Recent Comments
RSS feed
Ezra Levant: Save Free Speech
November 18, 2011 — xanthippaBecause this cannot be said often enough: Ezra Levant on Sun TV (sorry, I don’t know how to embed this format).
Let’s hope Mr. Levant is right and Section 13 of the oppressive and Orwelian-named Human Rights code will soon be a thing of the past.
Soon, we might be sitting around unvaccinated and in the dark
November 17, 2011 — xanthippaFunny, how things work out when competing ‘special interests’ collide…
A few years back, the incandescent light bulb industry was on a verge of a revolution: a new, more energy-efficient version of the incandescent light bulb was developed and the people who manufacture them were about to re-tool in order to produce them. Their plans got scuttled when, jurisdiction after jurisdiction, politicians announced that they would ban ‘the incandescent light-bulb’ because of its inefficiency…
Yes, the politicians were not letting the marketplace decide.
And yes, they were not willing to differentiate between the old-style, inefficient incandescent light bulbs and the new, high-efficiency incandescent light bulbs: they announced they planned to ban them all!!!
The natural result of this was that the manufacturers did not invest their hard-earned money in order to change the production in their factories from the old fashioned incandescent light bulb to the high-efficiency one: there simply would not have been enough time for them to earn back their investment in the short time before ALL incandescent light bulbs will have been banned…
In a very short time – as of 2012 – it will be illegal to sell incandescent light bulbs in Ontario….despite the fact that there is no viable alternative on the market.
Oh, there are alternatives – they are just not viable…
Alternative number one is the LED light bulb. I have recently bought the best (way more expensive) LED ‘light bulb’ the market has to offer….and, frankly, it simply does not produce anywhere near the light levels an incandescent bulb does. Quite literally, it leaves one in semi-darkness..,
The other alternative, of course, is ‘the curly bulb’ – you know, the type David Suzuki posters have been promoting for years!
Yes, they do produce ‘light’.
But, they are not an acceptable choice, for a number of reasons…
Some people find the light they produce is ‘harsh’ and ‘uncomfortable’.
Others find the light that comes from ‘curly bulbs’ triggers their migraines.
Scientists in the UK have conclusively demonstrated that it triggers people’s immune systems to attack healthy tissues – especially in immunocompromised individuals, like, say, people with lupus (SLE) and so on.
But, EVERYONE is affected by the ‘curly bulbs’ at the end of their life-cycle: they contain mercury!!!
Enough mercury, in fact, that if one breaks, people are advised to treat the area in which it broke as a toxic hazard area…
Soon, this could come to an end: there is a possibility that an international treaty would ban the use of mercury in light bulbs (as well as in vaccines) in the near future!
Where this would leave us, who live in areas where the incandescent light bulbs will have been banned, is anyone’s guess.
OpenMedia.ca: You and half-a-million Canadians changed the internet
November 16, 2011 — xanthippaToday, I received this email from OpenMedia.ca:
This is what we’ve been waiting for. Together we’ve stopped Big Telecom’s plan to impose usage-based billing (Internet metering) on all Canadians. Big phone and cable companies tried to rig the market but they were caught red-handed.
A year ago the CRTC decided that big telecom giants could force their small competitors to adopt metered billing. This would have killed Big Telecom’s independent competitors, and it would have meant a more expensive and controlled Internet for all Canadians. It was this outrageous move that led OpenMedia.ca to launch the now half-a-million strong Stop The Meter petition that forced the CRTC to reconsider their plan.
Yesterday, finally, the CRTC pulled back from its mandatory metered billing decision. This decision won’t stop all big telecom metering, but it could provide a much needed unlimited, independent option for many Canadians. It is truly rare for people to outmaneuver Big Telecom lobbyists, but together, we did it. Thank you for playing a crucial part in safeguarding the affordable Internet.
We changed the foundation of Internet billing in Canada—that’s a game changer—but we’re concerned that uncompetitive pricing may be buried in the pages of the policy that the CRTC released yesterday. We’ll study the details of this decision closely in the coming days and, with your help, take whatever action is necessary to push for fair pricing.
What’s next?
We held the line on Internet affordability and prevented Big Telecom from taking complete control, but they still dominate about 94% of the Internet service market. This is why Canada is still falling behind the rest of the world on speed, pricing, and (as we all know) customer service.
Big Telecom makes record profits while Canadians are overcharged and disrespected. Those profits are then used to lobby for more control and price-gouging. Now more than ever we need to break this cycle.
The only thing Big Telecom companies understand is their bottom line, so let’s hit them where it hurts. Let’s get as many Canadians as possible to switch to an independent provider.
Here’s what you can do now:
- We know it’s not possible for everyone to switch to an independent provider right now, but let’s all please pledge to use an independent provider when it is possible.
- If possible, switch to an independent provider like Acanac, Teksavvy, or Distributel who have supported our public engagement campaign, or other indie ISPs that you can find through the “Make the Switch” resource page we started here: http://openmedia.ca/switch
Here’s the plan:
Get the CRTC to allow indie ISPs to offer an unmetered Internet.
A wave of Canadians cancel their service with Big Telecom, and subscribe to an independent competitor—delivering a swift financial cannon shot directly at Big Telecom’s lobbying budget.
Businesses, civil society groups, and people across Canada work with policy-makers to fix our broken telecom system once and for all.
We’ll let Prime Minister Harper and Industry Minister Paradis know how many Canadians have made this pledge.
As an active member of the pro-Internet community, your participation is key.
For our digital future,
Steve, Lindsey, and the OpenMedia.ca Team
P.S. The CRTC’s decision yesterday is likely to meet an aggressive reaction from Big Telecom. Let’s push forward for Internet openness and affordability now, while they’re still reeling from our success. Let’s get moving! Pledge to switch today.
Judge Michael Kent rules!
November 15, 2011 — xanthippaAustralian judge Michael Kent rules that a child’s rights trump Sharia!
Well done, judge!
If only more judges acknowledged that, even in circumstances as difficult as divorce, the best interests of a child trump everything else.
In this case, the mother wanted the ruling to be done in Saudi Arabia so that it would be made under Sharia – a set of laws which only considers the Islamic religious beliefs, not the rights of people, much less the best interests of the child.
Thank you, judge Michael Kent!
After all, a person’s a person, no matter how small.
I wish more judges were like judge Michael Kent.
H/T: Religion of Peace
‘Face-veil’ in Renaissance Rome was considered ‘the mark of a courtesan’
November 14, 2011 — xanthippaIt is funny how different cultural traditions can ascribe different values to equivalent things: in this case, the face veil.
We have come face-to-niqab (if you will excuse the expression) with the Islamic tradition of the face veil and are familiar with it: Muhammad imposed ‘the veil’ on his wives but not on his concubines.
Some people think ‘Muhammad’s veil’ was worn on the front of the throat, but did not cover the face. This can be seen in some Pakistani dress traditions.
Others think it was based on the Slavic headscarf, as he is reported to have first seen this garment on the Christian slave girl gifted to him by the patriarchs of Constantinopole. He became so enamoured of it, he imposed it on all of his wives. If you look at the linked illustrations, it is possible to think that the hijab could have evolved from it. (This is, in my never-humble-opinion, the most likely the root of the Islamic ‘veil’, because there is a direct reference in the Hadith to the ‘Christian slave girl’. Historically, Slavs were hunted by the Mediterranians , in order to be sold to Arabi harems – that is the origin of the word ‘slave’.)
Yet others suggest that the veil Muhammad imposed on his wives was meant to cover their whole face – the niqab. Some people trace this to ancient symbols of prostitution – perhaps.
But, in our culture, the connection between women covering their faces with a veil while in public and prostitution exists in less distand history. One need not go further than Renaissance Rome.
For reasons that are not exactly clear even to myself, I have been reading a biography of Lucrecia Borgia by Sarah Bradford. (It is, perhaps, the worst-written book I have ever tried to chew my way through. The author is completely absorbed in the minutiae and unless you are familiar with not just the ‘big picture’, but also the ‘medium picture’, you might find – like I did – that without frequent outside references, it is difficult to follow the significance of all the rigorously supported details she has managed to cram into the book. It is precisely the rigorous support – extensive quotes from numerous letters – of what she writes which has kept me slogging through it…even though her analysis of the letters themselves and of their implications is often flawed, to say the least.)
One of the things I learned (supported by a quote from a letter written in that period), she indicates (though she does not dwell on the subject) that in Rome during the time of the Borgias, the high-class prostitutes – courtesans – would wear a veil that covered their face while they rode through the streets or were in public areas. Not being well versed in the history of this period, I have not verified this assertion in another publication – if anyone can suggest books I should check out for this, I would greatly appreciate their help.
While I would like to find further corroboration, the fact that this was a direct quote from a period letter, along with the fact that this was an extraneous detail which simply got in because it was part of a letter focused on another subject altogether, convinces me that this likely was the custom of the day. (The lette-writer complains how low Rome had sunk, as so many of the women one could see about were courtesans, which one could see from the fact that they covered their faces with a veil…)
Married women and mistresses – as well as umarried women and girls – did not veil their faces in public, as there was no need for ‘discretion’. The lower class prostitutes also did not have a need for ‘discretion’, though for the opposite reason. It was only the high-class prostitutes, the courtesans, who would cover their faces when on their way to visit ‘clients’.
So, the wearing of the face-veil was a ‘class’ thing: it signified a higher class status among prostitutes.
Which is very curious, because in the Islamic tradition, ‘the veil’ also carries a very definite class distinction: because Muhammad had imposed it on his ‘wives’ – but not on women who were his slaves, whether workers or concubines, women who wore ‘the veil’ were of a higher social status than women who did not.
It is the view of some current Muslims (and Muslimas) that wearing the veil is a symbol of membership in a socially superior class: the woman wearing the veil is demonstrating her class superiority over bear-headed women. This explains why some of the Muslimas wearing veils seem to be doing it as an ‘in-your-face’ aggressive gesture. Far from representing morality or religious piety, this particular set of Muslimas is wearing the veil as a symbol of their superiority.
I am continously fascinated by how, at different times and in different cultures, the same items symbolized different things. In one time and place, the face veil represents a higher social status woman. In another, it denotes a higher social status prostitute.
ThunderF00t: ‘The Stagnation of YouTube’
November 12, 2011 — xanthippaWhat he is describing is yet another application of the ‘Filter Bubble’:
The ‘Filter Bubble’
November 10, 2011 — xanthippaThere is a most brilliant (and relatively short) TED Talk – a must see for anyone who uses a search engine.
Slowly but surely, most search engines and social networks are tracking each of our histories and editing out things they think we would not like. This means that searching for identical keywords can produce vastly different search result for different people – which is fine, IF we could ‘opt out’ (at least some of the time)…but most of us don’t even know this is happening!
This, in my never-humble-opinion, is a problem. And it is the topic of the above mentioned TED Talk by Eli Pariser – he refers to it as ‘the filter bubble’.
He raises a lot of good questions.
One possible answer to at least one of these questions is a search engine that markets itself with proud claims that it will not bubble or track you! If you have not heard of them, take a peek at DuckDuckGo.
While on the topic of technology, Michael Geist has been doing some important work reporting on the Digital lock dissent. He has also posted a most excellent ‘link-library’ to help people support their arguments when they try to dispell the myths the digital lockers are promulgating.
H/T: Tyr
‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert’
November 9, 2011 — xanthippaYes – I have just finished reading this book (Kindle version) and would like to say a few words about it.
First, in the name of transparency, I disclose that I am named in the acknowledgments as one of the over 40 citizen auditors whom the book’s author, Donna Laframboise, had recruited to audit the references in various IPCC AR4 chapters in order to verify whether the sources were peer-reviewed scientific journals or other materials. (More on this later.)
Let me start with the conclusion: well worth a read!
It is worth reading regardless of your opinions about global warming and the role humanity does or does not play in it because, contrary to some book reviews, the book does not actually address the science itself. Let me say it again: this book is NOT an examination of the science, nor does it draw any scientific conclusions. Not one!
Rather, this book takes the claims the IPCC (and its members) make about the organization and how it functions and tests them for consistency and validity. As the sub-title of the book says, it is ‘An Expose of the IPCC’. It is a journalistic expose of the process (and its corruption) behind the IPCC repots: exactly the sort of thing that investigative journalist are trained to do.
This is a serious matter: regardless of where your opinions may fall on the science itself, the process through which the IPCC reports – the reports with perhaps the furthest and deepest financial and political implications of our generation – are generated must be transparent and worthy of our trust. It is perhaps even more the interest of the ACC believers that this process is ‘beyond reproach’ – that their Kool-Aid is not tainted, if you will.
What Donna Laframboise has revealed in ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC’ is an eye-opener to people who have trusted the IPCC simply because they were told to trust world’s leading scientists.
No, the book is not perfect. There is a number of things that I would have either eliminated or re-phrased or even things I think are important that were not included in the book. For example, she does go on about the Y2K bug in an attempt to parallel the hysteria and I get her aim – yet I think this and similar bits detract, not add to the book. At times, her wording is more colloquial than what appeals to my taste, but that is a minor pick – and what she says, regardless of the style she says it in, is valid.
As for omissions – perhaps the most important one is that while I was checking the references for several of the chapters in AR4 for the Citizen Audit, I noted that a number of the references were not to peer-reviewed journals, but to actual official government policy papers.
To me, this is a big deal.
Yes, she correctly pans the IPCC for using a WWF and Greenpeace pamphlets and ads and press releases as source material – these are clearl not peer-reviewed science, despite the often repeated mantra that the IPCC uses exclusively sources from peer-reviewed scientific publications. Citing these as peer-reviewed science is very problematic and Donna does a great job exposing this.
But that a number of actual government policy papers (from several different national governments as well as from the EU) are the source material on which the IPCC draws its conclusions is, in my never-humble-opinion, just as big (if not even bigger) deal. Precisely because, as she documents in her book, it is governments who nominate people for IPCC participation, inclusion of policy papers by those very same governments demonstrates very clearly the conflicts of interest of many of the people behind the IPCC.
OK – that was my pet peeve. I have to admit, in light of what the book does reveal and how meticulously it documents all of its assertions, it is just a minor niggle.
Perhaps the most praise-worthy aspect of ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ is how meticulously it is researched and documented. I have not seen a hard copy, but the Kindle version (and, I understand, the pdf version) are filled with links to relevant material and almost a quarter of the book is ‘footnotes’. Really. Everything written in this book has been researched and documented beyond anything I have seen – ever. For a fact junkie such as I am, this really makes the case – and proves it.
Different people liked different aspects: here are a few other reviews of the book (this one has copious quotes).
What did I learn from the book that I did not know before?
Two things jump to mind right away:
1. There were no conflict of interest guidelines or rules for the IPCC as late as 2010 – they were deemed unnecessary. This is problematic on its own. However, following a scathing review by IAC, such conflict of interest rules have been done up. Alas, they will not apply to any of the people currently working on the next IPCC report, because, as Rajendra Pachauri who heads the IPCC says, that would not be fair…
It would not ‘be fair’ to expect the IPCC ‘experts’ to adhere to conflict of interest rules?!?!?
2. Donna Laframboise strings together a sequence of events that we should be aware of and supports it with quotes from Rajendra Pachauri and others: the role of the IPCC never was to present an impartial report.
Here is the sequence:
- UN creates INFCCC
- UNFCCC creates a treaty to curb carbon emissions.
- UN creates IPCC to support the UNFCCC and get buy-in from various governments and people around the world.
Let me emphasize this: the IPCC was created specifically to lend ‘scientific’ backing to the claim there is a problem only AFTER the UN had created the solution!
There is more in the book that I learned, but these two things are of such importance, it is difficult to believe any investigative
This is an important book – if you have not done so, please, read it!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 