Blaming the "victim"

In this morning's Winnipeg Free Press there was an article regarding a 17 year old who cruelly killed and dismembered his parents this summer. The article is reporting on a school Custodian Tracy Rose who got to know the boy last year and had actually warned the school that he was high risk of doing something angry. Of course it should be clear that I don't support anything he did and I'm not defending him, but the school's response touched a nerve as both somebody who was bullied and whose child is occasionally bullied.

The alleged response from the vice principal was "there were less than two months left (in the school year), and that all (the teen) has to do is learn to get along better with his peers and everything would be alright".

I can't describe how much this notion bothers me, and not because of the outcome. I'm literally shaking. How dare a school official blame the victim. In a day and age where they preach so heavily about the need to stop bullying, how can this person turn around and declare that it is up to this messed up child to simply adjust his own tendencies to suit the norm. I guess it's clear which side of the social pool this administrator fell in.

Those of us who were bullied spent OUR ENTIRE LIVES giving in to norms and avoiding bad situations in order to save some sanity. Unfortunately this young person didn't have enough sanity left to keep doing it.

I'll be honest that I still occasionally give my child advice to pick her battles because she's going to have plenty of them, but that's a far cry from choosing to ignore that battle and say it will go away on its own because the school year is ending.

When will officials learn that it IS their responsibility to take action on these things when somebody thoughtful enough brings it to their attention?

Bandslam - the anti Camp Rock

Tonight I brought my daughter out to see Bandslam. I went purely for her, assuming I was going to see another High School Musical or Camp Rock. What I ended up seeing was something different than that, something worth writing about. About once a generation some writer will come up with a film about music that written expressly to geek out about the music that came from the 70s which inspired so much of what we listen to now. It's quite possible that for the newest generation, this could be the Empire Records, High Fidelity, or School of Rock.

I know, how can I possibly say that? Is there any chance that a movie produced with young Disney stars by a Disney owned studio can actually do anything that is not cheesy? I'd rather turn that question on its head. Do we really think those other movies were that good? To be clear I am not saying this is a great movie, just that I appreciated it for what it was.

That in its place, here is what I liked about the movie. It mostly comes down to one thing, and that is respect for where so much music came from. The scene in which we first get to know the main character is when a new female friend decides to school him in music, and holds up a copy of the Velvet Underground. At that point he says its ok but he prefers David Bowie and that Lou Reed's later work was better. He takes a group of RHCP wannabe's and adds the right mix of other musicians to become a Ska band, even though none of them know Ska, and he does it by having them start with the basic parts and add things in a way that demonstrates each of Ska's roots. "It's like punk and reggae came together to make something else cool" one of them says. Sure the dialogue is contrived, but is it any more contrived than the dialogue in High Fidelity?

For a school project on "getting to know your partner" he is paired up with an ever so Ally Sheedy version of Vanessa Hudgens. One of the questions they decide to explore with each other is "where is your happiest place ever" and his happens to be CBGB "except that it's closed and I will only have to imagine ever going there" which echoes so many of us who would have wanted to make a similar pilgrimage. In typical movie fashion they break in and he is awestruck - offering the great "what if"? "What if [so and so] never saw the Sex Pistols and so U2 never heard them and were inspired to pick up a guitar and because of that the Killers never decided to sing their way out of Vegas". What if The Clash and the Buzzcocks hadn't opened for the Sex Pistols on August 29, 1976 and it hadn't caused such a stir that Morrissey, Joy Division and so many others would end up seeing them just days later at the Lesser Free Trade Hall? What would I listen to today? The movie draws that line in hopes that a new generation might decide to look up the importance of CBGB and understand that nothing is entirely without what came before it.

The main character narrates the movie in small part by sending small letters to David Bowie, and at the end of the movie ends up actually contacted by David Bowie who wants to sign their band to a new Indie label he's starting.

Finally a moment on Hudgens. A girl like her at this point in her career does not make sense in a movie like this one. Apparently its not the role she auditioned for, but she ended up taking a role with not nearly enough screen time given her current popularity. She plays a shy girl not unlike her character from High School Musical, who prefers to sit and read and sing to herself (though she doesn't do that on camera in the movie). I walked away thinking she must really want to be in the movie.

Well that's about all I have to offer on it. I'm not going to suggest any of you go out and see it unless you have tween/teenage girls you are looking to kill time with, but perhaps give it a rental sometime when nothing else looks good. You might be surprised.

Ticketbastard - a rant

I really really hope that legal means can get this in check. It's always been assumed that Ticketmaster was withholding tickets, but this last year and especially the last few months, its completely out of control. You simply cannot buy a good ticket without going to a scalper (who, by the way, are also raising the insane prices they already asked - I've seen 800 a ticket).

But today took the cake. I wanted to buy my daughter tickets to see the Jonas Brothers this summer when they hit Winnipeg. I had checked out the pre-sales last week but knew about them way too late and didn't know there was a really cheap fan-club pre-sale until way too late. So I will admit there were things that could have been good for the fans.

Back to today's saga. I was logged in and ready, refreshing the page so that I would get the "search" page as soon as it was publicly available. Of course, they really shouldn't bother providing options at all, because if you choose ANYTHING other than "best available / any price" it tells you there are none and that you should get rid of your filters.

I am comfortable with the system having some randomness in it, so I wasn't surprised when one of my first hits brought up 300 level tickets even though they were obviously not the best available, or so I thought. After the first 20 minutes I had only received 2 reasonable acceptable results, and even those were in the 200 section. Not a single 100 level seat had been offered to me.

So, I thought I might see what was being offered to the American Express Front of the Line folks. I actually have an AMEX registered but its the company card and even though I pay it off the same day and almost as quickly let the billing system know it was personal, the reminder that we shouldn't be doing that is always unnerving. Anyhow, the result: floor seats. Pretty much the worst possible floor seats. Oh, and one offer of 100 level seats, again the worst possible seat. Following this logic I decide to see what the "VIP Package" offers. Sure enough, 100 level tickets on the side.

Now, in some ways I recognise that these are labelled VIP tickets, but in most concerts, like Leonard Cohen and things like that $375 gets you a meet and greet and a seat in the first 2 rows. This is a concert for kids/teens, so for a pair of $375 tickets at least one of them is purely overhead. Also, officially the price list says that any seat in the house could have the VIP price, so its clearly supposed to be about the add-on. Clearly that was not quite the case.

In any case, whichever of the options I chose I really ended up getting offered the same 2 rows of seats for the whole bloody time. Since I wasn't going to take the 300 section, I ended up buying the AMEX tickets.

This whole thing was just set up wrong. There was really just no option for somebody to buy a decent ticket on the regular market.

the me people see

This is one post I am really making to myself, but I have decided in advance to put it up anyhow. It's late so hopefully I can keep it short, but I gotta vent, for lack of a better word.

Do you ever wonder what other people think of you? Or do you feel confident that they will always know you for who you are? I can honestly answer that this has been the defining question of my life. As I said recently on Facebook "I am exactly the person I wanted to grow up to be, but I am not living the life that I thought that person would be living. If only."

I post that here just for the context of the first sentence. I know myself. Period. I am an introvert. I survived the events of the end of my marriage because of my ability to dissect them and determine how much blame to take and what not to accept. In two separate conversations this week I made some comment about myself and was told "it's a very rare thing to know that about yourself." I think about what I say and do. That doesn't mean I always think before I say and do them.

But, I have never - ever - trusted others to know me that well. It would be fair to say that I knew that my ex didn't know me as well as I knew her. I turned out to be right about it. On the other hand I've been surprised to the extent to which my parents know me despite feeling like I hadn't shared so much of my inner emotions with them. Beyond them I would grant very few, possibly even only one person, with knowing all of my parts. And she will be sad to read here that I still occasionally [though not often - LOL] think she assumes too much about this or that as well. (If you have any doubt in your mind whether I am talking about you or not, then I almost absolutely am not - but this note isn't about that person anyways)

In this case I am talking about something specific. Trust. Trust that I am being up front. That my words were chosen such that they can be taken at face value. That the best intention can be assumed. While I am human and cannot claim perfection even in this part, I define myself by trying to be the example of being trusting and trustworthy. The former being harder than the latter, but I consider them a required pair to be useful at all. You can't be trusting if you are not trustworthy, because the second you start deceiving others you lose your ability to believe they are trustworthy.

This is on my mind tonight for 2 reasons. First, in recent memory I broke up with somebody who has experienced that a lot. She's heard every line in the book. Lots of reasons why it just wasn't going to work. She's heard them enough that she doesn't see any value in them. She told me so while we were dating. So, with my reasons in my mind, I chose to not offer them. I simply laid out that it was not working, that I didn't feel like I should if it was going to go on any longer (which really is the reason - but ignoring all the contributors which one could analyse.) The question still lingered that if I didn't feel that way, why did I let it go on as long as I did, and didn't I make this comment one time that could have been construed to think I did feel that way? The answer that she was worth giving a full chance clearly fell into the category of "heard it before" regardless of its truth. So, that strikes at the heart of me and I spent some time afterwards trying to re-enforce my earnestness, probably still to no avail. Not that I never said anything that could be interpreted wrong (because I am not perfect) but that anything I said or did was a part of me living into that try, as fully as I could, and enjoying the journey for what it was.

(I'm going to insert a 1.5 - that early in a relationship just prior another person made an assumption about my character that again I don't feel I ever reconciled no matter how hard I tried - and in that case I fully acknowledged how my behaviour could have left an impression - but back to it)

Second, and more recently. Tonight an aquaintence read me the wrong way. It would be fair to say that this person assumed I was saying something negative and flip when I was actually complimenting and just adding to what they had said. So here I am needing to get that out because it's bugging me. This person sees me in a very different context from most of my friends. She's always too busy to have a real conversation with me. The few words spent sorting this out tonight were probably the longest conversation we've had. But she has seen how I interact with other people, in one particular sphere, and its one which is odd because I am both at my best and worst there. I am an introvert. I am shy. I am not a confident individual about many many things, mostly involving getting to know people and talking with people I don't know. The counter to that is that in a group dynamic I flip that in order to bring out my best. I tease, I make jokes - hopefully kindly in both those cases- and ... I can have a tendency to take over a conversation. This can make me demonstrate charm and wit and knowledge, but I do often wonder whether it is seen as something else. Do I come off as domineering, self-centred, the sort of person who would seek to make comments just to fuck with somebody?

Because I have this phrase I've used for 20 years now: "I am an asshole, not a jerk" - an asshole in terms that I don't pull punches and I will remind you what you said and I will point out the flaws in your argument and I will say things to tease you, but I am not a jerk because I won't mess with your mind and I won't lead you on. If I said something intentionally, then it is safe to assume that I had the best intention in saying it. I know it's hard to explain - jerk seems like a safer word for asshole, but I would openly accept being flippantly called an "asshole" when I deserve it, but I won't tolerate the notion that I am jerking somebody around. That sort of mental cruelty is just not in my nature. I know how deception feels. I can empathize and I won't seek to act that way.

So, the crux of this long rant is really just a wish that one day I will be able to trust that they people around me, and mostly somebody special, know that I am earnest and that it will be assumed -- and that I will recognize it - because it would be really good to know they feel that way.

The American President

No, not THAT American President. Ok, kinda.

This afternoon, on the eve of the Inauguration of President Barak Obama, the History channel is showing of my (admittedly many) favourite movies: The American President. Starring way too many amazing actors to mention, but fronted by Michael Douglas at his best, as a President arguably at his best. He knows what he can do and what he can't do. He's likeable. He honestly cares. He tries to do the right thing.

So, I am writing about it because it think it is amazing telling of the History channel to air it at this time. It demonstrates the hope that Obama will live in the same spirit that got him elected. I don't have much to say today other than I have that same hope. This is an exciting time, even for a Canadian.

Serving your Country

I am at home sick today. Ok so I am still working here at home but it's a different pace from the office. One thing that is different is that I have the TV on. I just heard something remarkable. I don't think it will be implemented as stated, but it may be the first time I have ever considered america to be forward-thinking.

Joe Biden was speaking and when he talked about their need to increase medical care, he proposed a new definition of "Serving your country." He said that the country needs to recognize the other ways in which people serve their country, and make sure those people get the same rewards, specifically a college education. Now, I struggle with what he really meant by that, since working in the medical field really needs proper training and experience, and since its not really the same sacrifice.

But I really like the idea and I'd like to know more about what he's talking about. Is this the peace corps? Does this mean that if people gave up 6-12 months to help rebuild New Orleans that the state will then pay them back by putting them through college?

Update: I went searching on their website and found this proposal. It sure looks like a pretty good deal. Each year, if a student puts in 100 hours of community service, they will get a fully refundable tax credit for $4000. I think my math puts that at $40 per hour of community service. They say that is 2/3 of the educational costs. So it's not the free education that military folks get but at least it's a good deal for the poor. I guess that still leaves the question of whether they can afford the other 3rd.

Small Government vs Big Government

This is going to be rough... but its late and time for bed. I just wanted to get this down before I lost my point.

You have to love how we hear it again and again from the conservative side of the fence. "one need only look at how badly government delivers services right now to know that the best thing they can do is get out of the way and let people and the private sector take care of it". That's almost an exact quote from Palin tonight and its not a new ideology from those who seek small government. We hear it in Canada from the same folks. Of course it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Over the last 20 years we have seen cut after cut to social spending from the federal government in Canada, and in the USA the government has never properly supported most of its own social initiatives. Then its pointed out that clearly these public institutions just don't work and PPP or fully private initiatives are suggested in their place.

These are not good examples of government action. Looking to the period before that when funding was good and people were getting ahead does tell us what worked. Looking at progressive countries where taxes are higher and so is prosperity for those with ingenuity and so is the standard of living for every citizen -- now that is a good example. If you starve a dog and beat it, and then strap a steak on your head, bang pans by the head of, and laugh at the dog, you can expect to see the worst of it's behaviour. Bad enough to feel you could justify shooting it. That doesn't mean the dog really deserves to be shot.