BlazingCatfur has the scoop!
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Anti-McGuinty rally in Ottawa on the 23rd of October, 2010
October 16, 2010 — xanthippaDebbie, Shirley and Ruth are at it again!
WHEN: Saturday, 23rd of October 2010
WHERE: Dalton McGuinty’s constituency office, 1795 Kilborn Ave., Ottawa
TIME: 11:30 am to 1:00 pm
(Though, if the media show up with their cameras, they do so 19-15 minutes early… and report the number of protesters based on that!)
In Debbie Jodoin’s words:
Let’s send him a very strong message that we are tired of being taxed to death.
That just about sums it up…
So, if you are not happy with the McGuiny gang and how they are wrecking Ontario, come out and be heard!
Anti-McGuinty rally in Toronto on the 16th of October
October 15, 2010 — xanthippaOn the premise that late is better than never (I’ve been off-line for a while – my apologies), here is some interesting information for anyone who is sick and tired of the McGuinty regime and their abuse of power, here is information I received from Debbie Jodoin regarding a protest in Toronto. She’s organizing bus transpo from Ottawa to the rally.
Without further ado, here are Debbie Jodoin’s words:
Are you tired of the high taxes and constant boondoogles by the Mcguinty government!
If you are then please join Debbie, Shirley and Ruth on a most exciting adventure to Toronto on Oct 16th
! We will all meet at 12 30 pm at Nathan Phillip Square at the Winston Churchill statue!
The Rally will begin at 1 pm sharpBusses will leave from Ottawa contact Debbie Jodoin gran737@gmail.com if you need to go down via bus from Ottawa or be picked up along the way to Toronto!
Please feel free to forward this message far and wide!
…been having technical difficulties…
October 13, 2010 — xanthippaSorry about having dropped off like that for a bit – I’ve been having a bit of technical difficulties…
‘Agnostic’ – what the term actually means
October 5, 2010 — xanthippaToday, I got an interesting and thought-provoking comment from JR (as a response to my reaction to a comment where I declined to participate in celebrating ‘Agnostic Month’ on the grounds that I found ‘agnosticism’ illogical and arrogant).
JR managed to ‘hit’ one of my really, really ‘big buttons’. So, I thought I’d best answer him in a full-fledged post of its own…..because I suspect that philosophically, we are close. It’s those danged ‘labels’ that are all over the place.
Which, of course, is the above-mentioned ‘button’ of mine….
JR’s comment was:
Have to disagree, Xanthippa. Of all the philosophical positions one can hold on religion agnosticism is the most rational. Based on what an agnostic rationally ‘knows’ about the world s/he forms an opinion that the objective evidence available to date does not conclusively prove the existence of a supreme being who consciously and deliberately created the universe as we know it and now, in some fashion or other, watches over and/or guides its existence. That last part would be my definition of “God” which I think covers most others’ definition also (if you can propose a more satisfactory one, please do).
Those who worship God, or just “believe” in God’s existence, do so based on their own objective knowledge of the world plus subjective internal “feelings” which are not directly accessible to anyone else. Their subjectively formed convictions are, by definition, unconvincing to non-“believers” who, clearly, have no similar “feelings”. A weak agnostic is one who is not convinced yet, but who thinks it possible that some time in the future, through new knowledge or, who knows?, even a religious experience or revelation, God’s existence will be satisfactorily proven (to him/her). A strong agnostic, on the other hand, believes that knowledge of the existence of God is forever beyond the human mind to grasp – it can never be objectively “proven”. Neither form of agnosticism constitutes atheism which I understand to require an absolute conviction or “belief “ in the non-existence of God – no “maybe” about it. The atheist requires an extremely strong faith – because there can never be any objective proof of a negative.
Your notion of a “militant agnostic” is interesting. I’ve never encountered one of those. It sounds oxymoronic. Is there an on-line example?
The problem, of course, is the disconnect between the popular use of these terms and their actual meaning.
THAT is my ‘big button’ that JR managed to really ‘push’!
Luckily, most of the terms to describe forms of belief or non-belief in all kinds of ‘thingies’ regarding God(s) have been artificially created, so we have their actual (i.e. correct) definitions and need not rely on the inaccuracies of their vulgar use…
Aside: ‘vulgar’, of course, means ‘common’ or ‘as popularly used by ‘common’ people’.
Another aside: Wikipedia used to actually have the correct definitions of these terms. However, a few years ago, they changed them to reflect the vulgar usage of them rather than their accurate meanings. Disappointing!
Refocusing:
The terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ do not refer to the same aspect of belief: one addresses ‘BELIEF’ while the other addresses ‘KNOWLEDGE’. Perhaps I should go back to the beginning….
First, there was the term ‘ATHEIST’. It was specifically designed to express NON-BELIEF or NEGATIVE BELIEF regarding the existence of God(s). Literally, ‘ATHEIST’ = ‘apart from the belief in the existence of God(s).
By definition, an ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist.
The term was ‘coined’ with specifically THAT meaning: it expressly did not address the PRESENCE of ANY specific belief – only the absence of belief in the existence of God. Of course, the term became misused almost as soon as it was engineered…
The second term to have been ‘coined’ was the term ‘THEIST’ = someone who holds the POSITIVE BELIEF that God(s) DO exist. It was designed specifically to be the opposite of the term ‘ATHEIST’.
‘Theist’ describes someone with the presence of belief in the existence of God(s), ‘atheist’ describes someone with the absence of belief in the existence of God(s).
The term which properly describes a person who holds the positive belief in the non-existence of God(s) is ‘ANTITHEIST’: though, naturally, this term, too, became misused shortly after it was invented. Currently, the most popular usage of the term ‘antitheist’ is to describe a person who is opposed to all forms of organized religion.
It appears to me that JR has mistakenly used the term ‘atheist’ to label the positive belief system of the ‘antitheist’. Common, if frustrating, mistake.
To recap: we have visited the core definitions of three terms, two of which describe holding ‘positive beliefs’ and one which describes the absence of a particular positive belief:
- ‘theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) exist
- ‘anti-theist’ holds the positive belief that God(s) do not exist
Thus, the ‘theist’ and ‘antitheist’ both hold positive beliefs as to the existence of God(s) – just opposite positive beliefs.
- ‘atheist’ does not hold the positive belief that God(s) exist
In this way, ‘theist‘ and ‘atheist’ are opposite: one is the presence of a positive belief in the existence of God(s), the other is the absence of such a belief. However, the term ‘atheist’ does not address the presence or absence of any other belief regarding the existence of God(s). Thus, antitheists are one of the many sub-groups of atheists.
All these terms are focused on the belief in the EXISTENCE of deities – exclusively.
It would be ‘an error of omission’ it it were not mentioned at this point that ‘monotheism’ is actually a special case of ‘antitheism/theism’, as it is a positive belief that ALL BUT ONE Gods and Goddesses do NOT exist. As such, it is a positive belief in the non-existence of so many deities, the belief in the existence of one last remaining one of them is so illogical as to defy comprehension. That is why so many professionals in the field think that ‘monotheism’ can only be achieved through serious brainwashing during early childhood or through mental illness. I am not a professional in the field, so I merely report this, without commenting on the validity of such an opinion. (Note: Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all forms of monolatry, not monotheism, and thus do not fall into this category if practiced according to their scriptures.)
In contrast, the term ‘agnostic’ addresses something quite different.
‘A‘ means ‘apart from’.
‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’.
Aside: It is important to stress that the Greek term ‘gnosis’ means ‘personal knowledge’ and has, throughout the millenia, been used to also denote ‘mystical knowledge’ when it has been used in the context of religion or religious experiences. ‘Gnostic Christians’, for example, were a sect of Christianity which rejected imposition of the structure of The Church in favour of ‘personal knowledge’ or ‘gnosis’ of the divine. Until the ‘Conversion of Constantine’, ‘Gnostic Christianity’ was the ‘norm’. Several Crusades were authorized by various Catholic Popes to suppress Gnostic Christianity: ‘the Albigensian Heresy’ (Cathars), ‘Bogomils’ and Hussites, to name just a few. (Reformations introduced by Martin Luther were a watered-down bastardization of the teachings of the Hussites, a century or so after the Hussite teachings went ‘underground’. But, that is a different ‘button’…)
The term ‘AGNOSTIC’ refers to a person who holds the positive belief that it is impossible for us, puny humans, to ever achieve KNOWLEDGE whether or not God(s) exist. It thus corresponds to what JR identified as ‘strong agnosticism’: there is, by definition, no such thing as ‘weak agnosticism’ (according to JR’s description thereof).
In other words, an ‘agnostic’ believes it is UNKNOWABLE whether God(s) exist.
This positive belief does not address the actual existence of deities: just our ability to ever KNOW – for sure, one way or the other.
As such, a person who believes s/he can never know if God(s) exist can still hold positive beliefs as to their existence itself! After all, these are beliefs regarding completely different aspects: one is ‘belief’, the other is ‘knowledge’.
Thus, an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist (of the antitheist type or otherwise)!
As for the ‘militant agnostics’ I have encountered – I am sorry, but it was in ‘real life’, not online. However, the vast majority (though not all) of them fit into the logical fallacy of ‘Pascal’s Wager’: “we cannot KNOW if GOD exists, but I am safer/can’t loose if I believe in God, so I do!”
When I would point out to these people that this does not constitute actual ‘belief’ and is both a moral and logical hypocrisy (if I chose to use kind terms), these militant agnostics got downright crotchety!
.
…
Islamic History Month in Canada
October 2, 2010 — xanthippaSo much for the separation of Mosque and State!
Meanwhile, here is an idea how to celebrate Islamic History Month:
UPDATE: Binks, the Webelf, has more on the Canadian Islamic Month.
Aspeis need to know what their assignment actually is
October 1, 2010 — xanthippaLately, I have neglected posting on the topic of Aspergers. Still, judging by the relative traffic among my posts, there is a need for more information there: both Aspies and educators are still looking for help.
Last December, I received the following comment:
I have an Aspie student, and when asked to produce 2 sentences about a topic in class, will just sit and think the entire period producing nothing… (I do believe that he is thinking about the topic). The topic has been given to student prior to class. Is this an unreasonable task? This is an 7th grade gifted autistic student.
I understand the perfectionism issue and that they may be unsure that it is good enough to put on paper, but in an educational setting I would like some suggestions to assist the regular Language Arts teacher. This is a graded assignment to be done in class.
Thanks in advance for any ideas you may have.
Deb Herr
Special Education Teacher
While I gave a quick reply at that time, this is a very important point which deserves a lot of attention. So, I had attempted to write up a proper response.
It wasn’t right – so I edited t.
Then I fixed it up some.
Then t needed shortening down a bit. So, I cut a bunch of stuff out.
Too much of the key ‘stuff’ was gone. I started a re-write. From scratch…
…and so on, and so on.
It is now October. I have still not published the post – it is not ‘right’ yet!!!!
NO, I am NOT joking!
So, now, I will publish the draft I have, without re-reading it, with all the flaws, errors, sentence fragments and all – or I will NEVER publish this…
Here it goes:
Both my sons are in the gifted program. One has gone through grade 7 several years ago, one is going to get there in not too distant a future – so, I am familiar with the level of development of a gifted Aspie of that age group.
Just to be sure, I asked my older son if he remembered being in that situation himself. He did…and was in perfect agreement with me as to what thought-processes this student would be going through: trying to figure out what the assignment means!
Being in the gifted program means the student is smart. By the time they get to grade 7, smart Aspies understand perfectly well that when a teacher asks for ‘any two sentences on a topic’, the absolutely last thing this means is ‘any two sentences on a topic’!
Experience would have taught them that…by now. And not in a nice way.
But, it would not have taught them what it is that the teacher/assignment does mean – or how to guess it….
So, I think it most likely that the student spent the time trying to figure out what the assignment actually was! And, with so little information provided to the student, I really don’t see how anyone could figure it out!
Therefore, my answer is that yes, it is unreasonable an Aspie or an Autie gifted student, in grade 7, to complete an assignment of ‘writing 2 sentences on a given topic‘.
Reasons:
- The assignment is non-specific.
- The parameters are not defined.
- The goals of the assignment are not known.
- The expectations are unclear (or, in this case, clearly misrepresented).
BUT!!!
There IS a solution!
Aspies – and high-functioning Auties – are very good at meeting very specific goals. I know that teachers are not used to approaching teaching this way, but, they would get WAY better results from this class of students if they were absolutely clear with them what the point of the assignment is, what the goal is, and what the evaluation criteria will be.
This worked for me – and my sons, as well as a few other kids I worked with:
First, we establish that in order to produce marks, teachers have to produce metrics: marks which measure the student’s skill-set development in several areas. This may seem like a game, but, because teachers have to work within such a large system, metrics were required. And, these metrics are used to evaluate the student.
To an Aspie/Autie student, this can be an important revelation. It is not an intuitive leap, to conclude this, because we usually believe what we are told – and from the earliest age, we are told that the point of school is to learn. But, of course, it isn’t! The point of school is to PROVE what we have learned… There is no place in school for ‘learning’ without proving (through earning marks) that/what one has learned.
Explaining that the point of doing assignments is to ‘earn points/marks’ can be liberating for an Aspie student. After all, ‘getting on the high-score board’ is possible, even if one has not yet ‘defeated the boss’!
Once this groundwork has been laid, it is important to explain both the teacher’s goals for this assignment (what the teacher will be measuring for the needed metrics) and the student’s goals (what bits of what will earn points/marks). This bit can be hard on teachers, because they have to explain both the explicit goals and the implied ones – most teachers do not go through this step explicitly themselves.
Yes – most assignments at the grade 7 level come with a ‘marking rubric’. At least, in my area they do. But these are so filled with vague notions and ‘weasel-words’ that they are worse than useless! “The student demonstrated some understanding…. The student demonstrated good understanding…” What the hell does THAT mean?
What is the difference between ‘little’ and ‘some’ and ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ in this context – and HOW is it measured?
Obviously, I can tell that ‘excellent’ will get a higher grade than ‘poor’ – but how do I know what demonstrates ‘excellent’ and what demonstrates ‘poor’ – or any of the other non-specific terms used – in this particular instance, to the satisfaction of this particular teacher?
If the teacher cannot stand there and provide a specific, accurate answer on how the grading will be done – how can the student be expected to guess what expectations to perform to?
This is so much easier for maths and sciences. When a teacher assigns a problem, the student knows not just WHAT ‘the right answer is’ – she/he knows what form the answer is to take.
This is woefully not true of ‘soft’ subjects. Not only do different teachers consider completely different ‘things’ to be ‘the right’ answer (try writing up interpretation of renaissance poetry for a ‘born-again’ teacher), the format itself is undefined…. Yet you are judged how your performance measures up to something the teacher cannot quantitatively define: expectations!
It seems criminal that ‘educators’ are blind to this…
A most awesome letter from a parent of an Aspie
September 30, 2010 — xanthippaI am an Aspie.
I am married to an Aspie.
We have two sons – both of whom have been identified as Aspies.
Not surprisingly, I have some opinions about Asperger’s Syndrome and all the facets of life which affect Aspies.
Every now and then, I have written about the ‘Aspie experience’ and some of the tools I developed to help myself and my sons. Judging from the bog stats, I really ought to focus more on this – aside from a few posts (Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow and some of the sharia write-ups I’d posted).
Today, I got a most gratifying comment on a post I had written a while back about Aspergers and Writing. I know, it is a serious self indulgence to wallow in praise, but, if refreshing the post with a new link to this fresh post helps more Aspies, I’m willing to take the flack!
Here is the comment:
I just found your blog. Wow, wish I had seen this a long time ago. It should be required reading for all special ed teachers. My son was not diagnosed until the end of 10th grade (after failing English when previously a straight A student), and we have endured an often contentious relationship with the school’s special ed coordinator and the school psychologist during that time and since. At the end of his 11th grade year we had the IEP meeting, during which the first one asked him, “can’t you just write something to get it done?”, and the latter called him a snob. And this is a year down the road!!! It’s clear that too many of the people that are supposed to be caring for our children in the public school environment are woefully undereducated, and some also lack the empathy that the unfamiliar accuse the Aspies of not having. We finally found a teacher in the school who undertstands Aspies (and who admitted privately that she cringed at those statements during the
meeting), and she is wonderful. My question is why didn’t they allow us access to her last year, when my son had to be assisted by a special education “clerk,” who had no conception of his difficulties or abilites, who badgered him with “do you want to fail?” comments, and who evidently never bothered to pick up a book and learn about it during that time. I guarantee you, from my now huge Aspie book library, I know more about the condition than either of the people in that school that were allowed to make decisions about my son’s education, or the person that was directly working with him. If they had read your post, which would take about 5 minutes, they would have understood. I think you have explained exactly the problem from the Aspie side–I think this is what my son has been trying to explain to them for 2 years. So, anyone else with problems with the school: number one, don’t take it as long as I did, and don’t assume the people in charge will advocate for your child;
number two, print some information from this blog and give it to every teacher, the special ed department, and the principal. You want to know a funny thing? My son was one of about 15 kids in the county that was nominated for a National Merit Award due to his test scores on the PSAT (no writing portion, of course). To apply for the award, the student must write an essay!!!! He decided to write it about not being able to write essays due to the Asperger’s, and about his difficulties at school due to this. Somehow I doubt he’ll win, but good for him. Thanks for explaining something so difficult so well, and I appreciate the time it takes you, trust me!!!!
Prostituting the legal system….
September 29, 2010 — xanthippaYesterday, a Toronto judge struck down as unconstitutional three laws which many Canadians regarded as the key legislation against prostitution.
I have been rather preoccupied in publishing the responses Ottawa Municipal election candidates have sent me as an answer to the questions I asked them (it took me about 50 hours to develop the list of questions itself – I was not about to slack off on posting any and all responses I got to it!!!). As such, I have not really had much of a chance to see the reactions to the ruling….. In other words, my ‘take’ on it is not influenced by having noted any of the reactions to it ‘out there’!
Well, the government which governs the least, governs the best!
The legal situation, as it was before this ruling, was ridiculous beyond belief!
The logic – if one can call it that – of the laws surrounding ‘prostitution’ in Ontario was so twisted, it is about time they were struck down!
‘Prostitution’ itself was not illegal in Canada. Perhaps it was because even the lawmakers understood that their jurisdiction does not extend to governing our bodies (OK – they still need to figure this out with respect to what I choose to put inside it, from sugar or salt of hydrogenated oils to any other chemical compound), perhaps there is something else – I am simply not legally informed enough to know this. The fact remains that Ontario had no law which made ‘prostitution’ ‘illegal’.
However, there was a catch….
There were three laws which made it illegal to:
- enter into a contract regarding prostitution (solicitation)
- to accept, as payment, money earned through prostitution (living off the avails of prostitution)
- to practice prostitution indoors (operate a house of prostitution)
Yes, for many people whose religious beliefs condemn prostitution, the term is highly charged. If so, I would like to invite you to simply replace the term with something which will permit you to evaluate the legal situation more impartially.
Again, I stress that this is NOT to be an evaluation of ‘prostitution’: only of the legal mess ‘governing’ it. These are two separate matters. One is a matter of morality – something each person should arrive at their own conclusions about. The other is the quality (or lack thereof) of laws Ontario and Canada have on this activity.
This ‘exercise’ is only meant to address the laws themselves – not the practice they address.
So, we have:
- an activity which is not illegal
BUT
- entering into a legal contract regarding this legal activity is illegal
In what world does THAT make sense?
We also have
- a perfectly legal activity
BUT
- even though it does not present any greater danger to participate in said activity indoors (like, say, storing bbq-gas-tanks would), it is illegal to have an indoor place to participate in it
D-ugh!?!?!?!
Again, this is a logically inconsistent law.
Oh, I understand the intent of it! After all, when it is -40 degrees outside, being forced to perform sexual acts outdoors tends to shrink the practice….
But that is, at best, a dishonest law! The lawmakers knew they could not get away with outlawing the practice, as it would breech a person’s inherent rights to do with their own body as they please, so they try to slime their way out of it!!! Shame on them!
And, perhaps most ridiculously, we have
- a perfectly legal activity to earn income
BUT
- it is illegal to spend any money earned this way AND it is illegal for a person to accept, as payment for services rendered, any money earned through this activity by their customer
In other words, if a prostitute hired a book-keeper, and this book-keeper accepted (as payment for her/his services in providing bookkeeping) money that their client earned through prostitution, it is the book-keeper who had committed an illegal act!
Of course, book-keepers are not the only ones who could be criminally charged not because of anything THEY did themselves, but because their clients earned their money through one specific – perfectly legal – activity!!!
If a prostitute had a cleaning-lady, the cleaning-lady (or cleaning-gentleman: I once knew a couple who earned their living this way together, so I want to make sure to be inclusive here), this person could ALSO be facing criminal charges. NOT for something he or she did – but because of the specific legal way their boss earned the money he or she paid them with.
Same goes for cooks, babysitters, body-guards, hairdressers, or any other service provider. WHAT they did was irrelevant. HOW their client earned their money could make them face criminal charges!
THOSE WERE BAD LAWS!!!
(…and that is using very mild language….)
Aside: Please, remember ‘Xanthippa’s First Law of Human Dynamics’ – each and every law (or rule) WILL, eventually, be applied to its maximum potential illogical extreme!
Under these laws, a lawyer who was hired to represent a bank-robber – and was paid with illegally acquired money – would NOT be breaking the laws…..but a lawyer hired by a prostitute and paid with LEGALLY EARNED money COULD face criminal charges!!!!
However you look at it, these laws were in serious need of being struck down.
So, what about the morality of prostitution?
What does THAT matter?!?!?!?
Governments must NEVER be permitted to legislate MORALITY!!!!
…blogging has been light…
September 28, 2010 — xanthippaWhen I said that ‘blogging will be light’, I had not realized just HOW light it would be….
However, technical difficulties aside, I have started posting the replies to my questions which the Ottawa municipal candidates have been kind enough to send me. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised just how many responses I received, as well as with how well many had answered…
I am still posting the answers (and ward by ward overviews of who’s running, their website (if I know it) and a link to the response to my questions), so more ‘stuff’ will be popping up, but if you’d like to check the site out, you can do so here.
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 