KHdN – Kenneth Hynek (dot Net)

I considered flying my old Dominion of Canada flag today, or at least hanging it in the front window. I don’t imagine I will do so, however, if for no other reason than that the baby is asleep and the door — creaky as it is — tends to wake her when opened.

The “I Stand for a Free Iran” banner is still flying on the sidebar, though, and I think that kind of helps put things in context. This could have ended up being a rather melancholy reflection on the sorry state of affairs in Canada at present, as pertains to issues of human rights and freedom of speech. But those issues seem to pale in comparison to what the Iranian people struggle through and suffer under; compared to a rigid Islamic theocracy, the HRCs don’t seem quite so horrible. That’s not to say that they are not still an affront to freedom and a stain on Canada’s image as a champion of human rights — they are that, to be sure. But they aren’t shooting people in the streets either, and that is something to be thankful for.

And in fact, Canada is still a pretty darn great nation to live in. We want for nothing, in a world where most want for even basic needs. We believe as we will (more or less), in a world where many are killed, maimed, or brutally violated for holding disparate beliefs. We can still vote, and our votes still mean something — though the Liberals and the Conservatives may in fact be different sides of the same coin (or the same side of slightly different coins), our vote to put one in power at the expense of the other still in fact means something, enough that it can actually change who is in power. The people of Iran have already demonstrated their willingness to die to have something similar; it will only be a matter of time (I think) before the people of Zimbabwe are willing to kill to have it. And as an added bonus, our government’s top officials don’t believe that the AIDS virus can be prevented by taking a post-coital shower.

We could do a lot better, as I’m sure many freespeecher bloggers are asserting today. Still, when compared to the world as a whole, we could be doing much, much worse. It’s worth fighting to preserve what we have that is good; it’s worth fighting to improve what we have that could be better; it’s worth fighting to prevent us ever having what the rest of the world has to offer which we do not want. And we should never stop encouraging others do do just that.

Have a great Canada Day, good reader, and enjoy your country today in spite of her problems. Remember that while she is not perfect — though what human institution could ever be perfect? — she is still a very good place to live. Remember that we who do live within her borders are fortunate to do so, in spite of the improvements we need to make.

We live in a “fixer upper” house, yes, but we live in a good house. We do not live in a sty.

Write-up to follow.

Heterophobia is a made-up word, of course, and utterly meaningless, not unlike the word homophobia. But since we use the latter word (erroneously!) to describe those who, in our estimation, possess an irrational fear of the homosexual lifestyle, or of homosexuals, it’s only fair that we posit the reciprocal term as well. Hence: heterophobia, which we can take to mean an irrational fear of the heterosexual lifestyle, or of heterosexuals.

I’m laying out this categorical framework to begin with, because I want it to be present in the reader’s mind prior to reading Deacon Greg’s take on some new “research” that has come out. One finds that the pastor does not exaggerate when he wonders just how anyone could possibly take this seriously:

Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children’s films — such as The Little Mermaid — are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label “heteronormativity.”

Almost out of the gate, this one is worth a laugh: “heteronormativity” is just so darn pervasive, isn’t it, and it’s really the fault of the stories we tell our kids. Biological imperative has almost no effect on the sexual preferences our children will one day exhibit, right? Also, what’s wrong with heterosexual tendencies being pervasive? Should we take that complaint to mean that, in the eyes of the researchers, there should be fewer heterosexuals?

The article continues, in all its knee-slapping glory:

“Despite the assumption that children’s media are free of Sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape,” wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.

Kazyak and Martin said they studied the role of heterosexual relationships in several of the highest-grossing G-rated films between 1990-2005.

The results, say the researchers, illustrate two ways that the children’s films “construct heterosexuality”: through “depictions of hetero-romantic love as exceptional, powerful, transformative, and magical,” and “depictions of interactions between gendered bodies in which the sexiness of feminine characters is subjected to the gaze of masculine characters.”

“Gendered bodies?” As opposed to…what, exactly? Ungendered bodies? It’s improbable that these researchers have, by this point in their lives, not seen at least their own nude forms, if not the nude forms of other people as well…and so it should be a reasonably safe assumption to make that they have at least a passing awareness that the “genderedness” (since we’re making up words anyway) of bodies goes a bit beyond how comfortable one is with expressing either typically “masculine” or typically “feminine” emotive and psychological traits. There’s a rather strongly biological component to things as well; I didn’t exactly get to choose whether or not a penis was included in my physiology; it was kind of just “there” from day one.

Do these researchers really suppose that the masculine “gendered body” and the feminine “gendered body” are little more than the results of arbitrary functions, which take no influence from the raw facts of biology?

Now, granted, just because one possesses e.g. male “hardware” does not mean that one will, with absolute reliability, elect to express male emotive and psychological traits. It is possible for a disordering, of sorts, to take place, such that expressed psychological and emotive traits to not more closely align with physiological traits, and both men and women can suffer from this. But do I need to emphasize the point that there is an inherent disorder in such circumstances, a dissonance between nature and psyche?

I suppose I do, actually.

“Characters in love are surrounded by music, flowers, candles, magic, fire, balloons, fancy dresses, dim lights, dancing and elaborate dinners,” the researchers observed. “Fireflies, butterflies, sunsets, wind and the beauty and power of nature often provide the setting for – and a link to the naturalness of – hetero-romantic love.”

God forbid that a man and a woman in love be depicted as something positive!

One wonders what else could be deemed to be hetero-imperialistic (since we’re inventing terms anyway) by this same reasoning? Perhaps only dirges should be played at weddings, lest the impressionable young flower girls mistakenly construe the happy music that typically accompanies matrimonial services as being some kind of message about the beauty and “naturalness” of “hetero-romantic love.”

The SWS press release on the research blamed what they called the “old ideals” of romantic relationships, specifically those found the Brothers Grimm fairy tales, which in many instances inspired the films’ storylines, for “such heavily gendered depictions and glorified portrayals of heterosexual relationships.”

The team says the results point to heterosexuality achieving a “taken-for-granted status” “because hetero-romance is depicted as powerful.”

Didn’t you know that biology and the reproductive instinct have nothing to do with it, good reader?

Ella doesn’t watch movies of any sort (she’s not allowed to), can’t understand more than a few simple words (and usually just glazes over when we read her a story…if she doesn’t try to eat the book), and probably doesn’t take away anything from illustrations in story books than the fact that colours are pretty. She loves to meet kids in general, but seems to have a bit of an affinity for boys in particular.

Clearly, we must have conditioned her — indoctrinated her, really — into acting that way. It couldn’t possibly be any sort of natural tendency expressing itself.

• Not to seem uncaring, but why was the 1-year old in the hot tub? – http://tinyurl.com/lbsac4 #

This is another of the pictures I took at a Matthew Good concert (with Wil as the opening act) in 2004.

The main subject is Christian Thor Valdson, the band’s guitarist. I had made several attempts to take a picture of the “The Little Mermaid” sticker on the guitar prior to this, with mixed results; this shot gives a much better view of Christian and the sticker.

Note also that he’s playing the guitar wrong-handed.

I recently upgraded my iPod Touch to iPhone OS 3.0, mostly in the hope that either the upgrade or one of the third-party “file transfer” applications would enable Bluetooth file transfer between my cell phone (a Samsung m500) and the iPod.

No such luck, though. So with a bit of encouragment from a co-worker, I took the additional step of jailbreaking the iPod, using redsn0w to do so.

(For the curious: redsn0w can be obtained at this link.)

Jailbreaking is basically a process by which an electronic device is…made able to do more than the default firmware would typically allow. That’s not a great explanation, granted, but it’s about the best I can come up with on short notice. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article about jailbreaking, so if you’re really curious…head there.

Anyhow, let me just say that I highly recommend modifying your iPod this way, if it’s anything more than just a music player for you. The functionality that the jailbreak allows you to add far outpaces what the iPhone OS upgrade offers*, and most of it is free as well. Granted, some of the developers of programs available through Cydia or Icy (think of them as versions of Apple’s “App Store” for jailbreak-only software) haven’t adjusted their products to account for the changes made in the iPhone OS upgrade, but most of them are working on corrections even now.

The best part, though? iBluetooth, by http://www.medivil.com, which enables two-way Bluetooth file transfer on the iPod.

Yes, I really want that feature, although I have to admit that the ability to use different desktop, icon, and application skin themes is pretty cool, too…although no one theme I’ve yet found has been quite what I’m looking for.

I suppose I’ll just have to learn to make my own, won’t I?

Also, for the record, this is what my iPod Touch’s Springboard looked like prior to the jailbreak:

And this is what my iPod Touch’s Springboard looks like now, after the jailbreak. I’m using Winterboard to apply the custom theme.

The theme, incidentally, is a "kit bash," combining elements of several different themes into something I find to be aesthetically pleasing.

Note, also, that I’m using the "Five Icon Dock" modification — this is an unbelievably handy feature!

* to be fair, the new iPhone OS does offer some nice new features as well. The official App Store has seen significant upgrades, as has the iTunes store. The settings pane now gives you the option to define a default Apple account for use in the stores, and the iTunes Store also includes a gift card redemption feature.

And then there’s the new “copy and paste” feature. Highly useful, especially for a guy like me who has begun to do a significant amount of his blogging on his iPod!

Powered by the iPod Touch.

This is one of those stories that has been circulating — but never verified — for years. It’s not really a surprise to actually learn, but it is nice (all the same) to finally see some actual evidence emerge to coroborate things:

In 1972, former SS General Karl Wolff referred to such a plan in a meeting he said he had with the Pope on May 10, 1944. His story never could be verified.

However, articles in the Italian bishops’ newspaper Avvenire and the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano this week provided more concrete details about a plan the Reichssicherheitsamt (the Reich’s Security Headquarters) hatched in Berlin in 1943.

The reports cite a viable source: the son of one of the key people involved, Niki Freytag von Loringhoven, who is now 72.

According to his account, a secret meeting took place July 29-30, 1943, in Venice to inform the head of Italian counterintelligence, Gen. Cesare Ame, of the Führer’s wish to punish Italians for the arrest of Benito Mussolini by kidnapping or killing Pius XII and the king of Italy.

The plan arrived directly from Berlin, from the head of German counterintelligence, Adm. Wilhelm Canaris and two colonels of Section II (sabotage), Erwin von Lahousen and Wessel Freytag von Loringhoven.

As soon as Ame returned to Rome, the news got out and the plan was shelved, according to the report in Avvenire.

The news is further testament to a well-known fact in church circles: Pius XII was certainly no friends of the Nazis. It follows a growing groundswell of opinion, also among many prominent Jews, that Pius XII not only did all he could to save Jews during World War II but also risked his life to help them.

The way the good pontiff has been vilified in the media, and by various authors, is nothing short of despicable false witness. It’s nice to see that, with the help of some truly impressive historical forensic work, the pope’s good name is being cleared.

Not that we should expect his vindication to deter those with big anti-Catholic chips on their shoulders. But at least the Church will have the truth of the matter on her side.

Powered by the iPod Touch.

Proving that it is in fact possible to have quite a lot of fun at Barack Obama’s expense (something far too many late night comic show hosts have seemingly failed to grasp):

We live in absurd times. Absurd humour is necessary.

One of a series of pictures I took at a Matthew Good concert (with Wil as the opening act) in 2004. This shot was retouched in Lightroom a fair bit, with notable edits being the application of a fair bit of sharpening and some selective vignetting — Matt (red guitar) wound up being the focal point of this.

• I wish I hadn't left my headphones (with microphone) in Vermilion; it'd be nice to try my hand at Tweetcasting! #