Blurring the Lines: Can Professionalism and Activism Coexist?

 

The world is a complex tapestry woven with diverse threads - professionalism and activism being two of its most prominent. While both are crucial for a thriving society, their distinct roles often spark debate. Should their paths ever cross, or should they remain on opposite sides of an unyielding line?

The traditional stance paints them as incompatible. Professionalism, with its emphasis on objectivity, neutrality, and adherence to established codes, thrives on distancing itself from the passionate, often subjective nature of activism. This separation, it's argued, safeguards the integrity and trust associated with various professions.

However, the tide is shifting. The lines are blurring. We see passionate advocates appointed to professional positions, and established professionals taking up the mantle of activism. This raises critical questions: does their coexistence weaken or strengthen society?

There are undeniable risks. Unchecked activism within professional spheres can lead to biases, conflicts of interest, and the erosion of public trust.  For example, a journalist who is also an activist may lose their objectivity and credibility, as they may favor certain sources, angles, or narratives that align with their agenda. A judge who is also an activist may violate their oath and the rule of law, as they may rule based on their personal beliefs, rather than the facts and the law. A doctor who is also an activist may endanger their patients' health and safety, as they may prescribe or hold treatments based on their ideology, rather than the best medical evidence. A teacher who is also an activist...you get the point.

Yet, dismissing the potential benefits would be shortsighted. Activism, when channeled constructively, can inject fresh perspectives and ethical considerations into professional domains. A scientist driven by environmental concerns might pioneer sustainable technologies, or a lawyer driven by social justice might fight for marginalized communities. Such examples showcase the transformative potential of merging passion with expertise.

The key lies in finding a delicate balance. Professionals engaging in activism must do so with utmost transparency, ensuring their professional objectivity remains uncompromised. Activism should not dictate professional conduct, but rather inform it, pushing boundaries ethically and responsibly.

Similarly, activists appointed to professional roles must acknowledge the inherent responsibilities and limitations. They should strive for impartiality while leveraging their unique understanding of the issues at hand.

Ultimately, the answer isn't a rigid line, but a dynamic bridge built on mutual respect and understanding. Professionals can leverage their expertise to inform activism, while activists can bring fresh perspectives to professional domains. Collaboration, not segregation, is the key to unlocking the true potential of this intertwined landscape.

Remember, the world is not a black and white tapestry. The vibrant shades of professionalism and activism can, when woven together with care, create a richer, more just, and equitable society for all. Let us not shy away from the complexities, but embrace the possibilities that lie in navigating the bridge between these two vital forces.

The Unintended Consequences of Glorifying Victimhood

 

n

In recent years, there has been a notable shift in the way society perceives and portrays victimhood. While the intention may be to promote empathy, understanding, and support for those who have experienced hardships, it's becoming increasingly clear that we live in a world that often glorifies victimhood, and this trend warrants careful examination. Heck, in today's world, it has become hard to investigate the veracity of victim claims without being accused of victim-shaming. If someone accuses another of rape, everyone is expected to believe the report without asking questions. If it turns out to be a fabricated claim, oh well…. 

There is no denying that raising awareness about social injustices, discrimination, and inequality is essential for progress. Many movements have successfully shed light on important issues, prompting conversations that drive positive change. However, the glorification of victimhood has its pitfalls, which should not be ignored. If this is not checked, it will destroy the fabrics of society as we know it because everyone will find something to be a victim of. 

The glorification of victimhood can inadvertently discourage personal responsibility. When individuals are continually portrayed as helpless victims, it can create a mindset that external forces are solely responsible for their circumstances. This can be disempowering, as it may lead people to overlook their own agency and potential to effect change. There are many examples where this is happening. In America, many blacks simply blame society and white people for their plight. Some go as far as justifying shoplifting. Hmmmm! 

The media and social platforms play a significant role in perpetuating this trend. Stories of victimhood tend to garner more attention, clicks, and shares, leading to a cycle where media outlets are incentivized to highlight such stories. This focus on victim narratives can distort our perception of reality, making it seem as though victimhood is more prevalent than it actually is.

Glorifying victimhood can create a culture of victim competition, where individuals and groups vie for the title of the "ultimate victim." This competition can foster divisiveness rather than unity, as it pits different groups against one another, each vying for recognition of their suffering.

It's important to clarify that recognizing and empathizing with victims is crucial, but we must also encourage a balanced perspective. Empathy should not equate to perpetuating a sense of perpetual victimhood. Instead, we should promote resilience, self-empowerment, and collective efforts to address the root causes of the issues at hand.

We need to be cautious about the unintended consequences of glorifying victimhood. While it's essential to support those who have faced adversity, we must strike a balance that acknowledges personal agency and responsibility, avoids sensationalizing victim narratives, and fosters unity rather than competition among different groups. Only through a more nuanced approach can we create a world where empathy and empowerment coexist.

Intimacy, Faith, and Connection: Exploring the Role of Sex Toys in Christian Marriages

I was MC at an event organized by a church for couples. The guest teacher was a pastor and after his presentation, questions were allowed. Of all the questions that were asked, sex toys featured the most hence the inspiration to write this. 

In a constantly evolving world, we are seeing that conversations around intimacy and sexuality within Christian marriages are also evolving with many Christian couples having lots of questions and curiosities, especially around sex toys. The use of sex toys in the context of Christian relationships has sparked considerable debate. Some argue that they are a helpful tool for enhancing marital intimacy, while others, being certain to mention that sex toys aren't biblical, express concerns that they might replace the role of a spouse in the bedroom. In this article, we will delve into the complex topic of sex toys in Christian marriages, examining the arguments both for and against their use and ultimately seeking a balanced perspective that respects personal choices within the context of religious faith.

The Foundation of Christian Marriage

Biblical Perspective

Christian marriages are traditionally built upon a strong foundation of faith, love, and commitment. The Bible offers guidance on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of sexual intimacy within it. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, the Apostle Paul writes, "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." This passage emphasizes mutual consent and the importance of fulfilling each other's sexual needs within marriage.

Emotional and Spiritual Connection

Christian marriages often emphasize the emotional and spiritual connection between spouses as essential components of a healthy relationship. Many Christians, for good reason, believe that God is present in their marriage, guiding their actions and decisions, including those related to intimacy. The presence of sex toys might threaten the foundation of some Christian marriages because they may see such toys as sin. 

 Arguments for the Use of Sex Toys

1. Enhancing Intimacy

The arguments in favour of sex toys say that they can enhance intimacy within a Christian marriage in the sense that they can add variety and excitement to a couple's sex life, encouraging exploration and communication about desires and preferences. For some couples, there are physical limitations like premature ejaculation. For some, it could be medical issues that impact sexual performance. In these cases, sex toys can help bridge the gap to ensure both partners enjoy a fulfilling intimate life. To a great extent, the use of sex toys can reduce performance pressure thereby boosting confidence and intimacy. 

 2. Promoting Open Communication

The use of sex toys can encourage open and honest communication between spouses about their desires and needs. Many argue that such communication is vital for maintaining a healthy and vibrant sexual relationship.

3. Strengthening Marital Bonds

Proponents contend that the use of sex toys, when approached with respect and consent, can strengthen marital bonds. They view these tools as aids in bringing spouses closer together and deepening their connection.

Concerns About Sex Toys in Christian Marriages

1. Fear of Replacement

One of the primary concerns about sex toys in Christian marriages is the fear that they might replace the role of a spouse in the bedroom. When used irresponsibly, this is quite possible. In fact, this is the greatest fear many have with sex toys. Some argue that the use of sex toys may lead to a diminished reliance on the emotional and spiritual connection between spouses whilst creating a dependence on the pleasures the toys provide. 

2. Moral and Religious Objections

Many Christians hold strong moral and religious objections to the use of sex toys, believing that they may be inconsistent with biblical teachings. These objections often center on concerns about lust, selfishness, things considered as vices in Christianity, and the potential for harm to the sanctity of marriage. 

3. Differing Views Within the Faith

Christianity is a diverse faith, and views on issues like sex toys within marriage can vary widely. Different denominations, communities, and individual couples may have varying interpretations of Christian teachings and beliefs.

Finding a Balanced Perspective

The use of sex toys within a Christian marriage is a deeply personal journey. The pastor who spoke at the event I mentioned earlier stated this clearly. Rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach, it is essential for couples to consider their own unique circumstances and beliefs. Here are some considerations for finding a balanced perspective:

1. Communication and Consent

Open and honest communication between spouses is paramount. Both partners should consent to the use of sex toys and feel comfortable discussing their desires and boundaries. Only after this has happened can sex toys be brought in. 

2. Respect for Biblical Teachings

For couples who seek to align their sexual practices with their faith, it is important to engage in thoughtful discussions about how their choices align with biblical teachings. Seeking guidance from trusted religious leaders or counselors can be helpful. I admit that some of these leaders may not even know much about this topic but it's always good to seek guidance from them in the belief that they will seek to learn what they don't know and get back with some advice. 

3. Understanding Each Other's Perspectives

It is crucial for couples to respect each other's perspectives and beliefs. This includes acknowledging differing views within the Christian faith and striving to find common ground that promotes a loving and fulfilling marital relationship. In my opinion, if a partner has to attend a couples event to ask an anonymous question about the use of sex toys, there's already a problem. 

4. Focus on Connection

Ultimately, the goal of Christian marriage is to foster a deep emotional, spiritual, and physical connection between spouses. Whether sex toys are incorporated or not, the focus should always be on strengthening that connection and maintaining the sanctity of the marriage bond. Once this is achieved, it becomes a lot easier to have the conversation on sex toys. 

Conclusion

Seeing that sex toys have a considerable degree of attachment to pornography, the debate over the use of sex toys in Christian marriages is a complex and sensitive issue. It raises questions about faith, intimacy, and personal choices within the context of a Christian relationship. While some argue that sex toys can enhance intimacy and communication, others express concerns about their potential to replace the role of a spouse or contradict biblical teachings. These are all valid. 

Ultimately, the decision to use sex toys within a Christian marriage should be made by the couple themselves, with open communication, mutual consent, and respect for their faith and beliefs. It is a journey of personal discovery, where couples must navigate the unique dynamics of their relationship, guided by their commitment to love, trust, and faith within the sacred bond of marriage.

The Imperative of Immigrant Assimilation in Western Societies: Navigating the Pitfalls of Non-Integration

In an era defined by increased global mobility and migration, the question of immigrant assimilation into Western societies is of paramount importance. The successful integration of newcomers into the cultural, economic, and social fabric of host nations has been a hallmark of Western societies for centuries. However, as demographics shift and multiculturalism evolves, it becomes crucial to examine the significance of assimilation and the potential consequences of non-integration. In this article, we explore the reasons why immigrant assimilation matters and delve into the potential pitfalls that may arise if it doesn't occur.

The Importance of Immigrant Assimilation

FOSTERING SOCIAL COHESION 

Immigrant assimilation plays a central role in building social cohesion within Western societies. When newcomers adopt the values, norms, and cultural practices of their host nation, it promotes a sense of belonging and unity among diverse populations. Social cohesion contributes to stability and reduces the risk of intergroup tensions or conflicts.

a. Shared Values: Assimilation encourages immigrants to embrace the core values of their host society, such as democracy, individual rights, and the rule of law, which are often the foundation of Western democracies.

b. Inclusivity: When immigrants fully participate in their host society, it sends a message of inclusivity and acceptance, reinforcing the idea that diversity is a strength rather than a source of division.

c. Trust and Cooperation: Assimilation fosters trust among different communities, making it easier for people from various backgrounds to collaborate, engage in civic life, and address common challenges.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS 

Immigrant assimilation is closely linked to economic prosperity, benefiting both the newcomers and the host society:

a. Labor Force Participation: Assimilated immigrants are more likely to join the workforce, contribute to economic growth, and offset the challenges of an aging population. Nigerians in Canada and USA are excelling at this. 

b. Entrepreneurship: Assimilated immigrants often start businesses, create jobs, and drive innovation, enriching the economic landscape.

c. Social Mobility: When immigrants successfully integrate into Western societies, they and their children have greater opportunities for upward social mobility and a higher quality of life.

CULTURAL EXCHANGE 

Immigrant assimilation does not mean abandoning one's cultural heritage; rather, it involves adapting and enriching one's identity through cultural exchange:

a. Enriched Culture: Assimilated immigrants bring their unique perspectives, traditions, and cuisines, enriching the cultural mosaic of the host society. Heritage festival in Edmonton is a fantastic example of this. 

b. Global Perspective: Western societies benefit from a global outlook as immigrants often maintain connections with their countries of origin, fostering international ties and understanding.

THE PITFALLS OF NON-INTEGRATION 

While the advantages of immigrant assimilation are clear, the consequences of non-integration or segregation can be profound and detrimental to Western societies.

SOCIAL FRAGMENTATION 

Non-integration can lead to social fragmentation, where distinct communities live parallel lives, seldom interacting or sharing common experiences:

a. Cultural Isolation: Immigrant communities that remain isolated may experience cultural alienation, which can lead to feelings of exclusion and disconnection.

b. Limited Social Mobility: A lack of assimilation can hinder economic and educational opportunities for immigrant populations, perpetuating cycles of poverty. When you interact with only members of your social group be it family, culture, nationality, religion etc, you are limited by the limitations of those groups. 

c. Reduced Social Trust: Segregated communities can lead to mistrust and misunderstanding between different groups, which can have long-lasting negative effects on social cohesion.

ETHNIC ENCLAVES 

As mentioned briefly before, the formation of ethnic enclaves, where immigrants predominantly interact with members of their own cultural group, can be problematic in the following ways

a. Economic Disparities: Enclaves may have limited access to resources and opportunities, resulting in economic disparities and unequal access to services.

b. Identity and Radicalization: Isolation can make individuals vulnerable to extremist ideologies and radicalization, posing a security risk.

c. Language Barriers: Enclaves can hinder language acquisition and fluency, making it challenging for individuals to participate fully in the host society.

INTEGRATION CHALLENGES 

Non-integration can lead to a range of challenges that affect not only immigrants but also host societies:

a. Education Gaps: Non-assimilated immigrant children may face educational disadvantages, affecting their long-term prospects. The most prominent challenge here would be learning the language of the host nation, which in many cases, is English. 

b. Healthcare Disparities: Limited access to healthcare and social services can lead to health disparities among non-assimilated immigrant communities.

c. Civic Participation: A lack of assimilation can result in reduced civic engagement, depriving host societies of diverse voices in political decision-making.

THE ROLE OF POLICIES AND SOCIETY 

Assimilation is a dynamic process that requires both proactive policies and societal efforts. Governments and civil society organizations play a vital role in facilitating integration.

COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATION POLICIES 

Governments can promote assimilation through policies that:

a. Support Language Acquisition: Providing language classes and resources can help immigrants become proficient in the host nation's language.

b. Job Training and Education: Offering training and educational opportunities can enhance immigrants' employability and social mobility.

c. Anti-Discrimination Measures: Enforcing anti-discrimination laws can protect immigrants from bias and prejudice, promoting social inclusion.

SOCIAL PROGRAMS 

Civil society organizations, including NGOs and community groups, can provide valuable support:

a. Cultural Exchange: Organizing cultural events, festivals, and programs that encourage interaction can foster cross-cultural understanding.

b. Mentorship and Support: Providing mentorship and support networks can assist immigrants in navigating the challenges of integration.

c. Legal Assistance: Offering legal assistance can help immigrants access their rights and protections in the host society.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ATTITUDES 

Changing public attitudes and dispelling stereotypes is essential for successful assimilation:

a. Education and Awareness: Public education campaigns can promote understanding and empathy, challenging misconceptions about immigrants.

b. Media Representation: Encouraging diverse and accurate representation of immigrants in the media can combat negative stereotypes.

c. Community Engagement: Encouraging community engagement and dialogue between different groups can break down barriers and build trust.

Notice that in all the above, the responsibility for assimilation is laid squarely at the feet of the host whilst the immigrant is not saddled with any. What would happen to an immigrant who, after getting all the services stated above, refuses or fails to integrate? We are seeing that happen in western societies today. Some of the immigrants have even started demanding the change of laws in western societies to mirror the societies they migrated from. Topic for another day. 

The assimilation of immigrants into Western societies is not only a hallmark of these nations but also a critical factor in their continued success and resilience. The benefits of social cohesion, economic prosperity, and cultural exchange are too significant to ignore. On the other hand, the pitfalls of non-integration, including social fragmentation, ethnic enclaves, and integration challenges, can have far-reaching negative consequences.

As Western societies continue to evolve and diversify, the imperative of immigrant assimilation remains undiminished. It is a shared responsibility that requires proactive efforts from governments, civil society, and the public. By fostering a welcoming environment, providing opportunities, and promoting cultural exchange, Western nations can ensure that immigration continues to enrich their societies, bolster their economies, and uphold the values that define them. In embracing diversity and encouraging assimilation, they can chart a path toward a more inclusive and prosperous future.

THE PRINCIPLE OF HYPOCRISY

Amy Coney Barrett was born January 28, 1972 and, popularly known as ACB, is an American lawyer, jurist, and former academic who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. On October 26 2020, Barrett was sworn in as the 115th Supreme Court justice in a ceremony at the White House. She gave a quick speech, promising to carry out her duties independent from the presidency, congress and her own private beliefs. 

Her confirmation and speech let loose a flood of opinions which left me flabbergasted as an independent mind. The American Democrats, who seem to hold the torch for liberal and leftist opinions, vowed that there will be regrets for the Republican majority senate confirmation of ACB. Popular democrats used their Twitter handles to express their displeasure with the confirmation and started tweeting, "Expand the court". I honestly do not understand what that means. That's beside the point though. The democrats have a valid reason for their outrage. 

Back in 2016, just hours after Antonin Gregory Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, said he would consider any appointment to the Supreme Court by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year. Senate Democrats criticized the move as being unprecedented, and responded saying that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election. Fast forward to 2020 and we have seen ACB receive  the quickest appointment and confirmation of a Supreme court Judge ever. It took just 4 weeks to confirm her. 

The question now is this. Why did the Republican Senate do quickly in 2020 what they said should wait for an election in 2016 and why are the Democrats condemning in 2020 what they said was good to be done in 2016? It is not just this but also the passion with which these recent positions are being pushed and defended. Our politicians and the supposed platforms they stand on seem to lack all kinds of principles except that of hypocrisy. There is not very much they do to align with the principles they espouse. Clearly, it is their prevailing interest that guides their decisions and not principles. Who knew that? So here we sit at the end of Trump’s initial presidency wondering who will take it from here, and think will democrats hold Biden to the same standards as Trump?  And when the answer is that Trump was held to low standards, is that not just a deflection onto Trump and away from the real answer? The constant seems to be hypocrisy from both sides.

Let us move away from politics. The world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who would make up 60 percent of the planet’s population, reveals a report from Oxfam in January 2020. This development has caused outrage all over the world with many calling for the billionaires to surrender their wealth so it can be shared equitably amongst everyone. It doesn't stop there. There have also been calls to put in place measures to ensure no one gets obscenely rich by using taxes. Perhaps we need to read up on socialism and its ills then compare with its good side and see which path to follow. Instead of saying share the wealth we can advocate for investing some portion of profit into creating safe work environments where people don't have to do repetitive tasks or work alongside robots at breakneck speed. 

What I find interesting, in the face of calls to cancel billionaires, is the total lack of attention, deliberate or not, that social media companies are getting. Google, Facebook and Twitter have the power to control what people see and consume. The people who are calling for the wealth of billionaires to be surrendered and shared seem quiet as these 3 companies accumulate so much power over the information we consume. 

In an editorial by the New York post on 28 October 2020, the Editorial board stated, "Center-stage: Twitter’s strong-arm tactics to censor The Post ever since we began reporting on Hunter Biden’s emails. First, it froze our account and banned our stories; then, amid a public backlash, it agreed to unfreeze us — but only if we deleted our original tweets." Forget about the name mentioned there and think about the fact that a lot of smaller media organizations have been forced to delete their tweets and they didn't have the nerve to speak out, or those who have been shadow banned and have no idea. Any organization that has the power to censor media organizations in this manner is a mind control monster in the making. This monster is growing before our eyes as we continuously use it to vilify billionaires in our demand that their wealth be shared. For some reason, it is the same set of people who insist billionaires share their wealth that support these social media organizations. There is nothing wrong with ideological opinions but when our opinions are based on whether we are in the same camp or not then it's more of a lack of principle than just having an opinion. 

In another example of how much power social media platforms wield today, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf sent a scathing letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Friday October 30 2020 over its recent suspension of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan. Morgan's account was suspended after he posted a tweet touting the success of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Twitter said the particular tweet violates its 'hateful conduct' policy. The tweet in question stated that the border wall helps stop “gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs” from entering the United States. Chad Wolf stated in his letter that the content of the tweet was backed by facts. "It is hard to understand how anyone believed Mr. Morgan’s tweet promoted violence, threats or harassment. Especially considering that the facts about the border wall system support the tweet", the letter stated. Twitter has lifted the suspension. I hate to say it but the above examples point to a sad reality that Twitter seems to have a political bias. Is it proper for that platform to censor tweets that state facts? It may suit you today and you like it but what if they start censoring you and bolstering things you don't like tomorrow? Then will the same thing you’re telling people to get over become an important issue? What bothers me is the claim of transparency these platforms make publicly while their actions betray their claims. Hypocrisy.

The CEOs of Facebook and Twitter were asked at a senate hearing to mention one account belonging to a liberal that they have censored for any type of default. They struggled. Accounts with conservative views have been censored by both platforms. Anyone who violates rules should be punished but in the spirit of fairness I struggle to understand the lack of outrage for the inability of those two powerful men to mention accounts with liberal views that have been censored. This is in spite of some infractions. Now this is not a liberal vs conservative argument but one that highlights the threat free speech is under because of difference in political opinion. Censor those who do not agree with your political ideology and ignore those who do. No one should have this kind of power, if billionaires cannot make more money. Right? 

The world we live in has changed so much. Feelings matter so much now that tolerance is the topic all day. In spite of all the talk about tolerance I have noticed that we are less tolerant of others today than we were 10 years ago. The difference is that 10 years ago we were not talking about tolerance as much as we talk about it today. In a time when opinion is encouraged it seems we have lost our ability to have differences of opinion in a civil manner. On the various social media platforms you can see how conversations dovetail into curse fights and insults to the point people even forget why they started the conversation. It is very common to find people fighting hate with more hate and hope that they win without realizing that it is actually more hate that won. Hate is still there. The bare faced hypocrisy is baffling. People get profiled based on political affiliation, sexual orientation, economic class, skin color, religious belief etc. The gospel is almost like if you are on my side then you are correct and if you are not you are wrong. It does not matter what you did or said, but as long as we share the same platform you are correct and the feelings and opinions of those on the other side don't count. We find ingenious ways to defend our own and make sure they aren't held accountable then we turn around to say society is bad because those on the other side are bad. In that mode we forget to look at the mirror and see the image of the society we condemn. The billionaires are not the reason you are not one. You are. Life is full of choices and you will end up where your choices take you. It’s no one else’s business where you end up. Be it on the top or the bottom. 

The hypocrisy stinks but lets blame Covid-19 for losing our sense of smell.

PICK YOUR BATTLES WISELY

In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object. It has also been defined as the capacity to do work. Battles require energy. Energy is expensive and should not be wasted. It should be applied strategically to obtain the maximum possible benefits from its deployment. Cost and benefit. 

I watched a video of a dummy cock carved out of wood and planted into the ground with a spring base. The spring base made sure the dummy would come back up after being pushed. Cocks are very territorial. A real cock saw this dummy and felt his territory was under threat so a fight started. He kicked and pecked this dummy but no matter how hard he kicked and pecked, the dummy always came back up. Eventually the cock got tired and left. I admit that a cock may not have a brain developed enough to have seen he was fighting a dummy but humans, with all our brain capacity, sometimes behave like that. We pick the wrong battles and waste energy fighting them such that when the right battle we really need to fight comes along we have nothing left to fight with. Pick your battles wisely. 

Boxing is a brutal sport. It is one where fighters have to be very smart about the opponents they fight. Boxers while trying to rise in the sport fight anyone available but once they become champions they become intentional with picking their opponents. They fight those who they are sure they will beat and retain their title and try as much as possible to avoid those who will be difficult or impossible to beat. James J. Jeffries refused to face Johnson, the Gavelstone giant, and retired instead. It was in the 1900's and racism was prevalent, Jeffries retired, claiming not to want to fight a black man, and deep down knew Johnson would beat him. He came back from retirement to fight Johnson and was beaten. It was his only loss in his career. He said after the fight, "I could never have whipped Johnson at my best. I couldn't have hit him. No, I couldn't have reached him in 1,000 years." He picked his battles wisely. Deontay Wilder is another boxer who is good but not very highly rated because he hasn't fought worthy opponents. His defeat by Tyson Fury hasn't helped change that opinion. 

As at the time of writing this over 157,000 Americans have been killed by Covid-19. That's a lot of dead people in about 6 months or less. It's a catastrophe. You would think Americans would be worried. I don't think so. They are more worried about who wins the November 2020 elections. The Democrats are fighting hard to oust Trump. The Republicans are working hard to retain power. All hell has been let loose in the American political space. Common sense is dead. Coronavirus has become a political tool deployed as a game changer in the elections. While supporters on both sides are busy fighting themselves, more people are dying and more getting infected. Are Americans picking their battles wisely? 

Speaking of that, I am starting to find partisan politics unattractive to the point I loathe it. Why? I find that the only thing supporters of politicians and political parties do is support their representatives and never hold them accountable. I prefer a system where supporters hold their politicians accountable and make sure they behave better with public trust and funds. That, in my honest opinion, is a better use of energy. Why waste energy defending the nonsense our politicians do all in the name of support? Is that not why they will never do better because there's an army ready to deploy energy to defend them? When we do this are we picking our battles wisely? Defending politicians is a never ending battle that is on repeat. That takes energy. Holding politicians accountable takes energy too. I will leave you to decide which method yields better results. 

A man and woman fall in love and decide to get married. They are happy. Along the way the woman finds out her husband is cheating. She doesn't confront him. She finds the woman the husband is entangled with and goes to fight her. Why? That's a total waste of energy. The fight you want is with the man you have at home. He is the one you made a vow with. The woman outside may not know he's married and even if she knows she has no obligation to respect his vows he chose to disrespect so why fight her? This woman will be picking her battles wisely if she confronts her husband and seeks explanation. 

As a kid I picked my battles wisely. If an adult gets hold of my ball because it hit their car I couldn't fight them. They'd beat me silly. I found my own ways to get back at them. I remember breaking broomsticks in the keyhole of a car. A locksmith was called to change the car lock. Why did I do this? The owner of the car took my football. If I didn't do that I would have found her child that I could beat, beat him or her up, and tell them to go tell their mom that as long as she held on to my ball they'd get beat. As a parent would you hold on to the ball? I laugh now writing this but it was a terrible thing. It worked. 

We are faced with very many battles in life. Some are necessary to fight while others are just distractions. Ignore those ones and save energy for the fights that are consequential. That's how you win in life. Pick your battles wisely and stay undefeated. 

COMMON SENSE IS IN THE MIDDLE. NOT LEFT, NOT RIGHT.

PART 2

Have you followed the WE Charity scandal in Canada? Wait. Safety first. I need to put on my helmet. Where is it? Done! Let the batons fly. It's pretty much obvious to sensible people what happened in the WE Charity imbroglio. WE Charity was paying the Prime Ministers' mom and brother to speak and the government, headed by the PM, doled out a contract of over $500m to the charity without the PM or his finance minister (he has benefited from WE Charity) recusing themselves. The PM and the Finance minister have both apologised. Do you need an ethics commissioner to tell you what happened? Find the story and read. Common sense is in the middle. It's not left or right. Seeing the debate between Liberals and Conservatives makes me laugh. One person blocked me on Twitter when I asked her what the PM's mother had done to command a speaking fee of $250,000. She could have just answered the simple question. You see why I need my helmet? 

Five ants plus five ants is ten ants. Right? Remove the space between ten and ants. What do you have? Tenants. A whole different meaning. That's exactly what happens when common sense is removed from the middle. To make my next point I need to fasten my helmet. 

The Government of Canada is responsible for the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), which provides support to Government-Assisted Refugees. This includes: security and medical screening, settlement assistance upon arrival, immediate short-term housing, counselling and cultural orientation, information and referral to community services, translation and interpretation, language training, job-related services and so on. This is very noble. I am not in support or against the RAP. I am just wondering why this program exists when there are Canadians who are homeless, can't find work, sick and on a wait-list for surgeries. There are veterans amongst them. My common sense tells me to take care of my own kids first before my neighbours kids. I have a colleague who came to Canada more than 30 years ago on humanitarian grounds. His dad was told that if he doesn't find a job in 3 months he would be made to pay the cost of the things the government did for him. Three months later, the man was working. Does that still apply today or do we have people living in low income houses with no willingness to work? You can bring down the batons now. My helmet is firmly in place.

With my helmet in position, does it make sense for Canadians to be working two jobs to pay taxes and get by so that the government can have money to subsidize cost of living for refugees? Let the stones start flying. Moving on.. 

Depending on what political ground you stand, you will have certain views on abortion. I am not for or against abortion but I keep wondering why we promote abortion a lot more than sex education. It is unprotected sex that leads to pregnancy. I think it's important to make young people understand that unprotected sex has serious consequences like pregnancy. Would this approach not reduce the dire need for abortions? 

Immigration is another issue. Liberals want one thing. Conservatives want another. What to call immigrants is still up for debate. For some reason the people who say countries shouldn't have borders somehow have walls and doors and windows in their homes. They make sure they lock their doors when they go out. I would scratch my head but my helmet. 

We want to reverse climate change but we are still building bigger houses with basements. Bigger houses mean more gas to heat, more wood, cement, plastic. If we want to reduce climate change would it not be better to ask why a man needs a 3 bedroom house when he lives by himself? Get a room. 

Political correctness has taken over common sense. We just can't seem to agree on simple things anymore. That middle ground that separates ten and ants is totally gone. It will get worse. We are just at the beginning of a very slippery slope. Come with me as we attend the funeral of common sense. It lived well while it did.