living MY life

I think this one talks for itself...the database or something similar sounds like it went up in the 80's. Homosexuality was taken of the list of psychiatric disorders in the DSM in the early 73. And to list it next to bestiality and pedeophillia...its upsetting to still come across this junk...although at least the government is reacting quickly. The full article is linked with the title. At least the BC government is willing to deal with it quickly and not argue about it....they might want to review their codes to see if there are other problems i would think

B.C. listing calls homosexuality 'mental disorder'
Last Updated Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:45:59 EST
CBC News

There are two entries today because i made one yesterday...but accidentally only saved it as draft! I'm still on the learning curve here.

Its been two weeks since i quit smoking...i've only slipped up twice and i think its going to be quit for good. Not that its great to slip but i know i slipped much more frequently before when i quit.

I have a little counter that keeps track of how many cigarettes i've skipped and such. I found it a real motivator that last time...it runs on the bottom task of my computer with how long since i quit...if you click on it, it will tell you how many cigarettes you've skipped and how much money you have saved. The money saved is partly theoreticaly because i'm spending money on quitting still...at this point its better described as "money not spend on cigarettes". However it is nice and encourging to look at now and again. If i bring it up it has calculated that as of now i've skipped 522 cigarettes and not spend $65 on cigarettes.

i was talking with a health nurse the other day and she said it was likely my medication levels would change because i quit. Only one of them can be reliably checked by blood levels (maybe one or two more...not most of what i'm taking). I'm seeing my doctor tomorrow and i called in today with a message asking if she could look into it. Its funny how the health nurse was like "oh no problem if you see your shrink weekly". A lot of folks seem to assume all shrinks are gods and do everything. I know my doctor isn't likely to change my medication levels except maybe the two we are fidling with (at least because of me quitting) because i've been with her for a while and i've quit twice before...once for six months. And there was no change in my meds.

My temper is definetley lighting up easier (i have quite a temper once you get it started). I actually yelled and hit the desk in frustration when i saw a change made on a page in the Wikipedia that i keep an eye on. Someone had changed a section on the law about abortion in the US to something the opposite of what had been on the page previously (which has gone through rewordings...but has always been similar or being more developed). Idiots like this annoy me...and i see her on other pages coming up with "facts". If someone says they know and have looked something up i usually take them at their word. I'm wondering now how much i'll want to/decide to cross check on the work this person has done. Because their corrrection concerning "common fallicies on abortion law in the US" was totally incorrect LEGALLY. AS IN SUPREME COURT CASES. Its true that to some extent what has happened is similar in some states to what she is desciribing but she is 1.describing it as law 2. and erasing the part that talks of the law. She says all of us discussing the actual law are wrong.

So i reverted, explained the facts were wrong and started a section on the discussion page as to why...with links to the Roe. Vs. Wade page, and a discussion of current laws and such. I imagine when i go on tomorrow it will have changed back in all likelyhood. At that point i may have to go into reading the Planned Parenthood case, because i know for a fact that i'm right based on Wade. And i'm pretty sure i'm right about the rest...its about whether the government can write law about abortion in the US andsince Bush passed legislation on third term abortions it appears he can pass law. Its been thrown out in 3 state supreme courts at the moment...which leaves it law in all the others!

You know opinion or vague opinon like stuff that is likely incorrect i sit and discuss and such. It can be annoying as hell. But its a hell of a lot more annoying to have a pushy person (i'm saying this based on dealing with her past edits and looking at what she says in discussion) put facts up wrong. As in easily verifiable facts. It annoys the hell out of me.

I mean for gods sake if she's interested and she thinks its such a misconception...why not go and read the case! If she does she'll see that she's wrong...maybe the reason she isn't.

Still the amount of temper has got to be related to quitting smoking at the very least. It usually takes quite a while of dealing with that type of thing to get that annoyed....even when the errors are blatant.

And the ridiculous thing in some ways seems to be (to me) that i'm not American and i'm pretty sure she is, based on discussion i've seen and where i haven't seen here (ie she's not talking on any of the other country pages that i keep an eye on which is enough i would have seen her...as i said i do see her on other similar pages). And i'm CANADIAN. It just goes to show you how much of your law we end up studying in order to understand how it has effected our own.

The reason i'm sure she is wrong in this case is because i studied the case for a course i took at the third year university level (ok i'll grant you not everyone in Canada is going to do that...but a lot of Canadians know about the Canadian case that haven't studied it in school...or at a lower level. We studied the Roe case in detail because it came much earlier than the Morgantaler case in Canada (which decriminilazied abortion---it could have been recriminalized and the government tried once, but its not politically possible anymore...it would be suicide politically). Our decision came much later than yours...1988. But it was based on a different legal history. It had to do with our Charter of Rights and was a stronger ruling than the Roe one was in many ways. Because the Roe case was decided in a wierd privacy way and the decision based things on viability of the foetus and split it up by trimesters (as to when the government could be involved). We studied the problems that this created for the law...including fights over how the decision was to be interpreted when the viability of the fetus became earlier and earlier.

Our ruling had more to do with the right for women to make their own medical decisions and their autonomy...thus there is little to do in it about viability of the fetus. The fact that a woman if forced to carry a fetus is forced to continue a pregancy she doesn't want---and you can't seperate the pregancy from the woman. As i said different legal basis. And the court didrule that there might be some limits that the government could place but that didn't happen. Because of a tie vote at the Senate believe it or not (a tie vote means that a piece of legislation is not passed) And it also had to do with procedure on the way to get a legal abortion under the criminal code (there was an execption to the criminal code made in certain circumstances in the very early seventies...possibly late 60's [unfortunately or fortunately i don't remember everything i've read on a topic exactly...]...decision to allow some exceptions was in the late 60's but passing laws takes time. If the new law had passed the whole shebang would have started up again...in a lot of ways the new law they were trying to pass was more restrictive than before.)

But as i said it doesn't look like there will ever be a law. The majority of Canadians don't want a law and the parties are aware nobody will support it. And also some of the other precedent makes it look hard to create a law (it has been ruled for an example that a fetus is not considered seperately alive from its mother until it has been born and breathed).

Now this doesn't mean there still isn't debate. I know Quebec right now is looking for a doctor to do third term abortions because none in the province will on moral grounds unless there are genetic or huge health problems for the mother. I haven't checked other provinces...but they are usually the most liberal so its likely nobody in Canada is doing them. But that is a different thing from law.

Hopefully she'll back off with the link from the Roe case on the Wiki...that article has just been given a "featured status" which isn't common and means its considered very good.

And hopefully my annoyance levels won't get to high...especially if she starts quoting law that doesn't exists as being law that nobody but her understands properly.M

This is Atom Egoyan's latest work (unless there is a new movie out...i doubt it would be on the movie network otherwise).

He is an incredible Canadian director and writer....there is often some sexual quirkiness in his films...he likes to explore stuff...but he is VERY good.

Well there is a touch of it in this work but much less than usual. This is a film about the Armenian genocide. Its done on a few different levels so that you are watching the filming of a documentary film dramatized that is directly about the massacre and also a film about people living after it...through 3 generations in Canada.

It works very well. But then he's always been a great director and writer...even if a bit strange and has won many Canadian awards (i'm not sure how well he plays in the US though).

His films always move me in some fashion. But this one moved me differently in that it told and brought to life something that i'd never really had much information about or for that matter spent all that much time looking for information on it. And the film has all the facts on the Armenian genocide checked either through witness accounts or their journals. Which makes it all the more important because its accessible as a documentary wouldn't be....about a topic that isn't well enough known.

If you haven't seen this one (and my guess would be you haven't) i would suggest looking for it in the foreing section of your video store...or look it up by director, or author and you'll see it.

To be honest the description of it seemed very dry...but its a very good film (i'll admit fast paced wouldn't be a good description). Its even got Christopher Plummer in it (who is actually Canadian). I watched it because it was by Egoyan and i've liked his material in the past or even if i didn't like it found it a very worthwhile watch. And it it was.

I thought of googling to find out if Egoyin was a Canadian Armanian before writing the entry. And i may look yet. But i decided it didn't matter really for the blog entry and i'm not sure i will look it up. He has brought to life something that is rarely taught or talked about. Does it matter where his interest came from?

I'll be getting on in describing the the other two areas of the blog but its too much all at once...both to write and to read...so i thought i'd put in other stuff as well...maybe i'll do the other two topics at one a week.M

Hi 'm curious if you can get any stats...basic stuff like how many times the page has been accessed in total without a paid account? I don't need the fancy stuff...but something basic would be nice. Yes it may be in the help files and i'm headed there but i thought i would ask because it interests me (and most bloggers i would think) M

Hi there....I'm new (as you know)...i thought i'd tell you a bit about what this blog will be about.

Well from the title i think its more than obvious the blog will be about my life. But what do i mean by that. Well i mean it will be about my life in general...but there will be some areas that it will touch upon more regularly than others. Some of the areas i will be looking at are

1. Politics:

I want to present news that is different from what is generally available in the US. Once i figure out how to use this particular editor i'll likely add some links to sources of news that i think are good. Also i'll be doing left politics and commentary. Why? Well i find it very interesting...

2. This blog will also be about my spirituality.

I'm a pagan and i think Wicca is the tradition for me although i don't know which type of Wicca yet except that it isn't Gardenarian. I am also Jewish. Judaism is and ethnicity as well as a religion. It may not agree with you holding two affiliations but Pagans don't mind. Over time though my spirituality and religion has moved over towards Paganism...but that still leaves an awful lot about me that is Jewish too. And i'm still (very marginally) involved in the Jewish community. At one time i was quite involved and briefly fairly prominent given my age.

3. This blog will be about living with Disabilities

You don't see much generally about what it is like to live with disabilities. And many people who have disabilities don't talk about them. I think it is this that leads to stigma and part of my politics is that i want to reduce stigma attached to disabilities. I've got a handful of Learning Disabilities and a whole alphabet soup of psychiatric diagnoses. Why do i call it alphabet soup. Well the DSM is not science its more like a collection of things. While i do have a # of diagnoses i'm ONE person. Also i believe that diagnoses can be useful guides on how to work around something be it with drugs, with counseling or with both. But they don't define who I am. As for the Learning Disabilities...they were never really diagnosed all that well. I have a neurological problem that makes it hard for me to handwrite that is a visual motor integration problem. I'll be providing more on this over the next few days.

I guess the obvious question is if you have problems why have a blog. Well because i'm interesting in talking with other folks. Also most of the writing i would do on a blog falls into the area of not so hard to write (it depends...i can't exactly explain how...this intro stuff is harder...but its worth it.) And you can still do lots of things with Learning Disabilities. I needed accomodations to give me a level playing field in university and even high school (if you can't write by hand for more than an hour you need something else to write on---computers. The last non math non science exam, non multiple choice exam (where there is no writing except filling in the blanks) i wrote by hand was in Grade 12 with only one exception. My hand swells up and its quite painful to write for too long...so writing on a computer puts me in a spot where i can be competitive....not where i have an advantage.

As for writing taking longer...it takes me 6 weeks to write a university paper when i was there.. That 6 weeks was needed regardless of whether i was given the paper 2 or 3 months before it was due...or in 4 weeks. The accomodation i got in that case was that i was given a minimum of 6 weeks. I brought a form in at the beginning of the term from the disability centre (which did lots of tests and looked at older tests) which would say this. If the teacher was giving the paper out with 2 months time there was no problem. If it was being given out 4 weeks before it was due they needed to either give it to me 2 weeks earlier or let me write for two weeks longer. Considering that even after i'd done all my research it took me about an hour to write one double spaced page (for a university paper) this made perfect sense. Most papers needed to be at least 10 pages long and some much more than that. So the actual writing of the paper (not the proofing, not the research, not the outline) would take at least 10 hours. A minimum of two days and if wanted it to be good or it was longer it could take a lot longer to write. Other than other LD students i don't run in to other folks where that is the case. And it does mean i need more time to work on stuff. Also often profs would give ideas about how you could improve a rough draft if you handed it in a week early and i wanted the same right to use that. But consider this. If i had the paper in on one week, get it back the next, make corrections and then hand it in the next week (most courses met weekly) that means just getting the draft in, back and redone takes a minimum of 14 days. If you write slower you are going to be finished later....so i needed the six weeks.

In fact i started most papers usually way before six weeks unless the profs were deliberately holding them back. And if they were handed out earlier there was not often a problem. Sometimes psychiatric problems cause difficulties, but then that was accomodated based on a doctors note and was a seperate matter. I still had deadlines like the rest of the world did. If you gave the paper out at the beginning of the term i seldom needed anything extra because in that case i could just start writing and researching earlier than the other students were (generally) and make up for the difference that way. I didn't take a full course load to make up for the difference in time as well...although i went full time or very close to it for the first 70% of my degree (going in the summers every second year to try and get closer to finishing it). In the end i finished about the last 30% on what was definetely a part time basis...something many students do for a variety of reasons.

All together though this blog is about MY life...which is why i called it that. Sure those are going to be the main areas of discussion but i'm not some big fragmented person with a bit of this and that. I'm me. A little out of the mainstream but hey mainstream can be real boring at times. Welcome to something that isn't mainstream.

I figure i'll work giving you an idea of who i am in each of the three areas over the next little while...i'm going to start on politics today...which can be dry and boring i suppose...although i don't find it so. If its another of the topics that interest you i'll be posting about them soon...so just check in later. All three should be up in a couple of days. The page should get more interesting after that i think...but i wanted to introduce it.

One other thing to note...i'm still learning the system here so it will take a while before i've got the graphics and such working on the page the way i want...so it might be a little ackward for a while. It takes me some time to learn every system and i assume i will learn this one as well. Until then i ask for you patience...i do intend to make the page more interesting and attractive....but it will be a step by step thing. Today i'm just going to see if it will accept my html editing...step 1.

Politics

First thing is i'm very much into politics. Now i imagine that most folks reading this are Americans (which is ok ;-) ). I'm Canadian. Now when i clicked on politics as one of the themes of the blog it only gave me three choices: liberal, conservative and satire. Well i don't fit into any of those three really, but the closest i come to is liberal. And if US readers want to read a blog with progressive politics i'm sure they turn to liberal...and i'm into progressive politics.

The first thing is that liberal has somewhat different connotations to the average person in Canada. That is because one of the large political parties is called the Liberal Party of Canada (commonly just called Liberal). We also have the Conservative Party of Canada...i'm sure you can see where i'm going with this. Sure you have conservative Liberals and Liberals who are on the Conservative side. Left Liberals used to be quite common but they seem to have mostly disappeared these days. Our house of commons also has a party called the Block Quebecois which is a separatist Quebec party...as such they spend their time trying to make sure Quebec gets the best deal possible...but the result is an interesting mix as there members range from Conservative to Social Democratic with most in between Liberal and Social Democratic. They only run for seats in Quebec, but with a first past the post system (the person who gets the most votes in a riding wins...same as how congressional seats work) they still get a large number of seats. And in fact they can have a large effect on which government comes out of an election. Traditionally they get seats that would otherwise be Liberal. Since Quebec has about 1/4 of the seats in our House of Commons (its roughly proportional to population) if they get enough seats in Quebec they can be quite effective in changing election results.

Finally there is a fourth party. Its called the New Democratic Party (NDP). I'm a member of the NDP and i'm a social democrat more or less. I'm on the left of the party but not the far left. A social democrat is NOT a communist. We have two communist parties in Canada for Communists (and you know the world hasn't fallen apart in any way...fancy that!). Social Democracy has the most impact in the Nordic countries. Think Sweden if you want an idea. The NDP is not the Swedish Social Democracy Party in any way...but its an idea of kinda what the views are. Its not against capitalism but also thinks some things should be run publicly and that there should be more basic rights of workers. I also have lots of other political views, i'm not defined by party. Its just one way of doing things to try and make a difference (if you want change you need to work for it or how will it happen?). Mosty i volunteer when my health allows in social activist stuff.

These are all the parties that currently have seats in the House of Commons. We also currently have two independents. One was elected as a Liberal but was kicked out of the party and the other wanted the Conservative nomination (he had represented the area for the Canadian Alliance) but didn't win the nomination...so he ran independently. And won which is not common but does happen now and then. The last parliament ended with quite a few independents because of people who were elected as either Progressive Conservatives of Canadian Alliance members but didn't feel they could be an MP for the new Conservative Party of Canada that was a result of a merger between the two.

While the NDP has never held office federally it has frequently held office provincially and is the official government in at least one province at the moment (i must admit i don't keep up to date as well on every province especially since i've been out of university...i know Manitoba has a NDP government at the moment and i think Saskatchewan does...i'm not sure about British Columbia but i think not....

I'm generally a social activist who is very political. Now the NDP is not perfect but i kept on working on so many of their campaigns (because they were the best party) that eventually it made sense to join to have some impact inside the party. But i still spend most of my politically used time doing other stuff. And do volunteer work during elections. Who knows i may get more involved at some point. I have been to one National Convention and it was confusing as hell but interesting. I'm sure i'd have a better idea of how to get around if i went to a second.

The other thing about Canadian parties is that you don't join just by ticking it off on your voter registration (in fact we don't have voter registration we do it different). You have to go out and join. You buy a membership...but generally they aren't all that expensive. The NDP charges about $25 for them but if you are low income like me or a student you pay $5. This makes even more sense then letting people with less income pay less. There are tax credits if you make political donations (they vary depending on how much you donate in %). However you only get them if you pay tax. Students and those on low incomes don't generally pay taxes...so they don't get anything back. It works out to close to the same cost to the individual in the end. And it makes party membership accessible to more folks. Do any of the other parties have the same policy? For students i think so. Otherwise i don't think so except maybe for the Block Quebecois. But then i've never looked into it as i don't want to join them. So not as many people have party memberships as in the states...its the folks that are really interested....about 4%. Of course it doesn't make that 4% better than anyone else and a lot more than 4% of people volunteer in politics and on election campaigns...its just over time i've realized it means something different in the US...something you just tick of while you are filling out a form. And you really only have two choices...or so most think and its kinda like that at the moment. (at least for president...your system could accommodate more parties in Congress than it has...ours does and they are elected in similar ways, although the Electoral College and the fact you can only have one party in the White House does make third parties more difficult.)

I'll let you in on something though. Up until last year we had 5 parties (two conservative one's the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance joined up to stop splitting the right wing vote). When i was younger (read in the 80 and early 90's) Canada was described as having a 2 or a 2.5 party system with some grudgingly saying it was a 3 party system. Only the Conservatives and Liberals have ever been the party with the most seats and had a Prime Minister. But there have been other parties almost all the time. And they can have a big impact on politics. For many years the Liberal party would steal NDP ideas when they were fearful that the population was moving to the left...and the Progressive Conservative party took ideas from the Reform Party (later renamed to the Canadian Alliance) when it was worried about being too far in the middle (which was absolutely ridiculous with how right wing it was but that is another topic.

At the moment we have a minority government. The Liberals have the most seats....but they don't have 50% of the seats +1. That means they have to rely on the members of some other party voting for their legislation if they want to have it passed into law. Minority governments are where the smaller parties finally start to get a bigger say in things. And that isn't wrong. 20% of the population voted for the NDP but they don't get 20% of the vote. The Liberals got a smaller proportion of the vote than the number of seats they have. When you have a first past the post system this happens. But you guys could have third and fourth parties running for Congress...even if its isn't practical for President. And from what i understand if legislation is passed three times through Congress it becomes law...so they could have an impact. It seems to me the reason you end up with two parties winning seats is because that is just the way people think of the system working. And yes splitting the vote can cause problems...just like i was talking about. But it also allows for more options. I'm not telling you to go and join a third party, vote for one....its just that from what i see and hear from folks they are suprised (and often confused) by the number of parties here. It has more to do with culture than it does with political systems.

Of course i do have my views about your government. What your government does has a large impact across the world and i'm not a Republican and i'm not happy with the way things are going. One of the things i want to do here is bring in other types of political news. Other US news...other Canadian news and British News. Some of it about the US some of it about Canada some about Britain and some international. What i want to do is to try and bring a different perspective to things. Information is power and i think its good for everyone. Hate my links or the articles i might put parts of up...fine with me. But i'm hoping it will make you think about politics and look at new options. Or maybe it will clarify where you stand. I guess and example of what i mean is the above bit about parties and the fact that there doesn't HAVE to be a two party system in the US where only two parties can get seats. Of course its theoretical at the moment and would take work and might never happen. But maybe it will give you some food for thought. I think the minority government we have at the moment is the best thing politically that has happened to us in a while. It has kept us out of the Missile Defense system (which would have been passed with a Liberal majority government) and its keeping the government on its toes from all sides. ALL of the parties are getting a say...instead of just the one that got 50% of the seats----and less than 50% of the vote. Is it stable...well we'll see. The last minority government was in 1979 but the conditions were quite different then. It sure makes for interesting times up here anyway

Well thats it for today. I promise it gets lighter...i'll get around to the other two area but looking at it now its kinda heavy. So maybe i'll do some writing for a few days then get around to it. If there is a preference one way or the other (ie please write other stuff and fill out the three over time...or can you just get around to really saying what you want about the three so i will have some idea if i want to read this blog) please leave me a comment. While i will not be run by my comments i will certainly take them into account! And heck i did end up covering some stuff about disability in the end....M