With the elections in Israel just a week away, I am reminded of the shameful fact that my father, who was born and raised in Israel, cannot vote in the upcoming elections unless he is willing to hop a plane back to the old country so that he can cast a ballot on election day. I have always believed it to be unfair that Israelis who have lived and worked in the country, paid Israeli taxes, and most importantly have done military service don't get the chance to vote in national elections unless they are willing to make the long trip back home just to vote.
As I said, my father was born and raised in Israel. He went to school in Israel, he worked in Israel, he paid taxes in Israel, and like every good Israeli patriot, he did his compulsory military service as well as reserve service. Heck, he fought three wars for his country and to this day has shrapnel in his hand from the 1973 war, yet his country doesn't even have the decency to allow him to vote to choose the nation's leaders while living abroad. And what's even dumber? The fact that if I were willing to hop on a plane to Israel for election day, I would be able to cast a ballot because I have inherited Israeli citizenship from my father. This despite the fact that I have never lived or worked in the country for an extended period of time, nor have I done military service. Does this sound stupid to anyone else?
I sincerely hope that the next government Israelis vote into office has the decency to change this situation. For starters, allow Israelis living abroad to cast ballots at their nearest embassies or consulates, or even through the mail as is done in many other democratic countries including Canada, where I live. But don't allow just any person with Israeli citizenship to vote abroad, because that would mean extending voting privileges to people like myself who have never lived or worked in Israel or paid Israeli taxes. Instead, allow only those Israelis who have lived in the country for an extended amount of time, say five or more years, to cast ballots abroad. In any case, make it so that people like my father, who risked his life for his country, can exercise their right to vote without having to travel thousands of kilometers just to be there and cast a ballot on election day.
Monday, March 9, 2015
School Choice is Great...But It's not Coming to Ontario Any Time Soon
Right now, the most popular topic concerning education in Ontario is the new, recently released sex-ed curriculum. The curriculum came out to mixed reviews. Some are praising it because it deals with subjects like "sexting" and gender identity, which were not addressed in the old guidelines dating back to the 1990s, but others are condemning it for exposing children to sexual material at an age that some would argue is too young and for contravening the values held by some of the parents who have children in the public school system. Personally, I think the new curriculum has its pluses and minuses, but I'm not writing this post to discuss the new guidelines' merits and drawbacks. I'm writing it to discuss what I think is a much bigger topic that I think this whole sex-ed debate exemplifies: the lack of choice in how parents want to educate their children.
The most vocal opposition to the new sex-ed curriculum seems to be coming from more socially conservative groups and parents who do not want children, or at least their children, exposed to material that goes against their values. For example, there are still plenty of people in Ontario, many of whom have children in the public school system, who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. I strongly disagree with these folks, but I'm not about to impose my opinion on them or their children. Unfortunately, however, the current provincial government seems adamant about imposing its views on children, regardless of what their parents think, and I believe that this wrong.
Now, just to be fair, parents in Ontario have long been given the right to pull their children out of lessons or school activities that they believe are wrong. The best example I can give of this is the accommodations routinely given to students who are Jehovah's Witnesses. These students are not required to stand for the national anthem or study evolution because doing either would contravene their religious beliefs and those of the parents who raise them. In the same respect, parents who do not want their children being exposed to the new sex-ed curriculum, or parts of it, will have the right to remove their children from those lessons. So there is no question of whether parents have the right to determine what their children are not exposed to in the public education system, because this right does indeed exist. What does not exist, however, is a parent's right to determine what their children ARE exposed to when they receive their education. Put more succinctly, parents do not have the right to choose the education that their children receive.
To this day, the right to educate your children as you see fit is something that only the privileged few have. By privileged few, I mean those parents who can afford to send their children to private schools that offer alternative and/or enriched educational experiences. As for the rest of you parents, sorry, but your choices are likely limited to your local public or Catholic school. Want your child to have an education in music? Too bad, your local school just can't afford it. What about if you want your kid to receive a religious education? Sorry, you're outta luck again, my friend (unless of course you're Catholic). Your kid's just gonna have to make do with whatever the government wants and can afford to teach him or her, and to hell with what you want for your child!
Wouldn't it be great if you got to send your kids to whatever kind of school you wanted, regardless of your financial standing? Sure it would, but don't hold your breath for it to happen, especially here in Ontario, because there's too much at stake for the powerful special interests to allow the provincial government to make it easier for parents to choose their child's education; too many union jobs to protect and too many values espoused by hardcore ideologues that would not be imposed on your children if you had the right to educate them as you please. Former provincial Progressive Conservative Party leader John Tory wanted to help parents who preferred alternatives to the public education system, and look where that got him. Oh wait, he eventually got to be the mayor of Toronto, so things turned out good for him in the end. Too bad I can't say the same thing about many parents who continue to have little choice in how their children are educated.
The most vocal opposition to the new sex-ed curriculum seems to be coming from more socially conservative groups and parents who do not want children, or at least their children, exposed to material that goes against their values. For example, there are still plenty of people in Ontario, many of whom have children in the public school system, who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. I strongly disagree with these folks, but I'm not about to impose my opinion on them or their children. Unfortunately, however, the current provincial government seems adamant about imposing its views on children, regardless of what their parents think, and I believe that this wrong.
Now, just to be fair, parents in Ontario have long been given the right to pull their children out of lessons or school activities that they believe are wrong. The best example I can give of this is the accommodations routinely given to students who are Jehovah's Witnesses. These students are not required to stand for the national anthem or study evolution because doing either would contravene their religious beliefs and those of the parents who raise them. In the same respect, parents who do not want their children being exposed to the new sex-ed curriculum, or parts of it, will have the right to remove their children from those lessons. So there is no question of whether parents have the right to determine what their children are not exposed to in the public education system, because this right does indeed exist. What does not exist, however, is a parent's right to determine what their children ARE exposed to when they receive their education. Put more succinctly, parents do not have the right to choose the education that their children receive.
To this day, the right to educate your children as you see fit is something that only the privileged few have. By privileged few, I mean those parents who can afford to send their children to private schools that offer alternative and/or enriched educational experiences. As for the rest of you parents, sorry, but your choices are likely limited to your local public or Catholic school. Want your child to have an education in music? Too bad, your local school just can't afford it. What about if you want your kid to receive a religious education? Sorry, you're outta luck again, my friend (unless of course you're Catholic). Your kid's just gonna have to make do with whatever the government wants and can afford to teach him or her, and to hell with what you want for your child!
Wouldn't it be great if you got to send your kids to whatever kind of school you wanted, regardless of your financial standing? Sure it would, but don't hold your breath for it to happen, especially here in Ontario, because there's too much at stake for the powerful special interests to allow the provincial government to make it easier for parents to choose their child's education; too many union jobs to protect and too many values espoused by hardcore ideologues that would not be imposed on your children if you had the right to educate them as you please. Former provincial Progressive Conservative Party leader John Tory wanted to help parents who preferred alternatives to the public education system, and look where that got him. Oh wait, he eventually got to be the mayor of Toronto, so things turned out good for him in the end. Too bad I can't say the same thing about many parents who continue to have little choice in how their children are educated.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Abolish the TTC Monopoly on Public Mass Transit in Toronto, Because Competition is "The Better Way"
If you use the TTC on a regular basis, or know someone who does, you're very familiar with the usual complaints about Toronto's public transit provider. The overcrowded buses, streetcars and subways, the frequent delays, the equipment breakdowns, the surly employees that would sooner step on your face than look at you, the increasing lack of service in many areas, the...well, you get the idea. It seems that the TTC is always in the news for the wrong reasons. The most recent reason: cost overruns. It has been reported that the TTC's long-anticipated Spadina subway extension now has up to $400 million in cost overruns. Yikes! Four hundred million dollars!? Wait a minute, why am I so surprised? It's not like this hasn't happened before. Remember the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way disaster? I'm sure you do, especially if you happen to be one of those unfortunate souls who lost their business during the project's construction. As I remember, the whole thing was supposed to cost $60 million, but that eventually ballooned to more than $100 million. Now I understand that there are almost always unexpected costs that come with big projects, but this is just ridiculous, and Mayor John Tory, whom I supported in the last municipal election, agrees with me. So what's he going to do about it? Well, I hope he does something, because Torontonians deserve better. They deserve more accountability when it comes to how the TTC uses their tax dollars. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the TTC, accountability is very hard to come by. And why should it be? The TTC doesn't face any competition, so there's little incentive to do better, and this I think is public transit's biggest problem.
For those of you who don't know, the TTC by law has a monopoly on public transit within the City of Toronto. That means that for many Torontonians, the TTC isn't "the better way", it's the only way, and I think this has to change. If Mayor John Tory really wants to fix the TTC, he should call for the immediate abolition of its monopoly on public mass transit in Toronto. If this were to happen, Torontonians would no longer be at the mercy of the TTC, because private interests could provide alternatives to the overcrowded and underfunded public system. Imagine, for example, not having to wait for the TTC to build a new subway route, because a private company has offered to build one at no cost to the taxpayers since it stands to make a substantial profit from it in the long run. Believe me, I would love for a private firm to come and build a subway down a busy street, like Bathurst or King, as I'm sure many other people would. And if you happen to live in a part of the city that is grossly under-served by the TTC, you can bet money that a private concern would come and fill in the gap left by the public transit provider, because they know that there's profit to be had.
Now I can already hear some of the naysayers telling me that this will never work because there won't be seamless movement between the TTC system and the systems owned by private interests. This is a load of nonsense, because the technology exists to provide seamless movement between two or more systems. Transit users will be able to transfer between a TTC-owned bus, streetcar or subway route to those owned by private interests as easily as someone driving on HWY 400 gets onto the privately-owned HWY 407. It's not rocket science. And the fact of the matter is that those who oppose allowing the private sector to provide alternative mass transportation to Torontonians aren't really concerned about the average commuter; they're concerned about protecting the jobs of unionized TTC workers, who are some of the same people who, as I said, would sooner step on a TTC user's face than look at them. The reality is that without competition, there will never be meaningful accountability at the TTC. I'm hoping that folks like the mayor and other elected officials at City Hall and the Province of Ontario will acknowledge this reality and work to remove the TTC's shackles from the city's public transit users so that they can finally choose what they believe is "the better way".
For those of you who don't know, the TTC by law has a monopoly on public transit within the City of Toronto. That means that for many Torontonians, the TTC isn't "the better way", it's the only way, and I think this has to change. If Mayor John Tory really wants to fix the TTC, he should call for the immediate abolition of its monopoly on public mass transit in Toronto. If this were to happen, Torontonians would no longer be at the mercy of the TTC, because private interests could provide alternatives to the overcrowded and underfunded public system. Imagine, for example, not having to wait for the TTC to build a new subway route, because a private company has offered to build one at no cost to the taxpayers since it stands to make a substantial profit from it in the long run. Believe me, I would love for a private firm to come and build a subway down a busy street, like Bathurst or King, as I'm sure many other people would. And if you happen to live in a part of the city that is grossly under-served by the TTC, you can bet money that a private concern would come and fill in the gap left by the public transit provider, because they know that there's profit to be had.
Now I can already hear some of the naysayers telling me that this will never work because there won't be seamless movement between the TTC system and the systems owned by private interests. This is a load of nonsense, because the technology exists to provide seamless movement between two or more systems. Transit users will be able to transfer between a TTC-owned bus, streetcar or subway route to those owned by private interests as easily as someone driving on HWY 400 gets onto the privately-owned HWY 407. It's not rocket science. And the fact of the matter is that those who oppose allowing the private sector to provide alternative mass transportation to Torontonians aren't really concerned about the average commuter; they're concerned about protecting the jobs of unionized TTC workers, who are some of the same people who, as I said, would sooner step on a TTC user's face than look at them. The reality is that without competition, there will never be meaningful accountability at the TTC. I'm hoping that folks like the mayor and other elected officials at City Hall and the Province of Ontario will acknowledge this reality and work to remove the TTC's shackles from the city's public transit users so that they can finally choose what they believe is "the better way".
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Netanyahu: Our Modern Day Winston Churchill
Today, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered his much anticipated speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress. The speech itself was controversial before Netanyahu even muttered a word, because he was not invited by President Obama, but by the leaders of the Republican-controlled Congress. All of Netanyahu's critics keep saying that his decision to accept the invitation by the Republican leadership was a slap in the face to the U.S. President, not to mention the speech itself. But I don't think the Israeli Prime Minister has anything to apologize for. In fact, I would say that the people who criticize him should instead be thanking him for trying to keep the world in touch with reality - a reality that many people, especially President Obama, don't see.
Anyone who has listened to or read Prime Minister Netanyahu's speeches knows that he likes to make references to history, and his speech today is no exception. For example, he compared the Islamic extremist regime of Iran to that of Nazi Germany, and I believe that this comparison is 100% legitimate, because Iran's ayatollahs are just as determined to inflict genocide as Hitler and the Nazis were. As Netanyahu mentioned, Iran's regime is not just a Jewish problem, nor was Nazi Germany just a Jewish problem. The fact is that Iran's Islamo-fascist rulers threaten to destroy more than just the State of Israel, just as Nazi Germany sought to destroy more than just the Jews. Netanyahu even noted that the Jews killed in the Holocaust were just a fraction of the tens of millions killed by the Nazis.
Speaking of historical analogies, I have noticed a marked increase in the number of times Netanyahu's critics have accused him of believing himself to be the modern day Winston Churchill, recalling that the late British leader tried to warn the world about the danger that Nazi Germany posed. I obviously can't read the Israeli Prime Minister's mind, but if he genuinely thinks that he's filling Churchill's shoes in today's world, I certainly wouldn't blame him for believing as such, because the fact of the matter is that he is the only world leader who has consistently warned about the dangers of appeasing Iran's ayatollahs, just as Churchill warned against appeasing Hitler. And if Netanyahu is indeed the modern day Winston Churchill, I would say that U.S. President Barack Obama is the modern day Neville Chamberlain. So it's no wonder, then, that Obama's critics are comparing him to the late British Prime Minister, who famously waived an agreement signed by himself and Hitler in the air, proclaiming "peace in our time."
Thankfully, Obama has not yet made any agreement with Iran, and hopefully he does not sign off on the deal currently taking shape - a deal that as the Israeli Prime Minister noted, would not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but would instead do just the opposite. After Netanyahu gave his speech, Obama accused him of not having any alternatives to the agreement that he was trying to cement with Iran. I guess he wasn't paying attention when the Israeli Prime Minister was speaking, because if he was, he would have heard the alternative - get a better deal!
Anyone who has listened to or read Prime Minister Netanyahu's speeches knows that he likes to make references to history, and his speech today is no exception. For example, he compared the Islamic extremist regime of Iran to that of Nazi Germany, and I believe that this comparison is 100% legitimate, because Iran's ayatollahs are just as determined to inflict genocide as Hitler and the Nazis were. As Netanyahu mentioned, Iran's regime is not just a Jewish problem, nor was Nazi Germany just a Jewish problem. The fact is that Iran's Islamo-fascist rulers threaten to destroy more than just the State of Israel, just as Nazi Germany sought to destroy more than just the Jews. Netanyahu even noted that the Jews killed in the Holocaust were just a fraction of the tens of millions killed by the Nazis.
Speaking of historical analogies, I have noticed a marked increase in the number of times Netanyahu's critics have accused him of believing himself to be the modern day Winston Churchill, recalling that the late British leader tried to warn the world about the danger that Nazi Germany posed. I obviously can't read the Israeli Prime Minister's mind, but if he genuinely thinks that he's filling Churchill's shoes in today's world, I certainly wouldn't blame him for believing as such, because the fact of the matter is that he is the only world leader who has consistently warned about the dangers of appeasing Iran's ayatollahs, just as Churchill warned against appeasing Hitler. And if Netanyahu is indeed the modern day Winston Churchill, I would say that U.S. President Barack Obama is the modern day Neville Chamberlain. So it's no wonder, then, that Obama's critics are comparing him to the late British Prime Minister, who famously waived an agreement signed by himself and Hitler in the air, proclaiming "peace in our time."
Thankfully, Obama has not yet made any agreement with Iran, and hopefully he does not sign off on the deal currently taking shape - a deal that as the Israeli Prime Minister noted, would not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but would instead do just the opposite. After Netanyahu gave his speech, Obama accused him of not having any alternatives to the agreement that he was trying to cement with Iran. I guess he wasn't paying attention when the Israeli Prime Minister was speaking, because if he was, he would have heard the alternative - get a better deal!
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Netanyahu Must Stay the Course
It can't be easy being Israeli Prime Minister Binyanmin Netanyahu, or Bibi, as many Israelis including myself like to call him. Nowadays, it seems like Bibi is everyone's favourite whipping boy. But even with all the hatred directed towards him, the worst thing that Netanyahu can do now is cave in to it. And if I know anything about the man, he is not one to cave in, whether the pressure to do so comes from at home or abroad. He is a straight talker that pulls no punches and tells it like it is. So if all you Bibi-haters want to accuse him of being a fear-monger or a harbinger of doom and gloom, then go right ahead, because it's not going to stop him from telling everyone what reality is and what it will be if leaders make the wrong decisions.
Many of the latest salvos against Prime Minister Netanyahu have to do with his plans to address the American Congress in the coming weeks. Yes, everybody's upset because Bibi seems to be thumbing his nose at the world's best Neville Chamberlain impersonator, namely U.S. President Barack Obama. The fact of the matter is that Bibi has tried again and again to convince Obama that playing nice with dictators and terrorists just doesn't work. But unfortunately, the American President still refuses to heed the wise words of the Israeli Prime Minister and continues to live in a dream world where evil does not exist. Personally, I think Obama is no more than a preacher on one of those Sunday televangelist shows. Do you know what I and many other people do whenever we see one of these preachers on our TV screens? We change the channel so we don't have to hear any more of their BS - and this is exactly how Prime Minister Netanyahu deals with President Obama. He just tunes him out. He also knows that there are plenty of other politicians in Washington who are more in touch with reality and who are willing to listen to what he has to say, hence his decision to address the Congress. So why waste time trying to placate a preacher who pretends to be a president?
If I had the opportunity to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu how I think he should proceed during these difficult times, I would say the following: Mr. Prime Minister, many people don't like what you say or do, but history will prove you were right. Stay the course.
Many of the latest salvos against Prime Minister Netanyahu have to do with his plans to address the American Congress in the coming weeks. Yes, everybody's upset because Bibi seems to be thumbing his nose at the world's best Neville Chamberlain impersonator, namely U.S. President Barack Obama. The fact of the matter is that Bibi has tried again and again to convince Obama that playing nice with dictators and terrorists just doesn't work. But unfortunately, the American President still refuses to heed the wise words of the Israeli Prime Minister and continues to live in a dream world where evil does not exist. Personally, I think Obama is no more than a preacher on one of those Sunday televangelist shows. Do you know what I and many other people do whenever we see one of these preachers on our TV screens? We change the channel so we don't have to hear any more of their BS - and this is exactly how Prime Minister Netanyahu deals with President Obama. He just tunes him out. He also knows that there are plenty of other politicians in Washington who are more in touch with reality and who are willing to listen to what he has to say, hence his decision to address the Congress. So why waste time trying to placate a preacher who pretends to be a president?
If I had the opportunity to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu how I think he should proceed during these difficult times, I would say the following: Mr. Prime Minister, many people don't like what you say or do, but history will prove you were right. Stay the course.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
NATO Finally Considers Sending Arms to Ukraine. Too Little, Too Late
So apparently after Putin the Terrible gobbled up Crimea and then moved to take over eastern Ukraine, the illustrious members of NATO are finally considering assisting the Ukrainians militarily by sending them arms that they can use to fight back against the Russian tyrant and his allies. Maybe they've finally figured out that it will take the force of arms to stand up to the man who fancies himself as the leader of a new Russian empire. Uh, ya' think? Too bad they didn't clue in a lot earlier, because now I think it may be too little too late.
When are the democracies that comprise NATO going to learn? The only thing that can stop a power-hungry dictator like Russia's Vladimir Putin is force. Not halfhearted condemnations, not economic sanctions, but pure brute force. So trying to deal with Putin the same way Neville Chamberlain dealt with Hitler is just not going to work. If NATO members had learned from history, they probably would have placed their troops in Ukraine long ago to prevent any further land grabs by Putin. But instead, they decided to let the Ukrainians fend for themselves, offering them only "non-lethal" aid.
So why are NATO and the West being too soft on Putin? There are several reasons, but perhaps the biggest stumbling block is the failure of the U.S. under President Barack Obama to reassert its leadership of the free world. President Obama might as well be the reincarnation of Britain's Neville Chamberlain, because he thinks in the same naive way that the late British prime minister did. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I kind of miss President George W. Bush, because although I strongly disagreed with his decision to invade Iraq, I can say almost for certain that if he was still in power instead of Obama, both Crimea and eastern Ukraine would still be entirely in Ukrainian hands today.
But alas, the reality is that Obama, not George W. Bush, is the U.S. president and that's highly unlikely to change until the next presidential elections, due to take place late next year. I can only hope that by then, Americans will choose to put someone in the White House that is more Winston Churchill than Neville Chamberlain.
In the meantime, Obama and the rest of the NATO bunch are still twiddling their fingers and debating whether or not to support Ukraine militarily. But as I already said, even if they do decide to send arms to the Ukrainians, it won't make the situation any better. In fact, it might make it even worse because Putin may preempt NATO's export of arms to Ukraine by launching a full scale invasion of the country, rather than just continuing with his current strategy of gradually sending Russian forces into Ukraine to support the pro-Russian terrorists.
So if sending arms to Ukraine isn't the answer, what is? To put it simply, only the presence of NATO troops' boots on the ground will halt the advance of Putin's gradual invasion. The fact of the matter is that Putin is not yet ready for a conflict with the West. He still needs time to build his military forces and solidify alliances with countries like China and Iran, which will be his allies for the foreseeable future. Placing NATO troops in Ukraine will ensure that any future conflict with Russia happens closer to its borders than Putin would like. Failing to do this, however, will probably mean that if and when a conflict between the West and Russia does ensue, Putin's forces will be on NATO's doorstep; on the doorstep of the free world, from where they can advance into most of Europe within a space of hours.
When are the democracies that comprise NATO going to learn? The only thing that can stop a power-hungry dictator like Russia's Vladimir Putin is force. Not halfhearted condemnations, not economic sanctions, but pure brute force. So trying to deal with Putin the same way Neville Chamberlain dealt with Hitler is just not going to work. If NATO members had learned from history, they probably would have placed their troops in Ukraine long ago to prevent any further land grabs by Putin. But instead, they decided to let the Ukrainians fend for themselves, offering them only "non-lethal" aid.
So why are NATO and the West being too soft on Putin? There are several reasons, but perhaps the biggest stumbling block is the failure of the U.S. under President Barack Obama to reassert its leadership of the free world. President Obama might as well be the reincarnation of Britain's Neville Chamberlain, because he thinks in the same naive way that the late British prime minister did. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I kind of miss President George W. Bush, because although I strongly disagreed with his decision to invade Iraq, I can say almost for certain that if he was still in power instead of Obama, both Crimea and eastern Ukraine would still be entirely in Ukrainian hands today.
But alas, the reality is that Obama, not George W. Bush, is the U.S. president and that's highly unlikely to change until the next presidential elections, due to take place late next year. I can only hope that by then, Americans will choose to put someone in the White House that is more Winston Churchill than Neville Chamberlain.
In the meantime, Obama and the rest of the NATO bunch are still twiddling their fingers and debating whether or not to support Ukraine militarily. But as I already said, even if they do decide to send arms to the Ukrainians, it won't make the situation any better. In fact, it might make it even worse because Putin may preempt NATO's export of arms to Ukraine by launching a full scale invasion of the country, rather than just continuing with his current strategy of gradually sending Russian forces into Ukraine to support the pro-Russian terrorists.
So if sending arms to Ukraine isn't the answer, what is? To put it simply, only the presence of NATO troops' boots on the ground will halt the advance of Putin's gradual invasion. The fact of the matter is that Putin is not yet ready for a conflict with the West. He still needs time to build his military forces and solidify alliances with countries like China and Iran, which will be his allies for the foreseeable future. Placing NATO troops in Ukraine will ensure that any future conflict with Russia happens closer to its borders than Putin would like. Failing to do this, however, will probably mean that if and when a conflict between the West and Russia does ensue, Putin's forces will be on NATO's doorstep; on the doorstep of the free world, from where they can advance into most of Europe within a space of hours.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
The Rise of Mixed Martial Arts...And the Fall of Decency
How do I know that society is going down hill? Increasing crime, growing poverty? These are a couple of good indicators. But here's another more unorthodox one: for the last decade and a half or so, one of the fastest growing sports in the world has been something called mixed martial arts, or MMA for short. Okay, so what does MMA have to do with measuring the decline of society? Well let me put it this way: when the one of the world's fastest growing sports is one where two individuals beat the living crap out of each other for people's entertainment, I think society is in big trouble. Now I know some of you reading this will want to tell me that there's plenty of violence in sports nowadays and MMA is no worse than football, hockey or boxing. To those of you who do make this argument, my answer is simple: MMA, unlike football or hockey, is dependent on its participants beating each other up and inflicting as much pain as is necessary to win. In MMA, violence isn't just part of the sport. It is the sport. Now of course, the same can be said about boxing and other martial arts-related competitions. But MMA is the worse than any of these sports because it's essentially a combination of all forms of unarmed combat into one - everything from boxing to muay thai to jiu-jitsu - basically, anything that you can do to hurt someone. But now that MMA has become so popular, it's not simply a negative reflection of society. It's a threat to moral decency.
The so-called sport of MMA sets a bad example for everyone. It sends a message that violence for the sake of violence is okay; that fighting is fun; that it's great to jump for joy when someone gets knocked out. Actually, MMA fighters are sometimes paid extra if they knock their opponents out. Pretty disgusting, isn't it. And yet, more and more people now consider MMA to be a legitimate sport on the same level as hockey or basketball. Here in Canada, for example, Rogers Sportsnet, one of the country's leading sports networks, selected Georges St. Pierre, one of the most well-known MMA fighters, as Canadian athlete of the year for three years in a row, from 2008 to 2010. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, a person who makes a living beating people up and taking beatings himself is not worthy of such a distinction. It's not that I think Mr. St. Pierre, or GSP as he is popularly known, is a bad person. In fact, I would argue that most of the well-known MMA fighters are not bad people at all. They're certainly not the mindless barbarians that MMA makes them look like. Before they became involved in MMA, some of today's most popular fighters did great things. I still remember hearing about one fighter who used to be a math teacher. I think we can all agree that teaching is a very noble profession. Another well-known fighter, Ronda Rousey, who is now arguably the most recognized face of women's MMA, became the first American woman to win an Olympic medal in judo back in the 2008 games. But unfortunately, both the former Olympian and the former math teacher, who once did noble deeds, eventually turned to the dark side, so to speak, just like many others who are now MMA fighters. What I'm basically trying to demonstrate is that MMA has become a way of turning good people bad. And if this is the case, imagine what it can do to some of the most vulnerable people in our society - our young.
Yes, MMA is for the most part adult entertainment. But I've begun to notice its popularity creeping into the younger demographic of people under 18. So just imagine how I felt when I heard a school here in Canada was going to invite MMA fighters to talk to kids about bullying. When I heard about this on the radio just a couple of years ago, I was shocked and dismayed to say the least. I can also remember how one person on the same radio show said that having MMA fighters talk to kids about bullying is like having strippers talk to kids about body image. Whoever this person was, I agree with them 100%. It's bad enough that adults are being corrupted by the likes of MMA, but now we have to worry about our children being exposed to it. I cringe at the idea of any child of mine wanting to be the next Georges St. Pierre. Actually, I don't have a child, but if I did, my advice to him or her would be, if you want to fight, go fight for king and country, not pride and a paycheck.
The so-called sport of MMA sets a bad example for everyone. It sends a message that violence for the sake of violence is okay; that fighting is fun; that it's great to jump for joy when someone gets knocked out. Actually, MMA fighters are sometimes paid extra if they knock their opponents out. Pretty disgusting, isn't it. And yet, more and more people now consider MMA to be a legitimate sport on the same level as hockey or basketball. Here in Canada, for example, Rogers Sportsnet, one of the country's leading sports networks, selected Georges St. Pierre, one of the most well-known MMA fighters, as Canadian athlete of the year for three years in a row, from 2008 to 2010. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, a person who makes a living beating people up and taking beatings himself is not worthy of such a distinction. It's not that I think Mr. St. Pierre, or GSP as he is popularly known, is a bad person. In fact, I would argue that most of the well-known MMA fighters are not bad people at all. They're certainly not the mindless barbarians that MMA makes them look like. Before they became involved in MMA, some of today's most popular fighters did great things. I still remember hearing about one fighter who used to be a math teacher. I think we can all agree that teaching is a very noble profession. Another well-known fighter, Ronda Rousey, who is now arguably the most recognized face of women's MMA, became the first American woman to win an Olympic medal in judo back in the 2008 games. But unfortunately, both the former Olympian and the former math teacher, who once did noble deeds, eventually turned to the dark side, so to speak, just like many others who are now MMA fighters. What I'm basically trying to demonstrate is that MMA has become a way of turning good people bad. And if this is the case, imagine what it can do to some of the most vulnerable people in our society - our young.
Yes, MMA is for the most part adult entertainment. But I've begun to notice its popularity creeping into the younger demographic of people under 18. So just imagine how I felt when I heard a school here in Canada was going to invite MMA fighters to talk to kids about bullying. When I heard about this on the radio just a couple of years ago, I was shocked and dismayed to say the least. I can also remember how one person on the same radio show said that having MMA fighters talk to kids about bullying is like having strippers talk to kids about body image. Whoever this person was, I agree with them 100%. It's bad enough that adults are being corrupted by the likes of MMA, but now we have to worry about our children being exposed to it. I cringe at the idea of any child of mine wanting to be the next Georges St. Pierre. Actually, I don't have a child, but if I did, my advice to him or her would be, if you want to fight, go fight for king and country, not pride and a paycheck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)