how to tell what a Canadian Dominatrix is compared to their more familiar American ones.
America is a great nation that has left footprints of varying size and depth all over world history – but when certain INDIVIDUAL Americans travel the world – and this has been going on for at least as far back as the 1970’s to my specific personal knowledge……so probably a lot longer.
Some Americans pretend to be Canadians, as if the whole world, can’t tell us apart – because Americans and Canadians appear to look alike.
but Americans do not – cannot – act Canadian enough – so basically
the whole world knows America’s dirty laundry
because it’s Republicans who strut on the world stage everywhere they go, without stepping lightly or sensitively and it’s mostly Democrats/Liberals who try to be Canadians
and all that says to the world, is about the shame that America feels inside – the woundedness of the zero-sum culture that is America
and Canada – we don’t do zero-sum – we don’t dominate anyone
we’re peacekeepers. but that’s how we dominate, we bring and make people be peaceful towards each other – and we dominate so slightly, so lightly, that everyone – even most Canadians – have forgotten what a dominate Canadian vs a submissive Canadian is – and very very few people can recognise what a Canadian – who goes both ways – top and bottom, bottom to top, topping your bottom…..at the same time……without a safeword, because, there is no place safe from Canadians, we’re welcome everywhere…..because we not only can go both ways, we can do both ways at the same time, and most people, who think they are dominating us, have no idea, Who’s the Boss.
Canada has have been content to live in the American shadow so we can be Small Town all the time – and only dance on the world stages – After America has done all the heavy lifting – but also, having done, a lot of the dirty work that causes that heavy honest lifting up of peoples and nations – but only the ones that America wants something from.
and Canada – we don’t play that because we can grow enough food and have enough oil and water – without ever having a trade agreement with anyone – it is possible for Canada to be isolationist, sustainable and self-supporting.
Not likely and not probable, but certainly possible – with the right Prime Minister – who’s able to share their vision of Canada that includes ALL CANADIANS – just like the 1985 Charter of Rights proclaimed combined with all the social equality advances that were made possible under the Charter Challenge Program.
Which was originally set up to address language rights – and any other social justice rights of vulnerable minorities….like us gay and lesbians and bi and trans – but also anyone who – when they watch Question Period on Parlimentary TV – and they don’t see anyone who looks like them or acts like them or that what they see – the behaviours or the particular people or this party or that party collectively…..
because rights don’t need to be excerised – they are supposed to be a given – a default – everyone equally valuable under the law and entitled to equal access to all the laws of the land in which – WE ALL PAY TAXES.
And it’s true, we don’t all pay the same taxes – but paying TAX is what we are investing in our nation – in each other – to make sure – that everyone has equal opportunity and treatment under the law – and that no one person or group be able to enforce their bigotry or prejudice or bias – against any person or group of people.
Not since The Murphy Gang of 5 – established WOMEN as PERSONS under the law. We all all PERSONS under the law – and the kind or type of person we each may individually be – drawn from a range of group identifiers – doens’ t matter and MUST NOT AFFECT OR EFFECT how we are treated by each other or under the law.
We do not have to indivually assert under the law or so called corrective processes – what we have collectively establish as law – through legislation and litigation legal precedent. It’s a waste of money to fight over what is, in fact the law – and it’s a waste of money and people – to fight to apply the law in a narrow or restrictive application – because the law is at once, the letter, the spirit and the intention – and the law fails only when Powers Of The Day – forget that we are all PERSONS under a threeway law – letter, spirit and intention.
the law does not work, if there is deception about intentions…..
Sorry – it’s hard to do a blog with a World Audience and a Specific Canadian audience at the same time. You see, I developed an inability to communicate – on June 10, 2010. But I can’t talk directly about that without triggering a panic attack.
Heck, I can’t even think about it, without panicking.
SO – waves hands, deep breath – focus and back to subject of the actual blog:
America needs Canada – because – we make you – look good.
But Canada – doesn’t need America and we don’t want your zero-sum culture here. But Canada – for the most part – ADORES America in many ways – so brash, so bold, so daring – after all – America is a hard act to follow – being the first nation to establish in law that :
The Individual is the social unit of consequence – and that’s hard to balance in a family values culture.
Because the Individual has the FREEDOM to TAKE LIBERTIES with WHATEVER MAKES THE individual HAPPY.
and most people – all over the world – do not come from happy families so…..
– in fact – Canada is so horrified by the zero-sum way that Americans talk to each other so lets get right to the BIGGEST ELEPHANT: that NO CANADIAN WANTS TO TALK PUBLICALLY ABOUT.
hint – it’s not Gay Marriage – that became the law of the land in 2003 – and Mr Harper promised to abide by that – and he hasn’t kept many promises because he rarely ever specifically promises anything – he agrees to follow the will of Canadians – but he is trying to shape what it is that Canadians actually will – and he can’t understand why so many of us do not and will not trust him – and it’s his own fault.
He fixed election dates to 4 year intervals and caused parliamentary non-confidence votes or collapses of government such that it caused the Governor General to actually do what a Governor General is supposed to – and she didn’t because there was no precedent to follow – and she played small instead of being Governor General and being the precedent – and taking away the chair that belongs to the Position of Prime Minister of Canada – being sat in by the leader of the government of the day – In Trust – for all Canadians.
so – the topic that most Tears America apart – is not what tears Canada apart.
In America – it’s Abortion.
Roe V Wade legally established abortion rights for women. You guys can’t get away from that discussion or any life v death discussion
which, if you all really believed that there was a god who sorted people out – why can’t you let people run their own lives and be accountible to themselves and whatever god(s) they have? or let your god sort them out when they die – without your assistance……..
In Canada – people are just as passionate – but we do not assert our private beleifs in the public square
Canada’s anti-abortion law was struck down around 1980 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
It was never replaced – it just became a private health matter under government regulations under the mandate of Health Canada.
so our abortion debate is over free standing clinics vs in hospital access to abortions.
The only people that abortion stand alone clinics really serve is the protestors (Callout to my Dad for giving me this bold line for a high school debate – back in 1985, because I know he’s reading my blog and he has gotten the weird idea that I don’t listen to him)
– and the Canada debate is how many blocks away from the clinic do Protestors have to stand before they can be arrested for interfering with other people going about their LAWFUL business – whatever business brings them to the street the clinic – among other businesses – are?
because if Protestors stood outside and protested in front of hospitals, they would be beaten with their own signs for bothering people going in and out of the hospital for a wide range of reasons
so pretty much, the only politician who brings up abortion as an issue in Canada,
is the one who’s trying to not get elected
So, I think, that the hard question that Canadians have to ask themselves – is what kind of a Prime Minister do they want?
One that is inclusive of all Canadians or one that, well, says they are but doesn’t really seem to have a clear vision that they can specifically say and abide by and who just doesn’t resonant with most Canadians and who only seems to resonate with only narrow segments of Canadians…..
Because – there are problems and the Two Party System in America has resulted in a zero-sum culture and there are problems and our Three Way Federal Party Plus Quebec’s Federal Party – that’s 4 parties which is basically a fancier Zero Sum.
But like most Canadians – I would like to support the Green Party – but beyond the environment, their platform is a mix of everything – which makes them hard to pin down – but they are so darn determined – darling underdogs – and doesn’t that – alone – make them the one party that includes some of all kinds of Canadians?
There’s an interesting phenomenon when you tell a straight person that you’re gay in that their first response is usually a defensive “I’m straight” or other indication that you flirting with them or imagining them naked or whatever isn’t welcome. This is a silly if understandable response, but it’s not like anyone gets to control what other people think or imagine about them.
The bizarre response is that when said straight person is informed that no flirtation would be forthcoming, is to demand why not? Shouldn’t you as the gay person just be lusting after their forbidden straight self? In a word, no.
Often, it takes a while to convince the straight person that just as they are attracted to one or the other gender doesn’t mean that they are attracted to all members of their preferred gender. Ditto for gay people, just because I am attracted to women, doesn’t make me attracted to all women – especially women who are unavailable. I developed two dating rules from bitter experience – (1) never fall for someone in love with someone dead, straight or else; and (2) if the person of your affection tells you that they are straight, non-monogamous or anything that’s a deal breaker, believe them. Even if it isn’t true, it’s an indication that they are not interested and giving you a face saving out.
Now I do not really understand straight people who are threatened by gays and lesbians – because it’s not like we want to convert them all and when it’s a straight person of the same gender, it’s not like we’re competing with them for dates, in fact, we’re doing them a favour by not competing.
That I am a lesbian has no impact on anyone else, especially not people who I haven’t invited to engage in a sexual way with. So for a straight person to feel threatened by the fact of there being gay people, suggests that the straight person is not as straight as they would like the world to be. As if knowing there’s an option to not present yourself as straight leaves a question mark on them as to whether they are really straight.
It is similar to religious believers who encounter their first atheist. They can’t quite believe that to the atheist, there is no meaningful difference between the extremists or the moderates. There are no good guy religions, there is just a spectrum of moderate to extremist behaviours associated with religions, but no religion is any more credible or truthful than any other.
Big Tent everyone welcome minimalist religions have no more basis for their beliefs than the most violent extremists have.
Atheism understandably makes believers uncomfortable and hostile, because to tell a person you are an atheist is to tell them that you think their religion is wrong. Whereas, telling a person that you are gay says absolutely nothing about them if they are straight – and if they are homophobic, it’s telling them that they are wrong and that being gay is okay – a message that homophobes are not open to. Particular since it’s most likely their own gayness and self hatred that has caused them to be homophobic.
And this is where religion connects – homophobes tend to be very religious and anti-homosexual ideas are religious ideas – so to be a good believer, one must be straight, so that means repressing the natural to the individual gayness. Openly gay people are threats to the religious idea that gays are bad and openly atheist people are threats to religious ideas of all kinds, not just the anti-gay ones.
So, being an atheist and a gay person is a double system shock – you can be good, gay and godless.
So whether you’re a gay person or an atheist or a gay atheist – remember when you encounter nice straight or nice believers or nice straight believers – they don’t want to be in our camp exactly, they just want to be invited.
This blog was inspired by Greta Christina‘s Atheist in the Pride Parade blog
The common good is that idea that whatever serves the most number of members in a community is deemed good. The common good is generally whatever rules or actions are needed to minimize the disharmony within the community.
The greater good is the idea that there’s a standard that we should collectively strive for to maximize the harmony within the community.
Depending on the demographics and characteristics of the community, whether either kind of “good” is actually good, is more a function of who’s left standing at the end.
Greater and common goods are about the collective needs of the individuals rather than individual individuals, where the community as a whole or as balancing interests of groups within the whole community – and not considering the interests of any individuals – but the decisions/actions of individuals contribute to either the common or greater good.
The common good, being about peaceful co-existence, is generally good under any system of objective or subjective measure. Paying taxes in exchange for services, following laws and social norms so as to as to not infringe on other people’s enjoyment or ability to live their lives as they see fit within the same rules. Your right to swing your arm ends before my nose begins type of rules and norms.
As long as the common good is mostly good, people are contented and engaged in society and committed to leave the status quo as it is.
The greater good is the higher order of good and it can be used for good purposes to address areas where the common good is not inclusive of groups of people – an example would be civil rights and social progress, where groups that were discriminated against, ie not included in the common good, have these historic wrongs righted or it can be used for bad purposes, which is to redefine what the common good is in terms of a narrower set of groups within the community – for example, the standby Nazi Germany redefining what a true German was and passing laws putting limitations on the rights of Jewish people, as if there was a limited amount of rights and freedoms or, in modern America, the issue of gays being denied marriage, as if allowing gays to marry diminished the marriages of straight people – anything that is to serve a deity or purist purpose is often deemed by those who benefit to be the greater good – and it comes down to great for them and sucky or worse for everyone else.
Individually, we contribute on a daily basis to the common good – when we take turns, when we don’t take more than we need and leave some for others, when we work cooperatively on common or group goals, when we treat others as we treat ourselves. We do not contribute to the common good when we put ourselves or put others above or ahead of the group, so it’s a fine balancing act of not shorting someone else or shorting ourselves.
Individually, we can also contribute to a greater good than living our normal lives allow – often these feel like calls to service or destiny. We are drawn to a greater good when we undertake an action that provides an example for others to follow because of the obvious benefits or improvement for the common good. This is as opposed to having others emulate the behaviours or actions by coercion, trickery or bribery to follow the set example, as exemplified by the behaviour or actions reduces the common good by eliminating or discriminating against segments of the community, with individuals of non-targeted groups joining in to avoid becoming outcast or because they benefit from casting people out.
Serving the common and greater goods, requires individuals to think beyond themselves; serving the common good is to think of other individual people as well as yourself and the greater good to think of other groups of people to whom the individual is not a member as well as your own group(s) – and creating a balance, a harmony, between and within.
To not serve either the common or greater good, is to serve your own or your groups’ narrow interest, usually at the expense of other people and groups. This is where the greatest dangers and threats to the whole of society lie, me at the expense of you.
To serve oneself alone, is to provide service to no one.