Conversations with kids

First, with 7-year-old son, J:

Me: [talking back at CBC radio in the car, following a report on George W. Bush]

J: What's wrong, Mom?

Me: Oh, nothing, J, just yelling at the radio.

J: Did they say something wrong?

Me: Just a story about George Bush, he is such an ass.

J: What's wrong with him?

Me: Oh, where to start? But this story in particular just shows how completely out of touch with reality he is.

J: He must really suck.

Me: Yep, sucks hard.

J: Sucks worse than your music?

Me: Uh...

***

Conversation with three-year-old C:

Me: It looks nice out this morning. I hope it doesn't rain again today.

C: It's a blue sky. There are no clouds. And there's a sunshine on it.

Summer addiction

I am stubborn. I really hate being told I have to do something. I balk at following trends just because everyone else is doing it - the simple reason that everyone else is doing it, is enough to make me not want to. This especially applies to books, movies and TV shows. Best seller list? Couldn't care less. Huge fan base? Pfffft. If it looks interesting, I'll check it out; otherwise, mass hysteria over a book or show just sends me running in the opposite direction.

I really am a freak. I know it.

So it was with trepidation that I decided to download the first season of Grey's Anatomy. I know a large number of people who are addicted; I've listened to the conversations about the characters and plots; and thought it was probably an insipid soap opera with no real depth of character. But when I heard that Paul Adelstein (Paul Kellerman, Prison Break) would be joining the spinoff, Private Practice, I thought I might want to watch that show. I am a huge fan of Paul Adelstein; he is an amazing actor, unbelievably talented and so versatile. Highly underrated as an actor. So I thought perhaps I'd check out Grey's, get some context around the characters so I'd know what was going on with the spinoff. The first season of Grey's was only nine episodes; not a major commitment (or a huge bandwith usage).

Well.

I am HOOKED. I am now halfway through season two (which I finally found in English after having downloaded first French, then Italian, episodes!!) and I absolutely love the show. The writing is awesome, love the characters. I'm a MerDer shipper. I am so the fan of the star-crossed lovers theme. I've tried desperately to hate Addison, but she's such a good doctor; just can't do it. And can I add, TV shows on DVD are totally the way to go; I might as well not ever watch regular-season TV again. No commercials, and I go from one episode into the next with no break in between. Five eppies a night? Love it.

You HAVE TO watch it.

1-888-2-DONATE...

...but not if you're a gay or bisexual male k thx.

I support Canadian Blood Services. I am a regular blood donor (well, whenever I'm not deferred due to low iron - often works out to about two donations a year), for a couple of reasons: my grand-dad died in 1998 due to aplastic anemia, and blood transfusions extended his life, not to mention his quality of life, by about three years beyond what he would otherwise have had. Another reason: I was raised in a religion of people (Jehovah's Witnesses) who allow their children to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, and then put their faces on magazine covers as martyrs for their faith. I left the religion when I was 18 due to fundamental differences* in belief; donating blood is another way to take an active stance against their practices.

However, here's where I have to diverge from Canadian Blood Services. From their website:

Why do you not allow gay men the right to donate blood?

Canadian Blood Services’ policy indefinitely defers any man who has sex with another man, even once, since 1977. The policy in question does not apply specifically to gay men. This is one of numerous screening procedures which allow us to identify a variety of behaviours and activities known to increase risk to the safety of the blood supply.

The basic premise for our policy pertaining to men who have had sex with men is that the prevalence and incidence of HIV is much higher in males who have had sex with other males than it is in individuals having exclusively heterosexual sex. Statistics released by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005 indicate that men who have sex with men represented 58 per cent of the HIV/AIDS cases in Canada. This number is up from 2002, when they represented 40 per cent; and in 1996, when they represented 30 per cent of new cases of HIV/AIDS in Canada.

While we do test all units of blood and testing is sophisticated, there still exists a brief period after the onset of a viral infection during which early signs of a virus cannot be detected. This period of time is known as the "window period". However, the system is as safe as current testing and technology allows, combined with Canadian Blood Services' stringent screening processes (e.g., donor questionnaire, deferral policies).

We continually review our policies and procedures in the face of changing science and technology and as such we are conducting a risk assessment of this issue. Any change in donor criteria would have to be considered safe from a scientific perspective and be approved by our regulator, Health Canada.

I call bullshit.

Now, hey: I'm not going to argue with Health Canada's stats. Dammit, Jim, I'm an insurance broker, not a statistician! I'll assume that the percentages accurately reflect the landscape of HIV/AIDS in the years quoted. But since we know that studies and statistics can be manipulated to say anything the author wants them to say, I have to take issue with how CBS seems to represent the progression in these figures:

Statistics released by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005 indicate that men who have sex with men represented 58 per cent of the HIV/AIDS cases in Canada. This number is up from 2002, when they represented 40 per cent;

Ooooh, scary; unfortunately, it doesn't mean a damn thing! This doesn't say new cases. I would suggest that gay and bisexual men at least as likely as heterosexuals (if not more so) to get tested on a regular basis and be more proactive of their status; and therefore, if they receive a positive diagnosis, would seek treatment sooner and have a better overall prognosis (and the ones who aren't responsible about their own health probably aren't thinking about saving the lives of others by donating blood). Could we not theorize, then, that that more of the heterosexual individuals and lesbians who had HIV/AIDS in 2002, had passed away before 2005, decreasing the overall number of cases and thereby artificially inflating the percentage of gay and bisexual male carriers?

Also, the statement which immediately follows the above point:

and in 1996, when they represented 30 per cent of new cases of HIV/AIDS in Canada.

Ah, now we see the word "new", which was lacking in the previous statement. So the progression of percentages - 30% in 1996, 40% in 2002, and 58% in 2005 - means absolutely dick (pun intended), since comparing percentages is only effective when the percentages refer to the same damn thing. If we divided sexually active adults into only three categories - individuals who only have hetero sex with others who only have hetero sex, lesbian women, and men whose sexual partners include men - the 30% is actually below an even third of those. So who's taking more than their "share" of the percentage here? And could we perhaps see some figures on new cases, that aren't eleven years old?

Of course, this entire discourse operates on the conjecture that all gay and bi men are promiscuous; and that all heterosexuals are, by contrast, chaste and virtuous. I could list any number of hypothetical situations involving monogamous and responsibly non-monogamous gay and bi male partners; and just as many examples of reckless promiscuity by people in, well, every other group. By accepting heterosexual and lesbian donors, but deferring gay and bi men, Canadian Blood Services continues to perpetuate these stereotypes.

How much longer will we ignore this sanctioned discrimination against gay/bi men? What steps are we willing to take to protest it? What would be an effective form of protest?

I welcome your comments and suggestions.

* A subject for another post

Summertime, and the living is...

With no disrespect to Gershwin, summertime does not equal easy living. Maybe it's easier not to have to bundle up with several layers of innerwear, outerwear, footwear and the like; but I fidn myself constantly dashing out the door to work, soccer games, board meetings, interviews, daycare drop-offs, day camps, summer school...there's nothing easy about it.

Updates: Hubby got a job. Woot! He'll be baking; but he starts at 4 am. Before the buses run. Yeah, nothing easy there.

J is doing awesome with soccer. He's had about six games so far; and this past week, he was the goalkeep for the first time. Despite the rain and wind (we were soaked to the skin) he did an amazing job! There were probably about 25 shots on net (the other team had a couple of kickass forwards - this is U7, remember!) and he only let in four goals! The overall score was 4-3. He was proud of himself and I was proud too!

C is...well, when it comes to terrorism, she could give any Islamic fundamentalist a run for his/her money. She is my beautiful girl; but, being 3, she's quite convinced that her way is best, and seems to have boundless energy to expend in defense of her position.

The thing about our kids is that they got a good dose of stubborn from each of their parents. :) It will definitely serve them well in their adult lives, but right now, it certainly requires us to parent creatively! I say this with all love and good humour.

Board meetings & interviews: I was honoured earlier this spring to be invited to join the board at Sexual Assault Centre Kingston, where I have volunteered for a couple of years. I attended board member training just last night; and I am feeling energized and enthusiastic about the group of women I'll be serving on the board with. Also, SACK is hiring a new volunteer coordinator, and I am on the hiring committee; so will be helping conduct interviews with candidates. This is a pretty exciting time for the organization, bringing in new energy and a fresh perspective on the group! It's all good!

J will be going to a summer school-type daycamp later this summer, put on by the school board. He did an AMAZING job this year of bringing up his marks. We were absolutely thrilled with his final report card - almost every single mark was brought up; where he had a B- last term, he had a B this term, and so forth. I don't want him to regress over the summer, particularly with his reading and writing which were his biggest challenges. So he'll be going for two weeks and hopefully that will help prevent slipping.

Coming up: Hubby's sister and her husband will be celebrating their 10th anniversary next month with a party at Korner Stone Kastle, a beautiful B&B in Verona owned by our friend Steven Johnston. I am helping her plan and organize the event; and hubby is catering. Check out Steven's website here. If you're looking to stay in a B&B in the area, the Kastle is a gorgeous early 20th-century home with two wrap-around porches, a beautiful, relaxing garden, and nicely-decorated, comfy rooms. (Steven's not paying me to say this, honest! :P )

So - sorry, George; but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of summer living. And I wouldn't trade it for anything. :)