of the monomyth. I suspect that Stokes has not in fact read Joseph Campbell in any depth; if he had, he would know that in order to identify and articulate the concept of the hero’s journey Campbell studied the mythology and cultural practices of numerous societies throughout history (none of which was white). He would understand that it is not possible to be “jolted off the monomyth into real life” because the monomyth is real life.

And if Colin Stokes knew anything about the life of Joseph Campbell, he would be aware that Campbell was not a movie-goer; he only saw Star Wars at the invitation of George Lucas because Lucas’s film was so profoundly inspired by the idea of the hero’s journey. Moreover, it is not Campbell’s fault that the predominantly white male overlords of the Hollywood studios presided over the creation of white male cinematic heroes. Again, if Stokes had studied Campbell’s life and work he would recognize and acknowledge Campbell’s deep respect for the cultures and religions and philosophies of the American Indians, and of India and Japan; Campbell was convinced, in fact, that these societies had achieved a greater understanding of how to live a happy and fulfilled and harmonious life than those of the Judeo-Christians.

***

In an ideal world, everyone would be able to follow his or her bliss. Because the world is not ideal – it is filled with greed, violence, inequality, poverty, and yes, exploitation – should we therefore teach our children that seeking and following the path onto which they are called is narcissistic or elitist, and that we should instead, as Miya Tokumitsu says in an interview with the CBC’s Michael Enright, “Do what’s right and try to love that”? As there is, in fact, no mutual exclusivity between doing what you love and doing what’s right, every person – mainstream or marginalized, of the majority or in a minority, young or old – should be encouraged to follow his or her bliss. Students – black, white, Hispanic, female, gay, straight, transgendered, disabled – should hear the stories of those who have followed their bliss and be guided and counselled to find and follow their own bliss.

The views that I have expressed here are surely naïve, unrealistic, utopian, simplistic. But if each of us asked ourselves if “reality” was making us happy, if “reality” was giving us a life of fulfillment, if “reality” was creating a better world for all, if “reality” was the legacy we wanted to leave for our children, could we honestly answer “yes” to each question? If we imagined ourselves doing what we truly loved to do, would we not also imagine ourselves to be less angry, more excited about life, kinder, more loving, more generous, less frustrated?

If following your bliss is naïve, I cast my vote in favour of naïve.

Image Credit

“Follow Your Bliss” by Elizabeth Cooper. Creative Commons flickr. Some rights reserved.

Follow your bliss

Someone I know has a burning passion for helping young women recognize and avoid unhealthy relationships – and the pain and humiliation that go with them – and to acquire the skills to engage in healthy ones. She has spent the last dozen years of her life studying, researching, networking with experts, speaking with and to youth and their parents about this issue; along the way, she has acquired a Master’s degree and written two books. For my friend, pursuing this cause is an unwavering full-time commitment – often involving long uninterrupted stretches of 12-14-hour days – for which she has not received one cent of remuneration and for which she has sacrificed hours of pleasure with her family and friends, the most basic of material comforts – a latte at Starbucks, an hour at the hairdressers, a meal in a restaurant – and financial security.

Why has she made this commitment and why does she live it? Why does she sacrifice so severely? Because she has no choice. This is what she has been called to do. This is her bliss.

I have written elsewhere on this site (here and here) about Joseph Campbell’s exhortation to “follow your bliss.” For Campbell, bliss is not the gratifying feeling one gets from indulging in personal pleasure; rather it is “that deep sense of being present, of doing what you absolutely must do to be yourself.” He goes on:

“If you can hang on to that, you are on the edge of the transcendent already. You may not have any money, but it doesn’t matter. When I came back from my student years in Germany and Paris, it was three weeks before the Wall Street crash in 1929, and I didn’t have a job for five years. And, fortunately for me, there was no welfare. I had nothing to do but sit in Woodstock and read and figure out where my bliss lay. There I was, on the edge of excitement all the time.”

Doing what you absolutely must do to be yourself, or following your bliss, is not easy; it doesn’t happen automatically once you decide, or discover, what it is you love to do, a process that in itself may be challenging and time-consuming, as it was in Campbell’s case.

The American novelist John Irving (The World According to Garp, A Prayer for Owen Meany) wrote and published three novels, each receiving positive critical reviews, and each of them failing to sell, before he could actually make a living as a writer. To support his family Irving took teaching jobs and for ten years, before the international success of The World According to Garp made him famous and wealthy, was only able to pursue his passion for two hours a day.

Irving spends four to five years on each novel he writes, painstakingly constructing the plot, researching the various worlds of the characters, drafting, and rewriting, and rewriting again. His 2006 semi-autobiographical novel Until I Hear From You took seven years to write. The manuscript had finally been delivered to the publisher when Irving decided that he had to change the point of view of the novel from first person to third person; he took it back and spent another nine months rewriting Until I Hear From You, cutting twenty-five thousand words from the book in the process.

Writing a work of non-fiction about relationships – or writing a novel – requires discipline, long hours of work, sacrifice, and patience. Yet if I asked my friend if she loved what she does, the unhesitating response would be “Yes!” I am sure that Mr. Irving would concur.

But there are those who feel that the idea of following your bliss or doing what you love to do is elitist, that those who seek to do what they love are merely pursuing their personal pleasure, while ignoring, denigrating, or even exploiting those who do “real work.”

In an article, entitled “In the Name of Love,” published in the magazine Jacobin (“a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture”), art historian and writer Miya Tokumitsu says, “While ‘do what you love’ sounds harmless and precious, it is ultimately self-focused to the point of narcissism.” Tokumitsu believes that it is only members of a privileged or elite class who have the wherewithal to pursue the work they love and that this “unofficial work mantra for our time” allows the privileged group to look askance at those who grow or transport their food, empty their office wastebaskets, or care for their children or elderly parents.

In her article Tokumitsu cites the example of Steve Jobs and his 2005 commencement address to the graduating students of Stanford University. In his speech, Jobs portrays Apple “as a labor of his individual love” and encourages the students gathered before him to find what they love, as “the only way to do great work is to love what you do.” Tokumitsu claims that in relating his personal success story as the result of loving what he does, Jobs “elided the labor of untold thousands in Apple’s factories, conveniently hidden from sight on the other side of the planet – the very labor that allowed Jobs to actualize his love.”

Given the nature of the publication in which her article appears and her use of terms like “exploitation,” “class,” and “the most perfect ideological tool of capitalism,” it is clear that Tokumitsu’s argument is ideologically based. As such, it is circumscribed to fit her ideological framework.

First, doing what you love is not the exclusive privilege of the wealthy elite. My “healthy relationship” friend is about as far from upper class as foie gras is from a peanut butter sandwich, yet she is following her bliss. One of the problems with Tokumitsu’s argument is that she ties doing what you love too closely to job and money; finding and following your bliss is a state of mind and a way of life. Many are fortunate to also be able to make a living doing what they love, and some even get rich. But those who truly follow their bliss are usually able and willing to live on much less, to delay – or even forego – many of the material goods others feel they cannot do without. This is not to say that the bliss followers don’t want these things, only that they have put them in their proper place in the larger picture.

Second, doing what you love does not necessarily lead to devaluing or exploiting workers; greed does that. One might argue that a professional hockey or football player whose agent demands a $10-million annual salary is succumbing to greed, but I would suggest that a player who is not a star and therefore earns a much smaller salary is not going to stop doing what he loves and seek more lucrative work because the game does not pay enough – because he feels he is being exploited. One wonders, in fact, if there are not millions of non-stars who could be earning far more in the corporate world but have instead chosen the deeply satisfying, but usually far less lucrative path of bliss.

Third, most of us could be doing what we love but are not. Of course, there are also those who are unable to follow their bliss – refugees, people with physical or psychological/emotional disabilities, the very poor. It is these people we must help so that they also may have the opportunity to do what they love.

But what about the guy who drives the truck that picks up the garbage from Apple headquarters? Is he following his bliss or is he hauling trash because he has a wife and three kids to support? Here, then, is the heart of the matter; here are the questions that Miya Tokumitsu’s socialist agenda does not include. Could it be that the garbage truck driver actually enjoys and is quite good at, say, fixing things – motorcycles, old cars, diesel engines – but instead of going to school and then apprenticing to get his mechanic’s ticket, he opted for quick money so that he could buy the nice car that would impress his girlfriend? Or perhaps he lacked confidence, was afraid to take the step toward qualification because he was convinced he would fail (he never did well in school, after all).

Now he realizes he made a mistake. Driving a truck is excruciatingly boring, but he has three kids and cannot afford to quit his job and go back to school. He repairs his friends’ cars, services his father-in-law’s Mercedes, and has been restoring a ’57 Chev for three years, but his best friend Leo, who did go to school, gets to tinker full-time and is well paid for having fun.

I am like Garbage Truck Driver; I have friends and family members who are like Garbage Truck Driver. I am sure there are countless others like him. The issue is not whether there is dignity in picking up trash (there is); it is whether or not collecting trash – or pushing paper or baking bread – is what you love to do and would be happy doing for the rest of your life.

To be continued.

Image Credit

“Follow your bliss” by Celestine Chua. Creative commons flickr. Some rights reserved.

The story stated that “Some Metro Vancouver bus drivers are refusing to honour TransLink’s promise of free rides for students as part of the annual International Walk to School Week, some parents say.” 

One of these incidents resulted in a student having to write a letter of apology for trying to ‘swindle’ the bus driver, and was told that if he ever tried it again, the driver would not stop. If I were this student, I might have wondered if I was being subjected to racism.

Really nice way to treat people.

I couldn’t help but think about the words ‘public transportation’, after seeing this story. They are similar to the words ‘public library’ – a place where anyone can go and borrow books for free, so long as they bring them back. Libraries are a place where the honour code still exists. But there are really no other places that work this way. Almost everything these days is based on money and credit, neither of which has anything to do with honour, integrity or actual credit: All of which are lacking in our society.

My question is: Why is public transportation not free for everyone? It is almost always the case that those who ride the bus do so out of necessity, not because they want to, so why are those who are already sacrificing the luxury of a car or taxi being punished with either higher fairs or harassment?

I don’t think what I am suggesting is that people should be given a ‘free ride’; rather, that what’s public is public, not private.

When I look deeper, I see another symptom of class warfare. Why do I see this? Because even as I write this, I know that those who don’t take the bus probably don’t care about the situation. $2.25 is no different that $3.25 to some, but to others, especially students, over a monthly period, it can mean the difference between going to school or not. Between being ‘there’ or nowhere at all.

Public transportation should be free!

Photo Credits:

Vancouver, BC Bus via Wikimedia Commons

Unfortunately, some people refuse to take the advice from Canada’s weather experts. Over the last several weeks, reports came in across the country describing pets and children locked in cars out in the baking sun, while the parents shopped in malls or grocery stores. Some of these cases resolved peacefully without incident, others ended with angry crowds berating the neglectful parents – while some cases, tragically, ended in death.

Arguably the most famous case of parental neglect this summer occurred in Kemptville, a small community located south of Ottawa near the Rideau River. The case involved a man entering Walmart, who left his dog locked in the car during a heat alert. The man’s neglect was witnessed by former Walmart employee Carla Cheney, who reported what she saw to the police. By the end of the day, Cheney was let go from her job with Walmart hinting she was fired for being “rude” to a customer.

The case reached the ears of animal rights activists, who stood up for Cheney and helped spread her story across Canada. In response to the public backlash, Walmart insists it will add signs to parking lots alerting customers of the dangers of locking pets and children in hot cars.

But are signs enough to get the message across? At Vaughan Mills, where a dog locked in a car last summer tragically died from the heat, security guards are on patrol for locked up pets this summer. Vaughan Mills General Manager Stephen Gascoine says the death last summer instilled a proactive need by the mall to prevent another tragedy.

“We ask if the pets are going to be left in the car. If yes, we ask, what arrangements have owners made for the pet’s safety.”

Shoppers are told that if they have a small pet, the animal is allowed to accompany them in the mall. Large pets aren’t allowed inside, but mall security, rightly, will not allow customers to leave their pets locked in the car either. Unfortunate as it is, more shopping centres need these security teams as there are evidently far too many neglectful or ignorant caretakers across the country.

The heatwave is also risking the lives of children left behind in hot cars by ignorant guardians. At the end of June in Milton, a woman left her two-year old grandson in her car for what police described as “an extended period of time” during a heat alert. The boy sadly was unable to withstand the heat, and died that afternoon. The woman is now facing charges of criminal negligence causing death for a tragedy that could easily have been prevented simply by thinking clearly.

According to the Canada Safety Council, internal temperatures in a car can rise above 50 degrees in only 10 minutes on an extremely hot day. Pets and children left alone in these hot boxes for any period of time are being put in harm’s way by their neglectful guardians, people that animals and children rely on to take care of them. How does someone rightfully care for another life by abandoning them to extreme heat?

Heat and cars are simple common sense – extreme heat makes the internal temperature inside the car unbearable for anyone. If you’re going shopping during a heat alert, take the pets or the children inside with you, or leave them at home with another caretaker. If you can’t do this, don’t go shopping – missing out on one sale is worth more than losing a loved one to the sun.

Photo Credit

Photo by The Conway Animal Welfare Unit

Guest Author Bio

Gary Parkinson
A young and creative writer, Gary is a very opinionated person who is not afraid to speak his mind. He uses writing to express his thoughts, and feels attached to his work. Gary believes that an article or a post is both an expression of the writer’s beliefs, but it should also challenge the reader to develop an opinion of their own. As a result, Gary expresses his own opinion within his writing, while leaving room for readers to agree or disagree with thoughts of their own.

Gary Parkinson On Google Plus

But while the outpouring of emotional support is indeed welcomed by the victims and the disaster response teams, another conversation regarding insurance is also captivating the interests of Canadians. The discussion involves questions about the nature of home insurance, and whether the industry does a fair enough job informing homeowners of the true costs and benefits of their policies, including the limitations of home insurance.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) is fielding questions from thousands of residents in Calgary, whose homes are now devastated by the overland flooding of water from the local Elbow River and Bow River. Many of the questions are in some way related to coverage for flooding, specifically the overland flooding that originated from the rivers.

But the IBC is firm in its response that there is no coverage for overland flooding on any standard home insurance policy anywhere in Canada. The people in Calgary and the surrounding regions are not surprisingly, upset to learn that there is little their insurance companies will do to support them.

The Alberta government approved a preliminary $1 billion emergency relief fund to provide as much assistance as possible to homeowners struggling to get back on their feet. Nevertheless, citizens are proclaiming their anger, frustration, and sense of injustice at insurance companies in Calgary, across Alberta, and reaching all the way across Canada. Canadians are demanding more information about insurance, while also raising the question if insurance reform is necessary to better protect innocent homeowners from another unexpected phenomenon.

Although the occurrence wasn’t as overwhelming as the floods in Calgary, residents in northern Ontario faced widespread flooding of their own earlier this year. Fault lines in both eastern and western Canada are also becoming frequently active, which is causing an increasingly high volume of earthquakes across the country, the latest originating only a few weeks ago in northern Quebec. Each of these disasters results in damages for homeowners, who assume – wrongly it would appear – that their home insurance plans will provide financial relief in the aftermath of such occasions.

While there is no direct evidence that there is a connection to climate change, the environment is clearly becoming more unstable year over year. Yet insurance plans, and particularly home insurance policies, remain outdated to support Canadians in light of the changing environmental patterns across the country.

Should this become part of the discussion in response to the tragedy in Calgary? Canadians can educate themselves about home insurance through informative insurance comparison websites, such as LowestRates.ca. By getting informed about the true costs, benefits, and most importantly the limitations of home insurance, Canadians can ensure they get the best coverage to protect themselves in a world that is becoming more unpredictable.

The larger discussion of insurance reform begins when enough people are better informed to make compelling arguments of their own. Learn from the tragedy in Calgary, and demand fair insurance protection when disaster does strike.

Photo Credit

Image is by Jonathan Hayward of the Canadian Press

Guest Author Bio

Gary Parkinson
A young and creative writer, Gary is a very opinionated person who is not afraid to speak his mind. He uses writing to express his thoughts, and feels attached to his work. Gary believes that an article or a post is both an expression of the writer’s beliefs, but it should also challenge the reader to develop an opinion of their own. As a result, Gary expresses his own opinion within his writing, while leaving room for readers to agree or disagree with thoughts of their own.

Gary Parkinson On Google Plus

Clergyman Pat Robertson said, “Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Wow. I didn’t know that. Thanks Pat Robertson for clearing that up for us.

Rush Limbaugh said, “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

In my online travels, in addition to these moronic comments, I found words like ‘man-haters’, ‘feminazis’ (a hideous term which marries the word ‘feminine’ with Nazi-ism) and ‘radicals’ (which by definition means ‘favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions’, but which also has a distinctly negative connotation in the realm of feminism). One female blogger wrote, “feminists are trying to make us believe there is this ghastly patriarchy that is ruling the land and that women need special treatment.”

Allow me to address this comment. First, the part about ‘making us believe.’

I would argue that feminists are not ‘trying to make anyone believe anything.’ In fact, I would surmise that what feminists do is not based on a belief system at all. It’s based on fact – like the fact that we breathe oxygen or that cows exhibit behavioral expressions of excitement when they solve a problem.

Fair treatment is not the same thing as special treatment.

Elizabeth Blackwell didn’t want special treatment. She wanted to be a doctor without being hounded and mistreated (which she did, and when ousted by her male colleagues [because she was female], opened her own clinic and also, the door to other female physicians). Simone de Beauvoir, who did not ‘try’ to be anything other than what she was, said, “I wish that every human life might be pure transparent freedom.” This is the point. To be allowed to live freely, as you are, without having to live under a label.

Now for the second part: the part which insinuates that there is no ‘ghastly patriarchy that is ruling the land.’ Historical fact: men have made the rules. Women were not even considered people in Canada until 1929, and in some parts of the world, as we speak, the freedoms and safety of women are limited to whatever the male population allows. But even in places like Canada and the United States, where women are considered people, and have purportedly the same opportunities as men, we continue to be defined by ‘his story’.

Women are still not paid the same wage as a man for doing the same job. In the Military, women are considered ‘objects to be fucked.’ Check out ‘The Invisible War‘. And an obscene but telling fact is that the female obsession with enhancing appearance has less to do with personal pride and more to do with competition for male attention. Sex, and pornography in particular, largely revolves around the male gaze; the money shot.

Onward to the negative connotations attached to the word ‘Feminist’. Perhaps some people, like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry, proclaim they ‘are not feminists’ because they don’t like to be labeled. Doesn’t matter what the label (even if, in the case of feminism, I tend to think the fear of this particular label stems from a skewed vision of what feminism really is). But maybe it goes beyond misconceptions. Perhaps social conditioning, and a rampant obsession with superficiality – with fitting in as opposed to standing out – plays a crucial role in how we present and evolve socially and culturally.

The powers that be would have us believe, of course, that confronting the system regarding any injustice – be it a patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, fraternity, oligarchy or what have you – will result in some form of social pariah-ism. People who speak up about injustice are often painted as radicals; minority groups who like to complain. But why is this? Is it because it’s easier to follow, rather than lead? Easier to ‘not getting involved’? Preferable to remain part of the majority (even when it does not resonate with us) rather than becoming part of a ‘radical minority’?

In any case, despite all obstacles – labels, hate, violence, and things no one in this relatively free continent could fathom – some people, like our fore mothers – were uniquely brave and strong women who stood their ground, amid enormous social pressure, labeling and marginalized, archaic ideologies about ‘what people will think’.

In short, these women chose humanity over popularity.

In my opinion, this whole argument stems from the same source as pretty much every debate humans have: a lack of insight into what it means to exist. We have become too comfortable in the Western world, in particular: Apathetic. Taking for granted what we have and why. Everything from freedom to food.

And speaking of freedom and food, what might a problem solving, sentient cow say? ‘Stop eating me you egocentric, ignoramus! I have feelings! I want to live! Independence is happiness!” Actually, Susan B. Anthony said that. The last part anyway.

Living beings are living beings, and unless harming others, should be allowed exist freely. To me, that is what Feminism is about, and nothing more.

Photo Credits

Feminism Not A Dirty Word @ Flickr

Dirty Word @ Tales Of A Fumbling Feminist