Snapshot: Me

I've come down with a touch of writer's block. There's nothing going on in the news worth discussing...oh, I've been musing on a Paris riot column for about two weeks now, but the thoughts are too depressing to write out. My life is currently very comfortable...read, very boring. Hence my wordy-gurdy is wheezing a bit.
Luckily, there's a host of old writing, from my previous diary Past...Present...Fuschia to draw on. Paging through it, I rediscovered something I'd penned back in 1999, a recurring column called "Snapshot: Me". Rereading, I found it interesting to see how my thinking had changed on some issues and hadn't changed at all on others, in six very eventful years.

1999: "I am pro-abortion. Fetuses have no rights as they can't think for themselves. They aren't even humans, therefore legally lack human rights. (Babies can't think for themselves, either, but that's what parents are for...once they've decided to BECOME parents, of course.)"
2005: Wow, that was pretty harsh, wasn't it? I do like that I came out as 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice'. The latter is kind of ambiguous, really: not to have an abortion is also a choice, right?
You'd think, what with our failed adoption saga, I would have changed my thinking entirely on the abortion issue. I have softened somewhat: I don't particularly like the idea of abortion as contraceptive device. But I still have nothing but contempt for pro-lifers who seem to think it's better that a child be born into extreme poverty and/or domestic instability than not to be born at all. How exactly is that humane, again? As Spider Robinson notes in his masterpiece The Crazy Years: "I routinely ignore...any Pro-Life advocate who has not adopted and raised at least one unwanted child, to adulthood, and through college. No excuses for economic hardship: no excuses, period. Put up or shut up."

1999: I am pro death-penalty, but only in RARE cases. A shadow of a doubt is far too much here. Revenge? Damn straight. Spiritually juvenile of me, to be sure. But I do believe those few sick minds that derive intense pleasure from murder should be expunged.
2005: Not much change. See, I've read a whole bunch of studies that claim that punishment, no matter how harsh, is no deterrent to crime. That's as may be: but I've yet to read of a single person, convicted and given the death penalty, who has gone on to re-offend.

1999: I'm pro euthanasia. Very important, this. I see this as the benchmark of a compassionate society. If your life isn't your own, whose, exactly, is it?
2005: In memory of Terri Schiavo, I will amend this only so far as to make certain that personal wishes are well known in the matter. I myself have no interest in life once I've gone beyond being able to function at a reasonable level. In case my wife predeceases me, I'll define 'reasonable' here. If I can't form coherent thoughts and communicate them, or if I can't move, I expect to be put out of my misery. If I'm in such pain that I demand to be killed, I expect my demand to be carried out. At that point, I won't need a lecture from some uninformed twit telling me that other people have lived healthy lives in much worse pain that I could possibly be feeling. I'll need a certain plug pulled, and do me the dignity of allowing me to determine for myself just when that point comes, okay?
If you feel differently from me, that's great. You're more than entitled to whatever "life" you choose. Just don't choose mine for me.

1999: I am pro freedom of speech. And I haven't seen it yet. They still bleep out swear words on television and you can be thrown in jail if you criticize 'too harshly'. But THIS CUTS BOTH WAYS. The protests that are currently dogging Mike Harris every step of this campaign are annoying me, not because I intend to vote Tory (I do), but because they don't allow him the freedom to get his message out. I'd say the same damn thing if protests were dogging, say, a Depopulationist party advocating that one in ten people be killed off. (Actually not a bad id...oh, never mind.)
2005: I'm not sure to what degree I still agree with this. Ideally, I'm all for freedom of speech. But my idealism assumes a level of intelligence and critical thinking skill in the general population that clearly doesn't exist. When Pat Robertson says "many of the people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together", some people actually believe it. When Dalton McGuinty opens his mouth, some people are inclined to actually listen. I'm still working out how to balance people's right to say what they want with people's right to avoid dangerous bullshit. Ask me again in fifty years: this one's a doozie.

1999: I am pro gun control. Not the bureaucratese Ottawa likes, either. I say confiscate them unless they are (a) part of a collection, in which case they must be rendered PERMANENTLY inoperative; (b) used as a means of family survival, in which case proof of very low income must be supplied; (c) belonging to a licensed hunter, and the quantity of licensed hunters must be kept as low as environmentally possible; (d) property of a peace officer. Why the tough stance? Because guns are one of the very few items that serve no purpose except killing.
2005: Nothing to add.

1999: I am pro law and order. I'm really big on this. I like Singapore. They cane you for vandalism and fine you for spitting. Clean, orderly place. Maybe no freedom to, but lots of freedom from.
2005: You betcha baby.

1999: I am pro nudity. My favourite line: "If God had meant us to go around naked, we would have been born that way."
2005: I've said that line to dozens of people in the past seven years and many of them have looked at me funny and said, "uh, but we were born that way." Yes, indeed we were, and I firmly believe that the demonization of the human body is responsible for more self-esteem issues and sexual hangups than anything else.
There's this park in downtown Berlin where people go and have lunch in the altogether. Can you imagine a scene like that in downtown Toronto or Calgary? I can't. Our society is just sick. There's no other word for it. And sadly, at this point I think we're beyond help.

1999: I am pro prostitution. Strictly regulated, a la Holland. Studies have shown that rape almost disappears where whoring is legal (and to all you feminists who say that hooking is legalized rape, go to Holland and tap on the glass. Ask a sex worker there. Prostitutes CAN of course be raped, but not if THEY choose their clientele...and are respected.
2005: I think George Carlin says it best: "Selling's legal...fucking's legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Why is it illegal to sell something it's perfectly legal to give away?"

1999: I am pro gay rights. Gays are straights who prefer their own gender. There is no reason gay people shouldn't be able to marry, with all that entails...
2005: ...and now they can, and I've been to a gay wedding, and by Christ the world's still turning and the sun still comes up in the east. Whodathunkit?

1999: I am pro two-tier health care, with the strict proviso that the lower tier is at least what we have now. This is likely utopian of me, since the desire for double remuneration would likely draw doctors to the higher tier.
2005: Which is why you regulate. Either doctors must spend a number of years in the public system before they can go private, or you place a cap on private physician salaries. Something's got to be done, anyway, because our public system is not going to last much longer.

1999: I am AGAINST the socialist tradition that says, in essence, 'throw enough money at a problem and it will go away'.
2005: Witness: Africa; our health care system; Native Canadians; Toronto's homeless. The problems in and with each have been grappled with for years, in some cases decades...by throwing money at them. It's never enough; it never CAN be enough.

1999: I am AGAINST (in the sense of being very upset by) certain all-pervasive aspects of society like media. Used properly, the media is a boon to culture. Abused, it destroys culture, intelligence, and the ethic of personal responsibility.
2005: What the hell was that about?
I'm honestly not sure what I was writing there, or how I got on that train of thought, or where that train was going. I think I was trying to take a backhanded swipe at the culture of celebrity that enslaves much of the media, though I'm not at all sure where the 'ethic of personal responsibility' came into it.

1999: I am against multiculturism as official government policy. Culture should be supported by private interests: it's not government's place.
2005: Before you hasten to call me a racist bigot and kick me out of our multicultural mosaic of a country, let me hasten to say that WASP culture...if there can be said to be such a thing...is no more deserving of government funding than any other. I think it's for individuals to decide which festivals they attend and what shows they watch on television. I also believe that religious instruction belongs in one place and one place only: the church, or whatever analogue of a church a particular religion has. It most certainly does not belong in a school, much less one that is funded by everybody's tax dollars.

And that's how I feel about that.