Stepping Up

            An interesting reoccurring occurrence in my life is that, while I very strongly dislike being in a position of leadership, I frequently seem to find myself filling a leadership role. Be it for work or play, it seems like I always end up as one of the people making the decisions – a very unfortunate job for a chronic fence-sitter.

            My most recent of such experiences took place over this weekend, but to understand just how often this has happened, we really need to go back quite a ways. I don’t know precisely when it started, but the first I can think of chronologically was in my highschool choir. In grade 9, there was a decent sized selection of male singers, but most of them were in their last year – including the one that informally led them simply by being such a strong singer. The following year, there were only 4 males in the 30-or-so person choir, and I happened to be the one who stepped into the empty leadership role – though I was thankfully replaced for part of the year when teachers were invited to join. However, the mantle fell back to me the next year, and eventually led to me being in the smaller jazz choir and even performing one song where I was the only person on the melody and everyone else was basically a back-up-singer.

            Also in my highschool years, I joined Amtgard, a Live Action Roleplaying Game. Three months in, I ran in the election for the role of the records-keeper and treasurer because at the time the records weren’t being kept up to date, and I held that role – which also assisted in other aspects of running the group – for three years straight (six terms), and then took six months in the primary leadership role.

After highschool, when I got a job, it quickly became known that if someone needed extra help, or called in sick, I could always be relied upon to come in – to the point where I had to arrange to be the last person called, because it was known that if everyone else said no, I could be relied upon to say yes because, well, someone had to step up and do it. I became one of the primary trainers for new employees, and ended up holding titles like crew leader and shift manager even though I had no interest in them.

            Then I started my own business. If I have to elaborate on that, you should do some research into what running a business entails.

            Over the course of July, I joined a community of people awaiting the release of a game called Chronicles of Elyria. I joined a Kingdom, then a Duchy, then a specific County, and I began working with the Count on helping with organization and lore writing for both the County and Duchy, making it clear all along that I had no interest in a leadership role. Then my Count went ahead and named me Chancellor of our county which essentially means I can speak for him when he’s not around to do so, both in the County and the Duchy.

            Then, this past weekend, an event launched for the Elyria community which involves a mini-game that will be running for the rest of the summer that allows people to control some of the lore for the world and – remarkably – affords people (like me) who haven’t already bought into the game to earn a free copy of the game for when it releases. From the moment the game was released, it was clear a great deal of teamwork and organization would be required, and my Kingdom quickly got to work on that. However, I soon noticed that everyone doing the organizing had a game package – and since the game works differently for those without game packages, I stepped up to share my knowledge and help out. The next day, some people in my Duchy were talking about Duchy-specific organization and, well, no one else was stepping up to the plate, so I did so and laid out the groundwork.

            And then it occurred to me that, once again, I was falling into leadership roles. So, I started looking back at my history, wondering what the cause was for this. Why was it that someone like me, who would much rather sit back and silently watch, who has a very hard time making decisions, and who really dislikes being a leader – why did I keep becoming a leader?

            The answer, it turns out, is remarkably simple. No one else was doing it, and so I stepped up to the task. Because someone had to do it. In each and every case, something needed to be done, and I did it because no one else was.

            And I realized that a leader is exactly that. Someone who steps up and takes the reins when no one else does. It isn’t something that makes me happier about being doomed to leadership, but it at least makes me more accepting of my fate.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Hierarchical Flaws

            While pondering about society, as I am wont to do, I came across something I view as a critical flaw. The hierarchy of many of our systems works backwards.

            We’ll start by looking at the workforce. In order for society to function, people need to perform various jobs. To encourage people to do these jobs, they are paid money – which they require so they can go on eating and paying bills and such. This isn’t entirely bad, but the desperate need for money does.

            In ancient times, it was possible for people without a source of money to live off the land and, if they needed to, go out into the wilderness and build themselves a home. Now, at least in first world countries, they can’t do that. Not only have we lost the basic skill sets, but even if we wanted to go homesteading we’d still have to buy the land and pay taxes on it. We’d need a job.

            Having a job to make money has become such a desperate need that people destroy themselves and their mental health just to get and keep one. This is made worse by the shortage of jobs – employers have been given the leverage that if you don’t do the job exactly how they want you to, they can easily replace you. This adds to the pressure of a job and has the employees working under threat (rather than positive motivation) and creates a harmful relationship between employers and employees.

            In short, people are desperate for money, so they will do work they hate in harmful environments to keep their employers happy. But, what if that were reversed? What if, instead of people pushing themselves further and further to get and keep jobs, employers had to entice the best employees to come work for them? What if it became the employer’s responsibility to make people want to work or them?

            Some companies with enough money to throw around already do this, but in many of the biggest companies it has become just a gesture. There are “Benefits” given to the employees, but where is the effort to make the employees enjoy the work environment? Any given employer shouldn’t be driving their employees with a whip, but a member of the team working to make everything run smoothly. They should be as accountable to their employees as the employees are to them.

            The same theory can be applied to governments. There is a great divide between governments and their people, because we have this idea the government members are in charge of the rest of us. They wield the power, after all. People talk about the government as if they are an alien race.

            Yet, if everything functioned as it should, people could bring problems to the government to get them resolved. Yes, that is partially available through the court system, but that doesn’t work for everything. How much faster would potholes get fixed if the government was more approachable?

            Our world is divided into hierarchies, with the idea that the person below has to do whatever the person above says. This structure is needed because there needs to be someone observing what is happening – someone who is not directly involved who can see the whole picture and direct the flow to ensure productivity and efficiency. However, if that person is “better than” their underlings, they become more of a problem than a help. It’s all very well telling people something has to be done, but if you don’t know if it’s possible or if the manpower exists for it, you’re just causing problems. When there is a view of equality, the underlings can express their concerns and the problems with instructions and, together, the team can find a solution.

            Being at the top of a hierarchy is a responsibility, but it has become a goal and a perk – which is the inherent problem with a hierarchical structure. Once someone has been given the power, why should they bother with more than they have to? Why should they listen to the people below them?

            It keep things running smoothly and properly, that’s why.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Is Charlie Freedom?

            I have said many times before that I live under a rock – as such, it takes something really big in the news to find its way to me. Such is the case with the Charlie Hebdo attack this past week.

            For those who haven’t heard of it yet, last Wednesday two gunmen attacked the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo (a weekly satirical newspaper in France), killing twelve people and wounding another eleven. The attack led to a global cry to support free speech.

            On the surface, it is a very simple matter. People were silenced for the ideas they expressed and the world has spoken up saying we’ll stand behind Charlie Hebdo and the right to free speech. I thought it was incredible, at first, until I looked into more facts and the matter became far more complicated.

            As I mentioned earlier, Charlie Hebdo is a satirical paper – more than that, it is a far left-wing one, openly poking fun at all religions and politics, sometimes in very vulgar ways. This particular attack was carried out by a pair of Muslims who saw their Prophet being made fun of in the paper.

            Now, does that justify murder? No, of course not – nothing does. Their religion wasn't the only one being made fun of and none of the others took this sort of drastic action. However, I think that this is a good time to stop and think on what freedom of speech actually means.

            I'veblogged before about freedom and how complicated it actually is, and this situation goes to demonstrate that fact. You see, the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say it. A big part of freedom is responsibility and the biggest responsibility is respecting other peoples’ freedom. The freedom to think, believe, say and do as they will.

            When you take that freedom of speech and start throwing it in people’s faces, you are expressing your freedom by denying others’ theirs. That is what Charlie Hebdo does, at least as far as I can gather. They make jokes about whatever they can and, when people say they get hurt, they claim “free speech!” This same claim is regularly made all over the internet by people who have hurt others. “I have free speech, so you aren't allowed to get mad at me for what I say, even if I am stomping all over everything you believe.”

            I'm confident that the contents of Charlie Hebdo have never been intended to hurt anyone. Quite the opposite – it’s meant to make people laugh! Words are powerful, though. That’s why people try to ban certain books. We’re taught from childhood that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. It’s a lie. Words hurt – we just tell ourselves that they don’t to try and make them hurt less.

            Humour is all well and good, but why must it come at the expense of others? It’s important to be able to laugh at yourself, but not everyone has been able to acquire that skill. All some people can see are others laughing at them and what they care about. Of course they’re going to retaliate.

            Following the attack, a huge campaign has started: “Je Suis Charlie”, or “I Am Charlie” - the support of free speech. On one level, I completely support it because freedom is so important. At the same time, I cannot condone the content of Charlie Hebdo which, while intended to be funny, can also be inflammatory and insulting – taking freedom of speech to the extreme that spits in the face of others’ freedom.

            Now, there is a simple solution to this sort of conundrum: simply don’t read things that offend you. Is it Charlie Hebdo’s fault that the attackers read their paper? No. That doesn't stop people though – it seems to be in human nature to poke at wounds; to seek out that which causes us pain. We’re drawn like bugs to lamps, with this dread fascination, toward things we know we should keep away from.

            In the end, it doesn't really matter, though, does it? The cards have been played and there are only two possible outcomes: we raise our voices in support of Charlie Hebdo or we are seen to be bowing to the wishes of the attackers – a success for them that will spread the word worldwide that violence can end free speech and more attacks will quickly follow until everyone is afraid to say anything. It’s ironic, really, that this attack has led to the exact opposite of what the attackers intended – partially because we've been left with no other options. We have to stand behind Charlie, or witness the death of freedom.

            So, I guess I don’t have a choice. I am Charlie. I have to be, or I encourage more tragedies.

            I wish that this situation could have been resolved without anyone being hurt or killed. I wish that Charlie Hebdo hadn't become the face of freedom. I wish there was more humour in the world that didn't rely hurting people.

            I wish I lived in a world where I didn't have to support something I don't believe in to support something I do believe in.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

This Blog Clearly Doesn't Exist

            I'm very tired today, so I decided I wasn't going to bother writing a blog post. After all, I deserve a break, right? I still can’t figure out how people manage to write one of these every day. Maybe I just don’t have enough to talk about.

            Of course, by skipping writing my blog this week, I could be facing drastic consequences. For starters, I will basically be giving myself permission to skip writing my blog whenever I'm too tired – which is frequently because, as you know, I usually leave writing my blog until way too late at night.

            Then I have to think of you, my readers. How could you possibly fill the time you set aside every week to read my blog? I've been informed that some of you quite look forwards to my weekly rambles (although, I must admit I still can’t figure out why) and my lack of blog this week (and in subsequent weeks) would be very disappointing. Eventually, I might even become so unreliable that you don’t even bother checking for a post. What, then, would you do with the empty void left by my truant blog posts?

            This whole situation reminds me of a conundrum I encountered in my grade 10 English class. We were told to write an essay about a moral debate we’d had at some point in our lives. The problem was I’d never questioned any decision I’d made. I had such a strong moral compass that right and wrong wasn't even a question for me.

            I quickly came up with a solution. I would write an essay on whether or not I should write the essay. After all, my only option if I were to write the essay would be to make up a moral debate that I’d never had and that would be dishonest. I don’t remember much of the content of that essay, but I do remember my conclusion was that it was better to not write the essay.

            Once again, I find myself coming to a similar conclusion. If I can’t provide you with a blog worth reading, why should I bother to write it? So I apologise to my avid fans for my absentee blog post this week and I promise to do my best to not turn this into a habit.

            Happy Thanksgiving to all of my Canadian readers and happy Columbus Day to the American ones. To everyone else who doesn't have a holiday this weekend, happy Monday – although how a Monday can be happy without this blog post that clearly does not exist is beyond me.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Animal Superiority

            I've often thought that animals know how to live far better than we humans do. I mean, yes, we’re brilliant and have made all these nifty gadgets and such that make our lives better, but I have to wonder... Are we really as clever as we think?

            I first thought this while observing pets. A perfect example is a dog – various fictional characters, when asked what kind of animal they want to be, answer “a dog”. Because dogs get taken care of by their owners and sleep all day. The thing is, out in the wild it’s nearly the same thing. The dog sleeps most of the day and hunts so it can eat. It’s the same with all animals – eat, sleep and, sometimes, avoid predators. It’s a simple life, but a good one.

            Now look at humans. The average adult human wakes up to an alarm five (or more) days a week, goes to work tired because they didn't get enough sleep, slogs through eight hours of work and returns home. Of course, what do they have to do at home? More work to maintain their homes, unless they live in unhealthy conditions or have worked hard enough that they can pay for others to take care of their homes.

            We’re told all our lives to be grateful for what we have – a roof over our head, food to eat, etc. It’s true, of course – I can’t even imagine having to live without the conveniences I grew up with, but at the same time, I often look out the window and see what humans have done to this world and it makes me feel sick.

            Then I think of those animals out there, living day-to-day with their only real concern being to find food and not become it. Their days aren't divided into thirds where they have eight hours to sleep, eight hours to work and a final eight hours to eat, get ready for work, travel to and from work, do housework and maybe, if there’s a bit of time left over, do something they enjoy.

            Sure, we humans have all these great conveniences, but all the work we have to do in order to keep and maintain them kind of takes away from our time to actually live our lives. Not to mention the destruction of the planet. If we’re really so smart and great, shouldn't we be maintaining and nurturing the planet rather than tearing it to pieces?

            Animals live their lives, eating when they are hungry, sleeping when they are tired and doing essentially whatever they want (except when they’re the ones being eaten). Meanwhile, humans work and work and work so they can work some more and have a few conveniences.

            Are we really all that superior?

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Nostalgia

            What is it about the past that we find so enthralling? It doesn't matter if it was good or bad; something always draws our minds to the past and somehow, the past was always better than the present.

            Nostalgia is such a fascinating thing, not because it exists, but because it exists in so many people. While I’ll freely admit that there is a lot of merit to the saying “They don’t make things like they used to” (don’t get me started on built-in obsolescence), was the past really better than the present?

            When I think back to when I was a child, I wonder at how easily I was entertained and how much fun I had with simple things. Swimming is a perfect example. My parents have numerous pictures of me swimming and having a grand old time. I remember having a blast pretending to be a dolphin or just paddling around. Now, however, I don’t see a point in swimming. There’s no purpose to it and, because of that, I no longer have fun.

            So, is swimming less fun now than it was when I was a kid? I find that doubtful. Swimming is an activity, it cannot change – but I can.

            What is it, then, that changes us as we grow older that makes us enjoy life less, or at least think we do? Is it growing up? Gaining more responsibility? Having greater knowledge?

            If I had to choose one, I would have to go with knowledge, because growing up is optional and in order to have responsibility you have to accept it. Knowledge is the one thing that is irreversible – once we have it, there’s no going back (well, at least not while you still have a healthy mind).

            Knowledge is important to our way of life and it’s supposed to be a good thing. So why does it seem like the more knowledge we have, the less we can enjoy life? I think it’s because we over-think things. We spend our time worrying about what other people think of us, what we could have done in the past to make the present better, when the next terrorist attack will come and what we can do to get a raise. Then we look back at our childhood selves and think, “Gee... I had it made back then.”

            The funny thing is that life isn't all that different now than it was back then. We just know more, which means we have to sift through a lot more before we can arrive at what we enjoy – or we don’t enjoy things because we don’t understand why we enjoy them.

            Instead of looking back at how great the past was, I think we should take all this knowledge we've accumulated and, rather than allowing it to make us think life is worse, use it to find ways of enjoying life more. We’ll never enjoy life the way we did when we were children – we have too much knowledge for that – but we can enjoy life differently. Not more, not less, but differently.

            Either that or we should accept that ignorance is bliss and go live in the trees like every kid wants to. After all, kids have it made.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.