Sunday, 17 May 2009

Response to Reinier's letter re U of C wasting money

Dear Reinier,




Whether we are talking about abortion or free speech, the essential premises of the pro-life group are based on the following aphorisms:
1. human life begins with conception
2. there is a human being from the moment there is human life.

Syllogism 1 (Abortion).
Human beings have a right to life.
This foetus is a human being,
Therefore this foetus has a right to life.

Syllogism 2 (Free speech)
Human beings have a right to be heard.
All those foetuses (fetuses,foeti) about to be aborted are human beings,
Therefore all those foetuses have a right to be heard.


Obviously my presentation of the pro-life premise is heavily flavoured by my faith as a Roman Catholic but I believe that this, purely and simply, is the crux of the great divide. If pro-choicers are basing their conclusions on premises contradictory to these then all discussion on the conclusions will sound like a discussion with the Mad Hatter.

It seems to me that people are spending too much time debating, arguing, fighting, whatever, over conclusions to syllogisms based on different or contradictory premises instead of discussing the differences between the critical premise. (For readers who don't know, a syllogism is a conclusion based on two propositions called premises, e.g.: all dogs are mammals; Lassie is a dog; therefore Lassie is a mammal.)

Before going on further down this road I would like to get your response to the above. Also, I have presented you with what I believe to be, at least the Catholic cohort's version of, the essential premise of the pro-life movement. I would be curious to know how you would state the essential axioms and premise(s) of pro-choicers.

Best regards
Terry

Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Take it like a man, ladies

The following article is taken from yesterday's edition of The Toronto Star.

No girl power in shaming cheats

May 11, 2009 08:50 AM

Rosie DiManno

Advice to cuckolded women: Man up a bit.

(Yes, cuckold is technically a term applied to husbands of unfaithful wives. But there's no reverse equivalent that I can find in the dictionary. Suggestions welcome.)

Two such high profile missuses have been in the news lately – Elizabeth Edwards, a.k.a. St. Elizabeth, and Veronica Lario Berlusconi, née Miriam Barolini.

Both have been profoundly wronged, certainly to hear them tell, which each is doing via the vehicle of biography and TV confessional, for one, and ambushing emails to the media, for the other.

Say what you will about husbands who are cads – as their respective spouses, disgraced Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi – appear to be. Yet males, even those who have been on the violated end of infidelity, are rarely wont to open a vein in public.

There are exceptions to this generalization, of course. But for the most part, men do not go whingeing to Oprah or pen avenging memoirs that simultaneously mortify a couple's children or wash the dirty BVDs out in the open.

I suspect this comes from the social conditioning of boys, who are still raised to not shed tears in public or otherwise reveal themselves as pussies. Girls, by comparison, are nurtured in the culture of tattle and tell-all grievance from the time they're subjected to their first schoolyard name-calling.

Females are inundated with mass media messaging – subliminal and overt – about bred-in-the-genes persecution, the biological and manifest destiny of their X chromosome, the gender for whom offence is endlessly done to.

The consequence, too often, is a kind of emotional indigestion with public burping as the antacid, especially for women who can command an audience.

They seek public validation for their pain.

Elizabeth Edwards has always seemed a smart, tough lady who might have been a fine public servant on her own merits had she not subsumed herself in the advancement of hubby's career. There have been dreadful tragedies in her life, from the loss of a teenage son in an automobile accident to a recurrence of cancer, untreatable.

But of one thing she remained assured: That devoted husband would not betray her, sexually.

As everyone now knows, John-Boy Edwards was a two-timing cheat who may have fathered a child with a woman who had been making campaign videos for him in 2006. Before the world found out, Edwards admitted the "indiscretion" to his wife, at which point she screamed, sobbed and threw up. He said it was only that one-night-stand time, a lie.

Elizabeth Edwards has recounted all this, wincingly, in her just released book, Resilience, and appeared on Oprah last week to discuss same – the only proviso that the name of The Other Woman never be mentioned during the interview.

The purpose of dragging her hurt into the limelight escapes me. Quite apart from further embarrassing the father of her children, she also makes herself pathetic and sound like a fool; can't understand the why of his unfaithfulness. But the why of adultery is never that complicated: Attraction, availability, boredom, horniness, because it's there.

Instead, beyond a vague reference to her husband's "narcissism," Elizabeth Edwards puts the blame on a woman she portrays as a bimbo and whose baby she describes as "it."

"It didn't occur to me that at a fancy hotel in New York, where he sat with a potential donor to his antipoverty work, he would be targeted by a woman who would confirm that the man at the table was John Edwards and then would wait for him outside the hotel hours later when he returned from a dinner, wait with the come-on line "You are so hot" ... And if you had asked me to wager that house we were building on whether my husband of then 28 years would have responded to a come-on like that, I would have said no."

Shows how little she knows about men in general and her husband in particular. What planet is this trained lawyer living on? Must be the one where bitter women wield their anguish for vindication and town square shaming.

There's nothing dignified or girl power-ing about it.

Meanwhile, back at the palazzo ...

That would be the suburban Milan mansion where Veronica Lario has been living, apart from her vulgarian husband, for several years. This marriage has been over for ages and Lario has maintained a mostly low-wattage existence, except for the occasions when she wasn't – by unburdening her ample chest on the public zeitgeist.

Long-suffering is how Lario is usually described.

That's manipulative, the conventional take on a wife who chose to stay wedlocked to her perma-tanned husband despite his chronically cheesy behaviour, from phone calls to a sex chat line (purportedly for the purpose of opinion polling, a typical Berlusconi stunt) to old-coot flirting with curvaceous TV starlets (some of whom he put forward as candidates in the upcoming European parliamentary elections) to verbal (at minimum) groping of women who usually sex-wagged right back.

Two years ago, Lario – by newspaper correspondence – demanded a public apology from her boulevardier husband for telling a former Miss Italy contestant (now minister of equal opportunities in Berlusconi's cabinet): "If I weren't married I would marry you immediately." Of his many gaffes, that one seems fairly harmless, actually.

But a baroque mea culpa was issued forthwith, published in the many Italian newspapers Berlusconi owns: "I beg you to forgive me."

More recent provocations – especially Berlusconi's attendance at the 18th birthday of a Napolitano nymphet who calls him "Papi," when he allegedly has been a no-show for his own kids' 18th birthday celebrations – had Lario blasting away again in late-night emails to two news agencies. "I cannot stay with a man who frequents minors," she sniffed, while dismissing those bimbette election candidates as "shameless rubbish to entertain the emperor."

Cue the divorce lawyers and upcoming war over the 72-year-old billionaire's fortune.

It's hard to view Lario, 52, and gorgeous if cosmetically enhanced, as the fregato victim.

The couple met almost 30 years ago when she was performing topless in a play at the theatre Berlusconi owned. While still married to his first wife, Lario bore him a son, then two more children before they wed.

No doubt the first Mrs. Berlusconi thought her usurper was a home-wrecking seductress too.

You reap what you sow. Sometimes you weep over husbands spreading their seed elsewhere.

But public parading of intimate betrayal – by book or by online crook – is tawdry payback.

Stay or go. Just take it like a man, ladies.

Saturday, 9 May 2009

A river flows through it - our very own

Today we had 50 mm (2 inches) of rain in just a few hours. The result was a river of stormwater through our backyard.


Here are some pictures of our very own river starting from our neighbours' property and going out at the bottom of our yard. The dark thing in the middle of the third picture is our fire pit.

Monday, 27 April 2009

A response to "U of C wasting money"




On Feb 3 I posted an article published by the Calgary Herald, U of C wasting money.  My brother-in-law in Scotland, Reinier, sent me an email expressing reservations and defending the university's position. Reinier and I have had many debates and discussions on many things. I love him dearly, as he does me, and we have a deep respect for each other. We simply do not agree on some issues - this being one of them. With his permission I post his response here. The photos are nothing to do with the article or Reinier's response but were taken when Ingrid, Judith and I visited Glasgow two years ago. The one on the left is Judith, Maya, Reinier and Ingrid walking along the bonnie banks o' Loch Lomond. On the right is Fleshmarket Close in Edinburgh where Ian Rankin had somebody murdered in his book of the same name.


Hi Terry

I, too, expected you to disagree with me. But, perhaps, both of us are wrong to’expect’ these stances from one another. On second reflection, me, you, and people generally are far more complex in their emotions and reactions to life’s challenges than we would credit.

I know that the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ debates conjure the most bitter and emotionally-charged arguments. Your  blog entry and links to the U of Calgary and their SU webpage (I’m sorry! …don’t know how to do these links!) reveals an abundance of opinions regarding the rights and wrongs of abortion. 

The issue regarding banning the particular group, though, seems to be about the rights and wrongs of free speech. And the right – if that is claimed – of a group of people to confront very vulnarable women regarding their fucundacy or pregnancy. I believe that’s wrong - and if you go to the U of C website and read the comments I think you’ll agree that, at the very least, the pro-life campaign is problematic.

Of course you are welcome to publish my response. Like, you – even if from the opposite angle – I would welcome further debate. 

Fond regards,

Reinier

Sunday, 19 April 2009

James has breezed back into our lives

I think the obvious place to start to catch up since February is with the biggest item of news first, which also happens to be the most recent. James has breezed back into our lives after totally disappearing off our radar for more than ten years. James, for those who do not know, is our adopted son, our sixth "kid", older than Miriam by three years. He will be the first to tell you that his policy has always been, "Don't call me, I'll call you." He backed this up by keeping his whereabouts secret even from the Security Police, CSIS, FBI, CIA, KGB... Nobody ever knew where James was except James, and God.

Last Saturday Aunty Bessie (about to turn 93 - has just memorised Pat Prinsloo's new phone number because she is pretty-well blind - don't ask me the number, I have it written down somewhere) asked me on our weekly phone call if we ever heard from James because she has been praying for him every day for ten years and it would be nice to know if her prayers were being answered. I told her I had not heard from him since before leaving for Canada in 1998 and at this stage did not expect to hear from him anymore. On Tuesday somebody named Steve left a comment on this blog telling me he has been trying to get hold of me about James. I replied and told him he had my full attention - I had been ignoring his "friend request" on Facebook. One email led to another. Apparently James had been looking for us and Steve tracked me down to this blog. On Friday Ingrid & I had an hour long phone conversation with James at the place where he has been boarding with Steve's mother for the last eight years in George in the Eastern Cape. Miriam and James were talking on Saturday; Mark took his turn today (Sunday). Everybody is very happy at the "reunion" - James so much so that he has given us all his contact info! Deo Gratias!

Other news...
Mark and Luisa "actualised" their Christmas present to Ingrid and me - a weekend of painting and DIY getting our house a bit more ready for all the relatives who will be visiting for the wedding in August. They did a great job and seemed to enjoy it; we enjoyed having them.







We all enjoyed getting together at Geoff and Miriam's for a braai (BBQ) to watch South Africa beat Australia in one of the recent Twenty/20s. Geoff has impressed us all learning the laws and terms of cricket as well as doing an excellent job with wors (South African sausage) on the braai. Afterwards they all jammed down in the basement where Geoff and Miriam have a really nice setup with drums, keyboard, guitars.







Final news item: it snowed. What's new about that in Canada you ask? Well, if you consider that the picture of the the mourning doves basking in the sun was taken March 1, and the pictures of the snow were taken April 6 & 7, then you can understand the communal depression that came over the people of southern Ontario as the snow hung around for another 9 days. Yesterday and today were just wonderful and I even saw dandelions. We'll be overwhelmed by weeds before we know it. Come on summer.