Confessions of a teenaged poet


I’ve decided to organize my home office and part of that is to get rid of a box that I’ve been carting around since I first started moving: The Box Of High School Poetry.

I wrote reams and reams of terrible poems through high school and college, but rather than just burn the box, I’ve decided to post a poem a day on a sub-blog until the box is empty.

Enjoy: Confessions of a teenage poet

Actually, most of the poetry is morbid and the usual, no one thinks or feels as deeply as I do, and we are dealing with the usual categories of poems:

  • no one is as smart as me
  • no one feels as deeply as I do
  • why can’t anyone else see the looming disaster if we don’t treat each other better


  • we’re all doomed.

Impersonators vs ETAs

I’d never considered that there was a distinction between an impersonator and a tribute artists, but it makes sense that one is about trying to associate yourself with Elvis and the other is about paying artistic homage to an artist.

Sort of like the difference between being a Trekkie vs a Trekker.

But since I can’t figure out what happened to WordPress’ reblog feature, here’s Pompadour’s blog for further reading.

Right To Die’s Day in BC Court

BC Civil Liberties Association is in BC Supreme Court starting November 14, to “challenge the law that makes it a crime for physicians to assist seriously and incurably ill people to die.”

What’s a issue is really what’s the meaning of harm?

If the purpose of medical care is to reduce suffering, then we need to move beyond mere pain management to a more whole person course of care that includes quality of life considerations and death with dignity when the patient has little or no possibility of a quality life.

Not doing harm must include the emotional and psychological well being of the patients’ family and support system. If there is no hope of quality of life for the patient, then prolonging the life to maximize quantity is at the cost of the family’s collective mental health and resilience capacity.

As much as “think of the children” is the usual battle cry of those who seek to impose their morality as being above people, there are times when that question should be looked at.

What are children to make of a family situation in which the adults are divided and in disagreement while the continued existence of a grandparent or parent or sibling or other relative is what’s at stake. Children don’t understand quality vs quantity of live nuances, they only know that their loved one is ill and people are fighting about how to best help them and worse it’s between making them comfortable until they die despite all the efforts or allowing them to die when their body can no longer support life, without artificially and frankly, pointlessly, extending that life.

This bizarre idea that some people have of wanting their loved one to die as their god intended is undermined when these same people demand every possible heroic artificial means is used to extend and prolong the life, regardless of how obvious the outcome is to everyone. Extending the life through medical means is delaying death, not saving a life.

There are few things in life that are more agonizing than a family torn apart by differing opinions about end of life decisions – but we can each of us, make our preferences for our own care by having That Conversation with family and friends and even better, in a living will which can be used to guide doctors and medical decision makers.

Even so, not everyone is that organized and prepared and no one should have to suffer because of poor planning.

“Under current law, abusers take their victims to the bank and to the lawyer for a new will,” said Dr. Will Johnston, a Euthanasia Prevention Coalition member. “With legal-assisted suicide, the next stop would be the doctor’s office for a legal prescription. How exactly are we going to detect the victimization when we can’t do it now?”

As for Dr. Johnston, the laws are intended as guides for people to make decisions – that includes doctors. Laws are for people who are willing to obey them and families who are likely to have members abusing or killing each other for fun or profit are going to be detected in the same way that we do now – with doctor vigilance and police work when cases are indicated.

It’s not like doctors are just waiting for legal protection to start killing patients, being able to make end of life decisions doesn’t mean a rush to end lives. It means that every case is evaluated and decided upon on it’s own merits.

But we need the laws in place to ensure that each case is able to be openly and honestly considered, instead of the covert way that this is already happening now.

Conformity and Sacrifice

In order to understand a religion, we need only to look at the relationship between the believer and their god(s).

Old testament, pre-Jesus – believers were asked to sacrifice all the time, from behaviours, foods, to crops, animals and children.

Jesus was God’s covenant to never ask for sacrifice again.

Basically, God, by allowing Jesus to die, promises to never ask any believer to sacrifice their children. Children are no longer god’s hostages to ensure their parent’s continued patronage.

But what this means, and what the hard core Christians don’t seem to realize and that moderate Christians do, is that this means that it’s okay to love your children more than god.

By promising to never ask you to sacrifice them, it’s telling you that it’s okay to love and cherish them. That’s the real take away message from the Jesus story.

That hard part is that this also means that you have to let them be who and how they are – and the best part, is that they can have all the things that you want for them, if you are just willing to love your children enough to let them be who they are.

Getting to love people more than god, because faith, not the intensity of the faith, is what your god is asking of you. That means that you can have your faith in your home and leave others to manage their faith, their morals, and their life decisions themselves. You can look after you and your relationship with your god and leave everyone else and their god or whatever to manage their own.

No longer do we need to sacrifice collectively as a community nor as individuals, not our livestock, crops, children, each other or ourselves.

After all, you wouldn’t want the government to be legislating your morality to you? So why should the government be allowed to legislate anyone’s morality?

Least of all, legislating any particular idea of morality to be applied to any and all and in all circumstances, regardless of the person’s particular beliefs, morals and ideas.

It is not the government’s job to legislate morality, only to ensure equal treatment under and access to the law.

Everyone who is living and breathing currently is equally deserving of life, liberty and happiness – we have to be able to agree to that, because global peace means being willing to work and play well, to get along with each other with indifference to our differences.

In the long run, no skin colour or language or clothing or any of the diversity of 7 billion people, won’t matter one little bit if we can’t pull it together before someone, somewhere, goes batshit crazy and unleashes real weapons of mass destruction or some natural event 10 times worse than the 2004 boxing day earthquake – which, by the way, did shake the earth on it’s axis – and who knows, maybe it shook up the molten magma layer and with the earthquakes, the planet is preparing to supervolcano blow like a half frozen or half molten can of pressurized soda and once again, reduce the human and other animal species across the globe to barely survival levels to occur in a brutal nuclear winter.

Heck, on the upside, it would delay global warming at least.

But, I digress.

With everyone responsible for their own morality, then there’s no need to fight over matters that pertain to private morality – which would mean, no more challenges to family decisions, such as abortions or life support or organ donation or marriage and divorce, having or not having children, how many and all the things that make up our daily lives.

We can all just live our lives – and there’s no reason why gay people being able to marry and have all the same employee and tax benefits as any other law abiding and tax paying citizen should have any impact on anyone who’s not gay and how they manage their lives.

The reality is that there are gay people who are religious and there’s gay people who want to be married because we feel all the same things, we have the same desires, to be loves and cherished, to have someone special to come to home at the end of the day, and just because that someone special can use the same public restroom legally, why does that concern anyone?

It’s not harming anyone and frankly, straight people shouldn’t have to ever worry if the person that they love and married, had children with, that they shouldn’t ever have to worry that the person they love would rather be having sex with someone else, worse, someone wholly other than what you are and what you offer.

No one should have to live with that kind of pain, having lives a lie, of having been deceived or even worse, being the deceiver.

If you want to keep straight love between straight people, then that means that gay people have to be no different, that gay is of no consequence, so that anyone who’s gay can be so without fear of being murdered, beaten, denied housing, denied love, friendship and family, without fear of being marginalized and outcast.

Because that’s why the gay community has had an historic bad track record of relationships that don’t last, drugs, alcohol, criminality and sexual diseases and early death – because we’ve lived below the radar, criminalized, hunted and outcast. Denied a place in the sun to live openly and honestly, and so we make the best of what we can and we still argue for legal recognition, gay marriage, and we work for that goal through peaceful and legal means.

Unlike so many other groups who seek to maintain the status quo or who seek to impose new inequalities, use intimidation and violence to bring about their vision or to be the voice to their words. Telling that it’s religious groups who use intimidation and violence, while gays and lesbians use the law of the land.

But we won’t live like that anymore and you know that the laws and times and society has changed; being gay is not automatically means you’re an enemy of society to be locked up in a mental ward, beaten and abused, criticized and accused, walk a mile in the shoes that you’ve made us walk.

We aren’t going to stop being gay, so can’t it be enough that we want to be law abiding, tax paying married and family rearing members of the same society?

Isn’t that conformity enough?