Alright, it's been a while since I've posted a comic strip. Initially I wasn't quite sure what to do it on; then I came up with an idea in my head and with some helpful suggestions from Reuben, we finally have it:

Now before I delve into the specifics of the situation I am about to address, I want to ask what the word, "leadership" really means. What does it mean?

Now that I've asked it, I'll come back to it once I've addressed the situation.

So Reuben and I coach a ball-hockey team at the boys & girl's club. There are 17 kids--now eighteen--who play; however, not everyone plays the same number of games. Some play more; some play less. It really depends on everyone's schedules and whether or not they show up to practice. It mostly depends on the former.

When it comes to normal league games, most players, if not all, get to play. It's only an issue when we play on the road because of the seating limitation. This was already addressed on Reuben's blog, and it really has nothing to do with my point, so I will leave it at that.

Now, in about 2 weeks or so, there will be an all-star tourney that will take place in Kelowna. I don't know how many teams will be taking part but there will be a team from Vancouver comprising of 2 players from each of the boys-and-girls clubs.

So, within this roster of 18, we've got 2 girls and 16 guys. There are about 4 or 5 kids that could easily challenge for the 2 spots available. Now, I don't want to go into the details about which kid should or shouldn't make it because I don't have the patience to write all of my thoughts out. What I will say that is the decision for who gets to go, which isn't up to Reuben, is based on leadership.

One kid who is definitely going to make it is Ernest. He's a genuine choice and he deserves to make it hands down. The other two main choices are between Julia and Noah.

Now, Julia, who is the oldest, never argues and doesn't really complain unless she's really bothered by something. Given her tough schedule, she plays when she can and she appears to try fairly hard when given the opportunity.

On the other hand, we have this kid, Noah. He's had a couple of incidents (one being a fight) already and he seems to get picked on a bit here and there just because of the way he's acted in the past (not so much based on the present, imo). Given this, he's also an incredible player. He wasn't always this good; he's stepped it up without having been told to do so. He's learned and adapted well to situations. When faced with an obstacle, he's done what he's had to do to overcome it.

It's become even more apparent to me since the practice game we held about 10 days back. Reuben and I, along with a few other older players took the kids on in a friendly match. I did not take it easy on Ernest or Noah. Every time they tried to get past me, I'd lift their sticks and get the puck away from them. During the game, they adapted. They realized what I'd been doing and they (especially Noah) began experimenting to get past it. And Noah, specifically, was able to do that on a couple of occasions. Then, the next game, against possibly the best team, they implemented those very same strategies and won us the game.

Now, I don't want to take a ton of credit here. Reuben did run the practices and he worked on the team's overall game which was probably more instrumental than anything; however, the point that I want to emphasize is that leadership is not just about appearing like a leader; it's about being faced with a tough situation and trying to surmise alternatives and bettering yourself so that you can improve from your mistakes and go forward. It's about leading when no one expects you to lead; taking the initiative when you can and leading by example rather than by appearance.

Julia works hard, but she rarely speaks her mind. Not saying we want opinionated kids, but it's important to take risks and learn from the mistakes. Noah has made mistakes; he's acknowledged them and he's improving every day. It's his ability to take charge under the scrutiny and still be one of the best players that makes him a leader. He's still young; he'll still make mistakes. But I don't believe that leaders are born; they are developed and they need to make mistakes to learn from them.

If we're going purely based on leadership, I don't think Julia is a better leader, per se. I think she might embody leadership in some facets, but in other aspects where she is lacking, I think Noah has her beaten in spades.

That being said, it means dick-all since she'll be playing in the all-star game because she's a girl. What better way to placate everyone and pander to the masses by letting the best female player to ever play for Fraserview go to the all-star game. The shitty thing is, I like Julia. I think she's very respectful and has a lot of grace. I just think it's just bullshit that this decision is made by the bureaucrats and not those actually involved with the team. Gah!

I

1. I rather dislike the fact that people don't actually read the letters in the name, but simply take one glance and make an attempt to pronounce it. My name is Gautam, not GUatam. I'd say about a good 80% of people who see my name for the first time--and who are not indian--automatically say, "Guatam". I guess when you've never seen the name before, you're likely to draw comparisons with other similar names or words that you HAVE actually seen before: Guatemala, Guacamoly, Guantanamo Bay (yes, I've been called that before). I've had a co-worker (still my co-worker) for the past 1.5 years still call me, "Guatam", because I figured it would prove a futile endeavour to correct her now, despite the fact that she's heard everyone else call me, "Gautam" and it's yet to register.

2. I am quite different in real life as opposed to my internet persona. On the internet, I trash-talk, I act like an ass and pretty much disregard people's opinions at will when I feel the need. I've improved upon that as of late; however, it's an integral part of me. What I don't appreciate is when people assume that's how I am in real life and then take stabs at me when they want to. I don't take stabs at people in person--with manu being a clear exception--and I expect the same in return.

3. If someone has an opinion, I expect it to be backed up with sufficient proof. What kind of proof? The kind that isn't subject to personal discrepancies. If an argument lacks validity, I will not only reject it, but I will continue to reject that person's opinion among other things unless they can give me sufficient proof to think otherwise.

4. If a friend upsets me, I expect an apology. If I have upsetted a friend, I will not hesitate to apoligize. If mutual apologies must take place in order to fulfill the aforementioned, then I have no problem with that. I have enough friends--good friends at that--that I can pretty much dispose of anyone who I deem to be an unworthy cause in my social endeavours.

5. I believe strongly in pro-choice. This is not just in regards to abortion rights, but extends to euthanasia; the right to life-style choices; the right to be different even for the sake of being different; the right to say, "fuck it" in a crisis situation and many other cases of which I can't think of currently.

6. I believe in never kissing ass. Taking shit is not the same and it is not to be confused with kissing ass. I can't even count the number of times I've seen others kiss ass in situations that I would have none of it. They may be ahead in life, but integrity isn't something I am willing to compromise. Now, I think sometimes it's important to take shit; not because high-level beaurocrats deserve respect, but because there's a time and place for everything. In doing so, however, there is no reason to kiss someone's ass while they're reaming you from behind. Take the garbage when dealt, but don't ask for more and then expect respect in return.

7. I don't believe in political correctness. I hate saying His/her or he/she whenever I am trying to construct an opinion. When I am thinking of an example to explain a point, I have a particular image in mind and it is usually gender specific. For example, "if someone rapes a child, then I believe HE should be punished severely for it". I wouldn't say "he or she" because I am thinking of a specific image that more accurately resembles what I am trying to say. Why would I even mention "she" in a sentence like that? For political correctness? get fucking real. Yet if I did say "he", no one would object, because people expect a male to be responsible in that situation. However, if I were to say, "if a CEO does well for the company, he would rake in a lot of money", people may be more likely to object to that statement. Not saying they will, but it's a bullshit double standard. I hate using "he or she" (though I have to) to make a point; it's not like I am referring to a transvestite, so why the fuck?

8. Some things are and somethings are not--the end.

That ends this post.

Firstly, I want to start off with a long rant because that is who I am and that is what I've done well for as long as I can remember. I remember using rants to get attention and/or get my point across--with the occasional profanity to aid my cause, of course.

But before I go on some rants, I feel it's necessary for me to share some thoughts that I've learned today. I am now convinced that it entirely depends on how well one constructs an argument and not so much one's viewpoints, specifically, that determines how valuable that person's opinion is. Before I always understood that it mostly depended on a person's argument, but if their viewpoints were strange, they couldn't be taken seriously.

My dispatcher today provided some excellent explanations for certain things that I never really accepted. For one, he used to be a hunting guide which meant he'd help hunters find animals to kill.

Now normally, I'd hate to hear about animals being killed and what not; however, upon asked the ethical purposes behind his job or, simply put, the killing of these animals (grizzlies, black bears, caribou, etc...), it was how he approached the topic and how he delivered his ideas. There wasn't any proverbial bullshit being spewed. He looked at both sides of the story and gave his opinion based on that.

He basically mentioned that we kill and eat animals for survival. Most of us just eat the animals, but we take no part in the killing of it. Does it make it any less justified in what we do as opposed to what is being done by others? In a sense, perhaps; however, if you look at it realistically, animals are being killed to satiate our hunger.

Hunters don't go out just to kill animals for the sheer pleasure of doing so (not the ones in BC); they have to acquire a specific license and go through an entire set of procedures to get everything sorted out properly. Then they can't wound the animal before killing it. They have to kill it in one shot or, if unsuccessful in getting a clear shot, they have to let it go. They cannot leave the animal to rot in the woods after being killed; they have to take it out and either eat/sell the meat or give it away to the salvation army. And there are plenty of regulations surrounding which animals can be killed in which areas and the number of animals in those specified areas in which they are killed.

I am sure this sounds rather abject to be reading about a grizzly bear who causes no harm to human beings, to be killed by redneck (they seem so any anyways) scum, but hear me out. Here we have animals that are essentially in the adult stages of their lives that have lived in the wild and enjoyed their freedom their whole lives. It's probably not too many years from now that they die anyways, what difference does it really make if hunters come along and take the bear for its meat and fur? If other animals were to come along and kill the grizzly and do the same (minus the fur), we'd have no reason to object. Similar principle except we don't need the bear's meat to survive; instead we have our meat come from slaughter houses from encaged establishments where many never see the light of day. Just killed and processed for our nourishment. We don't find this so abject when we (some people) indulge in a BicMac or sirloin steak for satiation, so why should we be so morally oppressed to licensed hunting.

I am not trying to suggest that anyone who reads this blog (like 4 of you) is or isn't against it, but I used to be consistently under the impression that it was wrong but had no substance to prove my argument. And because I couldn't argue it (or perhaps didn't want to) I just kept to my ideas and didn't care about the other side of the story.

I bring this up because I remember Mohsin making a similar claim one time. He and his father had once killed a goat by themselves, instead of buying goat meat, to save money and I found that to be really wrong. I now realize that the problem was Mohsin and his inability to argue his point effectively. He could not produce logical claims to substantiate his argument and never looked at the other side of the story. Hence even if he had a good idea, it meant nothing since it could not be strengthened with insight and logic sans bias.

That goes to show that it's not about the claim, but the support and proof that determines ones stance on an issue. I mean, it seemed kinda obvious, but now it's crystal fucking clear.

I wanted to rant on some shit that pissed me off earlier today, but I'll wait until my next post to do that.

I rather hate that excuse. Everyone does it; not so much me because I hate it and thus, I make it a deliberate habit not to do it. Why does it irk me so much? I'll tell you why:

First of all, you DO have the time; you have plenty of time; even if at some point you really don't have the time, you still do. The fact is that there is just too much time in the day that's reserved for procrastination and pure wastage. Of course if you're too busy wasting time (we all do it) you won't find any time to do extra productive things.

It goes mainly regarding exercise. There are a few exercises that one can do to, more or less, maintain good health; however, that excuse always pops up. Then there are those who indulge in McDonalds for satiation--DISGUSTING.

Another point worth noting is that people who do this are perpetual at it. Chances are that if you make that excuse for one thing, you're likely to make that excuse for most things.

I think it's a pretty bad habit; not just for health purposes, but also for stability. It's one thing to make an exception every once in a while, but to do it perpetually changes it entirely.

I had more points to make, but I forget them.

That ends this post.