Yesterday, I took my son Kenny, who was 8 in September, to a party where someone we didn?t know was dressed up as Santa Claus.

This year he?s been struggling to hold on to his belief in the existence of Santa Claus. I know this because one day a couple of months ago he asked some questions about whether Santa Claus was real and from the way he asked, it was apparent that some of the older kids at school had been messing with his mind. [Was I as open a book to my parents as he is to me? Probably I was, and if so, they were a lot more clever, and tolerant, than I gave them credit for. This is not the first time I?ve been obliged to confront this reality.]

We fended off the questions as best we could, which I thought was rather lamely considering how clever Kenny is, and the matter lay there poorly-resolved. He never sought a better explanation, which was somewhat surprising given how tenaciously he usually pursues a fuzzy answer (I wonder where he got that from?). I?m assuming he decided to let well-enough alone and as December 25th approaches he is clearly back in the believer column. He showed absolutely no doubts when sitting on Santa?s lap at the party asking him for all manner of Yu Gi Oh cards and video games (all of which we already had, so thankfully we don?t have to rush out in a mad frenzy and try to find them on shelves that have been stripped bare by the hordes of shoppers who preceded us). Sadly, this is likely the last year we will see Christmas through a believer?s eyes, so I plan to intensely enjoy every millisecond of Saturday morning. I believe that I felt this way last year, but I'm thankful I was granted a year's reprieve from reality.

While writing this I?ve been reflecting on my own experiences with Santa Clause. Kenny?s been doing a pretty good job of suspending disbelief, but I really had to work at it. When we lived in Montreal, my father played Santa at 3 or 4 church and community gatherings every year. I willingly accepted the story my parents concocted; something along the lines of "Santa can't be everywhere at once, so he has a lot of helpers". I vaguely remember believing that this festively-uniformed army of foot soldiers kept track of every kid?s wish and passed it on to Santa. I must have been a very willing co-conspirator to overlook the blatant inconsistencies of the tale. I don?t think I ever questioned why I had to tell my father's Santa persona what I wanted several times AND write a letter to Santa AND tell the 'real' Santa (the one at Eaton?s St. Catherine?s Street store) what I wanted. I don?t believe that I was that credulous, rather I would like to think I was just clever enough to understand that some legends will not stand up to much probing. I do sort of remember trying to be on my best behaviour in light of the naive belief that dad had a direct line to Santa.

I was able to steadfastly maintain my gullibility in this matter until a few weeks before the Christmas when I was Kenny?s age. My friend's mother overheard me gushing about what I had asked Santa for, and took it upon herself to bring me back to reality by asking me flat out if I still really believed in Santa Claus. This was followed by a longish pause while I got over being taken aback and finally stammered out "uhh no?". Not satisfied with this stifling of my imagination she pursued the matter by asking me who I thought actually brought the gifts that allegedly came from Santa. Less of a pause as I quietly admitted that I knew it was my parents. I don?t know why she thought that she had any right to impose her standards of the appropriate age for a child to give up on believing in a harmless myth on me, but clearly she did. I?ve always been a bit annoyed when recalling this incident, and I?ve obviously not completely forgiven her for interfering, even after the better part of 50 years. I suppose I just would have preferred to not have such an important defining moment unnecessarily thrust upon me.

We usually don't get a chance to revisit such unresolved issues, but, believe it, or not, there?s an outside chance that the lady in question is reading this. In case you are, what were you thinking?

A few months ago, Rick Elger made me aware indirectly that he had posted Mrs. Brouillet?s diary on his public web site. My reaction was instantaneous, but I did not respond publicly, because I wasn?t sure that it was any of my business. I?ve really given this a lot of thought and have finally decided to stop holding my peace. A recent comment on this blog alluded to information that could only have come from the diary. Rather than expunge the comment, I?m taking this stand.

My parents taught me that there are some actions that are absolutely wrong, and that I should protest when I witness one. I believe that the posting of Mrs. Brouillet?s diary without her permission is such an action. Whether anyone reads the diary is between them and their conscience, however, in the future, I will delete from this site, any comment that makes reference to the diary or information obtained from it.

I feel much better. If I ever am fortunate enough to meet up with my parents again, that?s one less thing of which I have to be ashamed.

FYI

I've commented on Rick's and MIchel's recent comments. I felt that in this case it was more appropriate to associate my response with the actual comment so I would reduce the risk of quoting something out of context.

Only 17.5 shopping days 'till Christmas.

I?m going to respond to Murray?s comment (appended to 11/18/04 message) out here on the main page otherwise I fear we?ll end up like a dog chasing its own tail.

Murray,

Thanks for your comment. By nature I like experimenting and pushing back the frontiers, but I must admit that this blogging venture still feels a bit egotistical. I suppose I?m mostly trying to stem the onset old fogeyism and demonstrate to all and sundry that I?m a man of the 21st century.

Strictly speaking, despite the title, the blog will not be exclusively about Feller, but more how I feel about current events as seen through the filter of my Feller experiences. After all, I do value the past, but I?m trying not to be obsessed with it. Anyway, it?s not really by design that I?ve started by reacting to the public statements of other alumni; but so far that?s what I feel like doing. I?m finding that I kind of like the fact that I can express my personal opinions and not worry about offending anyone. No one has to come here unless they want to, so anyone who doesn?t care for my opinions can choose not to read them. Of course, that?s their loss.

I?m mildly concerned that you would again suggest that I would cut off your access to a discussion here because I might disagree with it (you must be confusing me with other web site czars). I?ve always tried to answer thoughtful comments with the same amount of honesty with which they seemed to be offered. I believe that I only get truly obnoxious when faced with willful ignorance and what I perceive to be intentional deceitfulness.

As to your defense of your response to Todore?s question, I was not suggesting that you shouldn?t jump in if you felt like it, rather I was subtly (obviously a bit too subtly) indicating that your butting in had deflected and diminished the full impact of a rather clever rhetorical question. Anyone who had really been paying attention to the group dynamic for the last 4 years, and likely even those who had only been following the exchanges between Todore and thirdmain for the last 6 months, probably should have realized that it would have been much more fun for the rest of us if you had stayed out of the discussion. Perhaps the time you were offline did not allow you to grasp the true intent of Todore?s comment. Or is it just that I?ve been the target of such a riposte enough times to recognize Mike?s tactics? In any case, no major harm done, and we likely all need to get a life.

As for your exchange with K?bug; I understand the value of blowing off steam; on the other hand, really smug, self-satisfied people, usually don?t ?get? the humour in the most pointed barbs that others aim at them. I guess we all have problems seeing something as funny when it is directed at ourselves; but clearly there exist people who are so filled with self-importance that they really can?t laugh at themselves. You apparently stumbled across one, but in your defense, as we have seen recently, you are in fairly lofty company when it comes to not recognizing that some off-the-cuff ?jokes? may be not so funny.

In any case, it probably wasn?t fair to go after her like a pit bull. Some of us are, with varying degrees of success, able to mount attempts to defend ourselves, but she was so obviously out of her league, your post was sort of like going after a very slow mosquito with sledgehammer.

As you accurately point out, due to past history the above commentary is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but I?m by temperament and profession a teacher, so I can?t help lecturing from time to time. As I said, it?s my site, so you?ll have to deal with it.

A casual reading of the religion section of my website and my more recent comments here on the blog should provide a fairly accurate reading about my opinions on the religious hypocrisy to which we were exposed. It should come as no shock to learn that I largely agree with the rest of the sentiments expressed in your comment.

In Jay Leno's monologue last night there was a joke that should strike a responsive chord. "The Pope recently expressed concern about the declining numbers of priests in the US. But on the bright side, it does show that the American justice system is working."

This is still a learning exercise.

It turns out that you can post a comment about any message. If you look at the bottom right just under each message there is a post your comment feature. Anyone can attach a comment to a message. The comment does not show up as part of the blog, but if there is a number in brackets to the right of the "post your comment" link, this indicates that comments have been made and how many there are. You can view the comment(s) by clicking on the bracketed number.

Isn't this fun boys and girls?

How refreshing. Someone in the MSN alumni family fielded a mildly confrontational "insult" post without going berserk. I hereby award Anne the Alastair P. Goodguy Award for her obvious serenity and self confidence in the face of uncivil discourse.

It's hard to judge whether a jibe is good-natured without the benefit of tone of voice, and, as others noted, there was perhaps more going on than met the eye, but still, it was the most effectively disarming, adult response I've seen in a while (perhaps ever). No insecurity issues for that grown up; all of us who seem trapped in adolescence could take a lesson in maintaining our composure from her.

On a tangentially related note, I've observed that some people exhibit consistently poor judgement when faced with personal privacy issues. Even after a lengthy period of empirical study, I can't decide whether it's an hereditary or an environmentally-induced personality disorder.

I'm a bit pressed for time, it being a few days until faux Thanksgiving, and me without a turkey, at least in my refrigerator.

A couple of observations.

Murray seems a bit confused. First he answers a question addressed to thirdmain, then in the answer he bemoans the fact that some group members may have left because of being sniped at. I could have sworn that only a few days before he had gone off on poor kuddlebug in a rather demeaning way for expressing opinions on the appropriate use of alcohol and the main criterion she used for evaluating the qualifications of world leaders. I must have misread something.

Hmm, Todore also seems to be a bit peckish this morning. I hope he's more lenient with me when I post a deer-in-the-headlights sort of message.

Back in a few days.

Just in case anyone hasn't figured it out, posts are added with the most recent at the top and older ones below, in the order they were posted.

I read Todore?s ?last post? concerning the Iraq war the other night, took a deep breath and waited for the shit to hit the fan. I?m a bit surprised that so far the reaction has been so subdued. Maybe thirdmain is off on some important mission to promote world peace and wasn?t able to label Todore as a terrorist sympathizer in a follow up that completely missed the point and misrepresented his comments. Perhaps thirdmain reserves that honour for Michel G and me, or is it just that Todore knows where he lives?

It?s probably no surprise that I agree with what Todore said, as I almost always do on this topic. In fact, when I read thirdmain?s original post, I had a reaction that was very similar to the sentiments Todore expressed. I chose not to respond because I had no desire to get dragged into another futile cycle of posts in which nobody convinces any one of anything. However, I do admire the perseverance and courage that Todore displays in continuing to challenge thirdmain?s somewhat one-dimensional, xenophobic views, but better him than me.

I guess that it is easier to demonize a murderer when the there is such a direct and obvious relationship between the assassin and the victim. The use of a sword to behead someone is gruesome and gut-wrenching, but is a traditional method of execution in the region, and I?m not convinced that it?s any more barbaric than hanging, the electric chair, the gas chamber and more recently the much more ?humane? and civilized lethal injection. The perception that one form of killing is more civilized than another is surely in the mind of the perceiver. For the victims and their families, the end result is the same.

I imagine that at least part of the reason the terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters do it, is that they know Westerners will be so affected by the shocking nature of the images. I am sickened by the publicity-seeking quality of the act, the apparent scorn the kidnapers have for their victims and the drawn out period of psychological abuse that leads up to the death, however, executions in the US do receive a lot of [intentional] publicity, drag on for extended periods, and, given the number of death row inmates freed recently on the basis of DNA evidence, I can?t help but wonder how many innocent men were executed when W was Governor of Texas.

The other side of the coin is that, as Todore too-subtly pointed out, it is easier to sustain a disconnect between the action and the result if the killer is miles away. Clearly it is much easier to tolerate statistics of 100 civilians dead in this skirmish, 50 in that one, and 65 somewhere else, when all we view on the TV screen are puffs of smoke from bombs, shells or missiles and burning buildings seen from a distance of several hundred meters or more. We are told, with conviction, that the conflict is just, as is every crusade, and that the airmen/soldiers/sailors were just following orders and doing their duty to protect us from the barbarians. They were trying not to hit civilians but in such circumstances ?collateral damage? is unavoidable, right? Usually no one identifies the person who launched the missile, so the soldier is probably not certain whether he was the one who dismembered any particular baby (sort of like one member of a firing squad having a blank cartridge). As does Todore, I wonder why some appear to deem the disgust, horror and grief of the family members of the victims of ?shock and awe? as somehow less valid or worthy than that of the families of the innocent murdered Christians and Jews who placed themselves willingly in harm's way. I abhor any violence and am sick at heart for the families of all the people, Christian, Muslim or Jew, killed or maimed in this useless war.

One of the most annoying things about that thread of posts was the continuing trend towards self-righteousness that has crept on to the MSN site. As I was reading the original post by thirdmain, it seemed to be another in his series of ?I?m better than the other guy? posts, and I felt that there was a hint of racism lurking somewhere, as is often the case. Then Rick L confirmed that sentiment by concluding that all Muslims are lower than animals. Well, as far as I?m concerned, we are all beasts if you get beneath the thin veneer of civilization. It bothers me that people extrapolate from the despicable acts of a relative handful of zealots and madmen, to characterize the beliefs and behaviour of a whole culture or religion as less than human. There are several Muslims, both Arab-Americans and non-Arab, in my circle of friends and acquaintances. Every one of them is as sick about these deaths (on both sides) as any Christian, and they insist that terrorist acts are not condoned by the teachings of the Koran. I?m not an expert on Muslim beliefs, as some other alumni apparently are, but I have no reason to disbelieve my friends.

I have read that in a number of Muslim-dominated countries (e.g., our ally Saudi Arabia) there are many radical fundamentalists who interpret the Koran selectively to allow them to excuse just about anything. On the other hand, it is also true that there seem to be millions of moderate and progressive Muslims who do not interpret the Koran as a call to eliminate all the infidels. I have certainly read excerpts from the Koran that, if accurate, clearly prohibit terrorist acts. If a non-christian were to extrapolate from the actions of the KKK and suggest that all Christians are racist murderers, would that be fair? I do not have to look very hard to find neo-conservative Christian leaders who selectively interpret the bible to excuse some rather unchristian activities. As for the implication that our Christian society does not breed depraved and brutal acts, I also do not have to search hard to find reports of senseless and sickening crimes committed in Canada and the US on almost a daily basis. So, to quote something I read somewhere, ?He who is with out sin??

As I was reading the various posts on the topic, I began to wonder why thirdmain was such an expert on the sites he was asking us to visit. Aren?t the videos at these sites a form of snuff film? I?ve known that they existed for a long time and never once felt any desire to seek them out. Oh well, as they say, if I may be permitted to be retro for a moment, different strokes for different folks.

11/15/04

Well here goes. Weblogs are all the rage, I thought I'd try this and see how it goes. I'll try to post one of my pithy observations every few days or so. I guess you can just bookmark the blog if you are interested. Other than a few updates on the military stuff, I'll likely not add much stuff to the main site.

It's also unlikely that any subsequent posts will be as long or as well thought out as the one that follows this.

Enjoy
11/15/04