World Suicide Prevention Day and the World Happiness Report

The World Happiness Report (WHR) was released on September 9 2013, the day before  World Suicide Prevention Day.

Suicide is tragic regardless of the race, sex, or age of the victim. The tragedy, and this burden of guilt must be carried by our entire culture, is that some among us feel so hopeless about their future that they feel their only option is to die. Suicide affects everyone close to the victim, often destroying the lives of the survivors.

If suicide is to be addressed effectively, it needs to be understood. That means openly talking about victim demographics; who they are and why they commit suicide, for starters. And yet even on World Suicide Prevention Day, the media chose to be evasive about the truth.

The CTV news piece about World Suicide Prevention Day mentioned the many suicide cohorts, the complexities of suicide, that individuals have differing motives, that differences occur within each age group. In fact they went to considerable trouble to touch on these complexities. 

But the CTV commentators avoided the single biggest and most significant statistic surrounding suicide:

Twitter-Rage: Jane Austen made me do it

When I first heard of the "Jane Austen twitter-rape-threat arrest" I did not think I would write about it because, I thought, he should be arrested, he deserved it. Threatening someone is a crime, so this seems like a straight forward, uncontroversial case. Make a threat, get arrested. Nothing to write about there. A threat is a threat, right?

I started thinking more about this because I saw "rape threat" comments when I posted a video of Feminist protests at the University of Toronto. I did not want to get into censoring comments, but I deleted the "I want to rape her" and "she should be raped" comments as I saw them. Not only are these comments abusive and offensive but they add nothing to any conversation. At best these comments shut down conversation, and inflame tensions.

Why do some people make these comments? 

Justice for Trayvon Martin

" 'If I had a daughter she would look like Nicole Brown Smith,' says President Clinton days after OJ Simpson was arrested for murder. "

No, Bill Clinton didn't say that. He wouldn't have dared. That would have been prejudicial against OJ Simpson, especially coming from the highest public office in the US, and it would have triggered race-riots.

President Obama has no such reservations, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon." This is no small thing. Even before the facts were known, charges were laid or a trial could begin, the US President signaled that he believed Trayvon Martin was indeed the victim of a homicide. 

After the verdict, President Obama said "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." 

Does he mean kicked out of school three times, multiple arrests, tattoos, a penchant for street fighting, and stolen goods and drugs in his bedroom?  Did he refer to white people as "creepy-ass crackers?" Would he have beat a man's head against the concrete until the man was sure he was going to die?

Police brutally beat a man to the ground, without cause or provocation

Everyone in North America remembers the brutal beating of Rodney King by police in California on March 3, 1991. This incident received enormous and near constant NEWS coverage around the world, and led to charges against the police involved. The acquittal of four police officers led to riots, leaving 53 dead and thousands injured. This incident was widely condemned as racially motivated; Rodney King was African American.

So, more than 20 years later, we can assume that violence motivated by police bigotry is universally condemned. The public will be outraged, and there will be marches, and protests when it occurs? 

Not so fast. 

A week ago a police officer in Sweden brutally beat a man to the ground with a steel baton without cause or provocation, and it was all caught on video, shown here.

Are Male Shoulders Offensive? This Bar Manager Says They Are.

I met a couple of buddies downtown Kingston last night.

Buskers fire show on Princess St.

After watching the Buskers fire show on Princess street we decided to play a couple of games of pool at the Grizzly Grill. It was a hot evening and one of my friends, Ed, had worn a sleeveless shirt. 

The Grizzly Grill has a bar and pool tables upstairs and another bar with a dance floor below. Women of all ages hang out on both floors and, as is typical, many were scantily dressed in sleeveless and strapless tops, and mini-skirts, in the usual manner intended to attract attention. That's fine, I don't mind a bit. These young women are proud of their bodies and they have every right to show off in virtually any manner they wish.

Ed was given this t-shirt to hide his "offensive" muscles.
The young woman's strapless dress was perfectly fine. 

But that right was not extended to Ed. We weren't there five minutes before a bouncer appeared and told Ed he had to put on a different shirt. The female manager found Ed offensive in his "muscle shirt." He wasn't topless. His shirt was clean and of high quality. His shorts were also nice looking. But she considered the muscle shirt "offensive." Ed didn't have another shirt with him, and he was genuinely apologetic, so the bouncer brought him a t-shirt, seen here, to cover up his "offensive" muscles.

Can you imagine the outrage and protests if one of the women were asked to put on a shirt?