Hats off to John Dietsch!

November 13, 2009 — xanthippa

A WWII hero, Mr. Dietsch proved he’s still a hero!

And, Mr. Gray is cut from the same cloth!

These veterans proved that they still ‘have it’.

Mr. John Dietsch (84 years strong) and Mr. Earl Gray (20 years his junior) had just finished counting some $10,000 in donations to their Legion (Oakridge Legion, Branch 73), raised with the Poppy Campaign.  A gunman walked in and tried to rob them.

The octogenarian vet – obviously a man who is not afraid to face evil – stood up to him, not even bothering to cower before the would-be-robber’s loaded gun.  What a man!

Simply said, the two veterans refused to be robbed.  Mr. Dietsch is quoted as saying:

“But nobody was going to get that money we had worked so hard to collect. It’s for the veterans and the widows and the community.”

And that is it, isn’t it?  It was not his money:  it was money to help the vets and the widows – his community!

To all those collectivists out there, who think that people must never act as individuals, of their own accord, because ‘the group/society/community’ has a monopoly on decision making:   see, here!  Individuals CAN work for the good of the community without sacrificing their individuality!

Two such individuals – Mr. Dietsch and Mr. Gray – refused to buckle and I, for one, salute them.

Thank you, gentlemen.

For protecting the money which will go to help those who need it and who have earned it.

And, for still being an example and role model to us!

 

Posted in human nature, society. Tags: , , . 4 Comments »

We remember you!

November 11, 2009 — xanthippa

Image is from the Canadian War Museum.

For more, please, read ‘The Torch’!

Posted in human nature, society. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

‘Hoodwinked: The Spy Who Did Not Die’

October 16, 2009 — xanthippa

I have never done a book review before.  I don’t know how to go about it, so, please, indulge me.

The book in question is Lowell Green‘s ‘Hoodwiked:  the spy who didn’t die’!

Where to start…

Being the opinionated person I am, the best starting point seems to be the conclusion:

The book is brilliant.  Everyone should go out and read it!  NOW!!!

(Is that too direct?)

Political junkies in particular (and, I suspect a few of my readers do have at least a tiny interest in politics) will have fun with the quirky interpretation Mr. Green throws on some of the background events in the shadows of perhaps the most important cultural event of the second half of the 20th century – the start of the Cold War and descent of the Iron Curtain!

It is well written.

It is well researched.

There are no internal inconsistencies (at least, not that I noticed on a first read – and, that one’s a biggie for me!).

The characters seem very human, very real.  They get inside your ‘monkeysphere’.

The writing style is particularly effective in making this historical novel ‘come alive’!

What am I talking about?

Imagine an established journalist and blogger (!) is contacted by a mysterious man, who has followed his the journalist’s work and now trusts him to tell ‘his story’ – his time is short and he does not wish to take it into the grave with him.  Then, ‘mystery man’ sends our narrator a set of recordings in which he recounts his life (yes, a narration within a narration – it is symmetry, as the story contains mystery within mystery…).

His story starts in pre-WWII Belarus (White Russia:  our protagonist is White Russian, just like Marko Ramius) and skillfully paints the atmosphere of fear and despair as Stalin’s ‘black crows’ terrorize the population.  I have grown up behind the Iron Curtain, but in a much, much ‘milder’ time.  Nothing as intense as what was happening in Belarus then.  But, during the description of the ‘dreaded knock’ on the door (the secret police never rang the bell – they knocked) – I was transported back into my early childhood, where I feared ‘the knock’.  I was too young to appreciate the full meaning of it, but, growing up a child of a dissident, I could taste the fear.  OK – you may think me a wuss, but… now, safe for decades, I still have an unreasonably high level of adrenalin pumped into my veins whenever a neighbour (thinking it less disruptive) knocks on my door instead of ringing the bell.  The description of this atmosphere is exactly right on – even if my experiences pale in comparison, the dread he describes is real.

Then, the Nazis invade.  Our ‘mystery man’ gets stuck in a nightmare.  His appearance (pale, blond and blue-eyed) and education mean the Nazis don’t target him for extermination and turn him into their slave, instead.  As he witnesses the genocide – with horrible, unbelievable cruelty, he grew numb.  But, he was the archetypal survivor – so he found a way to survive, and more.

Again, Mr. Green’s narrative captures the atmosphere so well, it is frightening.  Without going into long-winded personal tangents, let me just say that the narrative of this part of the story is so gripping, his protagonist so believable (without crossing over that ‘manipulative’ line), I am completely ‘sold’ on the veracity of the story!  Of course, the ‘journalist’s’ frequent footnotes (something he employs throughout the novel) which verify (or not) the facts, as presented in the narrative, is a mightily effective tool in making you identify with the ‘journalist’ narrator:  hearing the story, checking the facts, slowly but surely becoming convinced that the recordings are ‘the real thing’.

The move from Belarus to the Canadian Embassy is a little abrupt – actually, it is perhaps the ‘weakest’ point in the story.  But, the narrative style saves the day:  our ‘journalist’ may doubt the narration here, but it is within the realms of what could be explained by ‘mystery man’s’ human weakness and potential ‘fibbing’ to hide something personal…

Once in Ottawa, the ‘real action’ takes place:  espionage, Hoover, Mackenzie King, beautiful women, murder, flight… a ‘historical mystery’ interpreted in a new, radical way!

I dare not write more, for fear of giving it all away and spoiling the fun.  Let me just say that, up to and including the epilogue, I am left baffled as to (and eager to figure out) how much of this IS true, and how much is fiction.

I think it’s time for me to follow up on some of the footnotes – and other things!

Posted in human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Stephen Harper got to meet Yo-Yo Ma!

October 5, 2009 — xanthippa

WOW!

WOW!

Stephen Harper actually got to meet THE GREAT Yo-Yo Ma!!!  What a lucky man!

OK – so my first reaction to this was a little bit atypical:  I am not so good at ‘typical reactions’…  And, my second reaction was:  what a waste of such a good singing voice – why didn’t Steven Harper pick a good song?

Just for his performance, I actually sat through and listened to a WHOLE Beatles song!   I guess there is a first time for everything… and, it DID have Yo-Yo Ma in it!  Even if it WAS a Beatles’ song.

For those not ‘in-the-loop’:  Laureen Harper is the ‘hands-on’ Honorary Chair of the NAC (National Arts Centre) Gala.  This year’s headliner was the legendary Yo-Yo Ma – and the event raised over half-a-million dollars for the National Youth and Education Trust.  And, with Mr. Ma’s help, Mrs. Harper convinced her husband to be a surprise performer at this year’s show!  But, there is a little more going on in the background…

Last year, Mrs. Harper’s husband (our Prime Minister) tried to re-distribute the ‘arts funding’ in two major ways:

As a pre-Olympic preparation thing, he tried to give a greater piece of the overall ‘arts-funding-pie’ to British Columbia.  This earned him the wrath of Quebec artistic elites who claimed that by giving them a smaller piece of the pie, even temporarily, Prime Minister Harper was attempting to murder Quebec culture and that he would singlehandedly destroy it…  Oh, the screeching was unbearable – and it did cost the Conservatives much support in Quebec.  (Frankly, I did not think one single Anglophone was capable of destroying Quebec culture, but the Quebec arts intelligentsia obviously have a higher opinion of Steven Harper!)

Also, he tried to shift a little bit of the funding away from supporting well-established artists and into education programs which would make arts accessible for all kids.

The horror!

Take from the professional leeches (anyone who thinks ‘government grants’ are ‘owed’ to them, because of their ‘calling’ as ‘an artist’ is a professional leech) and give to kids instead!  How will the elites remain elites, if just about everyone will understand art?!?!?  Unthinkable!

Predictably, the elitist and snobby elements from within the arts community (the loud ones – who rely on government grants for a living) started to say some nasty things about Mr. Harper.  He, in turn, lost his temper and said something about taxpayer money going to support ‘a bunch of rich people at galas’ not resonating with ‘real, hardworking people’….

They ate him alive.

The meaning of what he said -and tried to do – was lost in the rhetoric.  That whole ‘taxpayer money going to support’ bit was dropped…and the ‘galas’ part was played up…I mean, why bother with substance when one can get a snappy headline?  And the bit about bringing art education to kids….well, that was interpreted as ‘not supporting the arts’!

And here he was, this past Saturday:  performing, live, on stage with Yo-Yo Ma!

Steven Harper was revealed as a performing artist himself.  And a good one – even if he came across as a little shy….  But then again – how many of us would have the guts to get up and perform live, in front of a few thousand people?

Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Harper, for showing one can love art – and still be a ‘real’ person, too!

Posted in human nature, politics. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

The negative impact of ‘spanking’

September 28, 2009 — xanthippa

Pun 100% intended!

OK – this is usually a very heated debate, which has bubbled up to the surface (yet again) because of the release of a new study which claims to prove that people whose mothers reported spanking them grow up to have a lower IQ.

Those who would discredit this study have been quick off the mark:  and, I really don’t know if the study is any good or not.  That is why I am not linking to it:  while I have a lot to say about the topic in general, I do not wish to get ‘boxed in’ and limited to this study.

BUT…

…here are a few thoughts for your consideration which listening to the discussions this topic has raised have popped into my mind.

1.  Whose intelligence is being measured, anyway?

The study said that mothers were to self-report the discipline methods they used on their kids over a certain period.  Then, years later, the now-grown-up-kids intelligence was measured – and those whose mothers had reported not spanking averaged higher on the IQ scale: is this an indirect IQ test of the mothers?

We know that people who are intelligent often have kids who are intelligent. Could it be that more intelligent mothers do not resort to spanking their kids?

2.  HOW could ‘spanking’ affect ‘intelligence’?

‘Intelligence’ is defined many ways by many people:  however, the definition I like most defines ‘intelligence’ as ‘an ability to learn’.  In my never-humble-opinion, this means that there are three major components to ‘intelligence’:

  1. The genetic potential:  as in, how good the ‘blueprint’ for one’s brain is
  2. Nutrition/health: the proper building blocks must be provided in the food to ‘build’ the brain to the best potential of the ‘genetic blueprint’ – illness can interfere with this process
  3. Desire to learn

It is the third one that I think can be affected by spanking.

After all, spanking – corporal punishment in general – tends to discourage ‘asking questions’.  And, ‘not asking questions’ – whether out of fear or habit – will necessarily limit one’s intelligence.

So, without passing judgment on this particular study:  I find it plausible that spanking a child can, indeed, lead to that person not growing into their full intelligence potential.  Not proven – just plausible.

Now, having set this ‘study’ aside, I would like to make a few comments on using corporal punishment to discipline children – in general.

This issue is very emotionally charged for people, for all the obvious reasons!  Therefore, any discussion of ‘spanking’ becomes extremely emotional, early on into the debate.  So, how do we approach the issue and discuss it, without sinking into the emotional quagmire?

Personally, I think it is best to ‘remove’ the situation from the ‘particular’ to the ‘general’:  do we, as a society, approve of corporal punishment?  Not just of ‘children’ – but of every citizen/resident.  Do we, as a society, approve of using caning or whipping or other forms of corporeal punishment?

For example, should an employer discipline an employee using corporal punishment?

Why?

Or, should nursing-home care-providers use corporal punishments to’ teach’ their elderly patients, who may have diminished mental capacities and might not understand long explanations, to comply with the nursing home’s rules?

Why?

Now, regardless of what your answers were, ask yourself if you think that a country’s laws ‘ought to’ protect every individual equally.

I think they must!  Our very civilization is founded on the principle that all people are equal in the eye of the law!

Or, at least,we ought to be…many of our lawmakers have been forgetting this bit lately, giving some groups privileges over others.  So far, these privileges do not include the right to inflict corporal punishment…. so why are these already existing laws not enforced when the victims are the most vulnerable members of our society:  children?!?!?

As my favourite philosopher wrote, a person’s a person, no matter how small!

P.S. Before anyone raises the ‘hot stove & other immediate dangers’ objection, arguing that it is important to make kids avoid ‘immediate danger’ so it is acceptable to hit them to make them comply with associated rules…  That is the worst possible argument EVER!!!  ESPECIALLY in situations of potential ‘immediate danger’, it is really, really important that children – from the moment they learn to crawl – are taught to UNDERSTAND what is dangerous, instead of being taught to OBEY rules!

How could replacing the understanding of danger (and, even infants can learn to understand danger!) with a mere arbitrary-sounding rule keep a child ‘safer’?  Rules will be broken… so making rules to cover dangerous situations is setting the child up for failure!  A dangerous failure, to boot!

Why not just take the easy way out and teach the child to understand the danger?  It’ll make them safer – and might just increase their intelligence in the process!

Posted in debate, human nature, philosophy, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Diaspora and our ‘bronze-age-brains’

September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

There are two common-use meanings for this term:  diaspora and Diaspora.

The ‘little d’ diaspora refers to any (more-or-less) peaceful migration or immigration or general re-settlement of a socially cohesive group of people with a well-defined social identity into an already populated area, with no intention of integrating into the host society.  The ‘capital D’ diaspora refers to one specific ‘little d’ diaspora:  the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans and their resultant scattering around the World.

At this point, I am only focusing on ‘little d’ diaspora.

This ‘diaspora’ is a curious concept:  a group of people who share a common ancestry/language/culture/religion – such as a tribe, or a clan, settle in an area already inhabited by ‘different people’.  Once there, they do not attempt to gain the land by conquest:  they either legally purchase it or, if the population density is low, they simply settle there and eventually claim squatter’s rights. So, there is no war.

The ‘newcomers’ are usually not perceived as hostile, so the people in the ‘host culture’ do not harbour hostility towards them.  Or, at least, not particularly so.  At the beginning.

But, we, humans, have come to be who we are by following a certain path of social evolution.

Each one of us is, first and foremost, an individual.  And, even in the most collectivistic of human societies, there is an acknowledgement (or a lament) that we are, indeed, individuals.

This fact that each of us is an individual does not, in any way, change that we are also very social:  we nurture our young and have long learned that pooling our resources can help us survive and succeed.  We don’t always agree on how much of our resources ought to be pooled, and how this pooling ought to be accomplished – but that is a different matter.

Different human societies have indeed reached different states of balance (or, imbalance) between the ‘individual’ and ‘society’.  This is only to be expected, because humans are such a prolific organism that we thrive – or, at least, survive – in greatly varying regions of the world.  These produce very different pressures (stresses) on the different human groups and their social rules that they govern themselves by.  Thus, very different attitudes, moral codes and social rules had developed.

Many people I have talked to seem to think that there is some sort of a ‘universal’ set of rules of ‘morality’ that all people subscribe to.  I am sorry to disappoint these people:  there is no such thing.  It is only because most cultures which had, historically, interacted with each other had been ones which were also in physical proximity:  thus, both a similar set of environmental pressures and long-term contact (such as trade) between the cultures served to spread ideas, learn of each other’s attitudes – in short, served as a ‘normalizing’ pressure on the development of these cultures.  This then gives an ‘appearance’ of ‘universal’ concepts of ‘right and wrong’.

Thus, this ‘universality’ is no more than an appearance.  What worked for one group of people in one specific time and place became their set of ‘right and wrong’.  Sure, if they learned a rule that seemed to produce better results, they usually found a way of incorporating this new rule into their society.  (Often, this was in the form of a new deity – which is why so many monotheistic cultures seem to freeze in their ‘moral’ development… but THAT is a completely different post!)

Isolated cultures are  prime examples of just how different ‘right and wrong’ is, depending on the pressures on the society.  Most ‘mainland’ cultures prospered if there were more offspring:  the more babies born, the more were likely to survive and become productive members of their clan, the better the clan did.  So, in most of these cultures, homosexuality (actually, most activities which would divert natural sex-drive away from baby-production) was forbidden and became considered ‘immoral’.  I remember my Anthropology prof telling us about an isolated culture on a small South Pacific island, where the overpopulation was the stress which drove the development of the society.  On this island, homosexuality was not only permitted, it was considered to be morally superior to heterosexuality!  As a matter of fact, heterosexual sex was taboo for over 300 days of the year…

The same is true of ‘murder’ – the concept of ‘killing another human being’ as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ is actually not all that common… as I have ranted on before.

As any physician will readily confirm, our brains are not any different from those of our bronze-age ancestors.  Sure, when we have better nutrition and vitamins, when we grow up mostly free of diseases, our brains develop into a much fuller potential then they would otherwise.  But not all our ancestors were malnurished or ill….  Our brains are have the very same physical characteristics, the same ‘blueprint’, if you will, that the brains of our bronze-age-ancestors did.

What differentiates us from our ancestors is our culture – our learning and our social attitudes.  In other words, ‘culture’ is what ‘defines us’ as ‘us’.

As opposed to ‘them’.

And this ‘them’ concept is extremely important to the way our ‘bronze-age blueprint-of-a-brain’:  because in our bronze-age past, ‘them’ could never really be trusted!  The simple fact that ‘they’ were not ‘us’, but ‘they’ meant that ‘they’ did not have a vested interest in ‘our’ survival.

That is why so many ‘ kings/chieftains’ would marry a daughter of a king/chieftain with whom they had just reached a peace-treaty:  the ‘father-king’ would have a vested interest in the survival of his grand-children, just as the ‘bride-groom-king’ has a vested interest in the survival of his own children.  This marriage and its ‘blood-bond’ reduces the ‘they’ factor and makes both sides see the other as at least a little bit more part of ‘us’.

Which brings me back to the ‘diaspora’:  the very point of a diaspora is that the newcomers do not become part of the ‘us’ which surrounds them. By the very definition of the word ‘diaspora’, these newcomers have a fully formed cultural (which includes religious) identity of their own and are not willing to compromise it in any way – especially through mingling of the blood!

In other words, the newcomers – by their choice – do not become ‘us’ to their neighbours/hosts.

This results in both sides being unable to fully trust each other:  blame our ‘bronze-aged brains’!

Posted in human nature, immigrants, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Heroes are no longer welcome in our society

September 23, 2009 — xanthippa

Many people in the Ottawa area are discussing  how active a role citizens ought to take in the protection of our community and our fellow citizens.

Let me set the stage:

Two men were driving down a road, in a hurry (as they were late for a Kim Mitchell concert).  A woman jumped onto the road in front of them – they almost hit her.  Since she appeared not to be in perfect control of herself (the men thought she was drunk), they stopped in order to make sure she’d be OK.  She wasn’t…

This is where the situation takes a turn towards the surreal:  the young woman was hysterically screaming into her cell-phone, talking to 9-1-1,saying she had just been sexually assaulted.  Our two men immediately offered her assistance.

The woman was not perfectly coherent:  she had just been through something horrible, was bleeding… not exactly composed (screaming hysterically, as the 9-1-1 dispatcher put it).  Understandable…  But, she did convey to ‘or guys’ that her attacker was an acquaintance who was giving her a ride home, that he raped her and tried to choke her to death, and was sitting in that car over there!

The man she indicated started yelling rude insults at her and threatening to kill her and ‘put her in a cornfield’…. and appeared to take a drink from a bottle of Tequila.  Then he drove off.

Please, keep in mind that in Ontario, if you see someone drinking (alcohol) and driving, the law says you are to make a ‘citizen’s arrest’.  This is a bit of an ‘aside’, but it is important to the way the events unfolded.

‘Our guys’ took the injured woman into their car and, using her cell-phone to talk to the 9-1-1 dispatcher, they followed the man who had just they had just witnessed drinking and driving – and whom they heard threatening to kill the distressed woman.

This is where the controversy comes in:  many people have condemned the young men for chasing after the attacker!

The whole discussion is hardly helped by a very ‘misleading’ (according to the lawyer for one of the protectors) article about this event in the Ottawa Citizen:  today, I was listening to CFRA (an Ottawa radio station) when the lawyer for Ryan O’Connor called in and filled in some information.   (And, yes, it is ‘reporting’ like this that drives people away from the mainstream media…  It seems obvious that to them, this is no more than ‘just a story’… so the reporting is either unbelievably shoddy or intentionally misleading!)

OK – I heard the interview live, so I do not have a link to support my assertions (soon to follow).  Still, the lawyer (whose name escaped me) said his version of events would be brought out when the 9-1-1 transcripts will be released, so I am trusting that I heard things ‘right’.

The article asserts the woman knew her attacker and his name.  Well, he was an acquaintance – someone she had seen around.  And, he told her his first name.  I think that when a ‘familiar stranger’ – a person you know by sight, but little else – tells you his first name, it really ought not be reported as ‘the woman knew her attacker and his name’.  There is a serious difference between the two!

Also, there was the assertion (in the article as well as in much of the commentary that followed) that the man’s identity was clear because they noted his car’s license plate number.

Really?

Who said it was his car?  It could have been stolen.  It could have been borrowed.  It could have been just about anything! Claiming one could ‘prove’ the man’s identity by the license plate on his car is so idiotic, I don’t even know where to begin.  Jumping to conclusions without considering what evidence you actually have is bad – but when lives are at stake, it is inexcusable!

People have been condemning the two men who helped the victim, for a whole slew of reasons:

It turns out they were driving a Porsche – so they must obviously be bored rich kids looking for an excuse to live out a Hollywood – style high speed chase!

The fact that they were helping a woman in obvious distress, that they had abandoned their plans to go to a concert (the tickets to which they had already bought) and helped a woman who was hurt in body and spirit –  that little fact did not seem to matter to these petty complainers!  Nor did they seem to care that ‘our guys’ were well within the law to attempt to execute a citizen’s arrest on a drunk driver…

One of the two men turned out to be Matt Spezza – a brother of a very popular NHL hockey player on our local team, the Ottawa Senators.  The amount of venom this brought out in people – the ‘you know, he has a famous big brother so he thinks he’s God’ sentiment… that truly sickened me.  Why are people so warped and steeped in envy?  Does it not eat away at them?

The car chase reached ‘high speed’ at some points.  This means that they endangered themselves, the woman they were trying to help – and everyone else in the city!  They could have hit someone!  They just wanted to be heroes! (A woman said that last sentence at a call-in show.  She spat it out with such hate, as if wanting to be a hero was the most disgusting thing EVER!)

Yes, they could have hit someone.  But they didn’t.  The chase did reach ‘high speeds’ of 160 km/h (some reports go up as high as 170 km/h).   Not ‘Autobahn’ speed, mind you, but this is Canada!  We don’t think people ought to drive faster than a horse-buggy goes….you know, it could be dangerous!  The fact that the driver actually races cars – and would be quite capable of handling these speeds – seemed to only pour oil onto the fire of indignation against him!

Oh – and the driver continued to talk to the 9-1-1 operator while he chased the baddie:  talking on cell-phones while driving is bad!

Yeah!  He was talking to the 9-1-1 people!  As in, following their instructions…and, are our 9-1-1 operators not experts specially trained to assess the dangers of a wide range of situations?  And did not this expert assess the situation and decide that the danger of pursuit was ‘the lesser evil’ than unleashing a homicidal drunk on the public?  (By the way – this dispatcher has also been much maligned….before all the facts are known!)

They knew the attacker’s name and had his license number:  there was no need for a chase!  The cops could have just gone to his home and arrested him there!

Oh, like he was just going to orderly drive home?  Or, perhaps, he was going to drive to the nearest police station and respectfully request to be arrested? And then kiss some babies and donate to charity, too!

EVEN IF they knew exactly who he was (and, by now, the guys chasing the baddie and the 9-1-1 operator knew that the man did not own the car he was driving and that the victim knew nothing about him except his first name), LETTING HIM GO would have simply meant some other woman was going to be murdered that night.

This was a guy who was trying to live out a sadistic ‘rape-murder’ fantasy – and got interrupted half way through.  He was still high – on adrenalin, for sure, other stuff perhaps… and his reaction to having the victim snatched out of his grasp showed unabated rage!

Had the good guys not pursued him, he would – most likely – have snatched another person and carried out his murderous fantasy!

The cops certainly did not join in the chase – it was not until 15 minutes after the chase started that the cops got involved, stopping the suspect at a roadblock.  As in, no police helicopter.  No police cars or motorcycles joined the chase.

The baddie would have had 15 minutes (at least) to disappear!  During those 15 minutes, the suspect could have reached a spot where he could have abducted another victim, and then hidden away in some secluded area (the road on which the fist victim was assaulted borders the Green Belt:  an area filled with ‘nature paths’ and quiet, dark, secluded parking lots).

Yet, those who think it is unacceptable for citizens to take any action to protect themselves, that it is solely the job of the police (must be a union thing) – these people have won.  Today, the police chief announced that in the future, no citizen is allowed to lift a finger to help.  Anyone.  Ever!

Nobody expects the police to be able to be everywhere, right away.  It is not physically possible.  So, next time you see a crime in progress – just keep on walking!  It’s none of your business.

Found a loophole in the laws, which might let you help save a life?  Don’t worry, we’ll soon have those loopholes plugged!

Posted in debate, human nature, politics, society. 4 Comments »

When ‘spokespeople’ tarnish the whole group…

September 9, 2009 — xanthippa

Yet again, a few ‘spokespeople’ claiming to represent a rich (in human qualities – not wealth!) and diverse community have done a great disservice to themselves and all the people they claim to speak for.  In one moment, they have erased the individuality of the members of their group, and chosen to cast them all in the role of extremists… all in the role of victims.  (I will not identify this specific incident until later on in the post, because it is essential that I explain my disgust with the behaviour in general, before focusing on the specific.)

This happens so often, and in so varied groups, one could perhaps argue that it is one of the defining attributes of humanity.  This one, however, is as unhelpful and counterproductive as it is predictable.

Why?

Well, first, let’s consider who usually ‘speaks for a group’ – as an unofficial spokesperson:

  1. A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across?
  2. A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’?
  3. A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding?
  4. An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them?

Let’s consider them, one at a time:

1.  A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across

Professional communicators are usually professionals, who cost a lot of money.  Therefore, they tend to be ‘official’ spokespeople, not ‘unofficial ones’ when it comes to ‘unorganized groups’.  Still, some sub-groups – which might wish to manipulate the rest of the ‘group’, might choose to hire professional communicators.  However, the message these professionals deliver is not in the interest of the larger group, but instead only serves whatever the purposes of the sub-group that hired it.  In other words, if the spokesperson IS a professional communicator, one must ask who hired him, and to what purpose.

2.   A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’

Well – these are usually called ‘official spokespeople’ – on the grounds that they actually have the ‘backing of the whole group’.  So, by definition, unofficial spokespeople do not fall into category #2.

3.   A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding

Well, again, not likely.  Moderates usually do not have the desire – or feel the need to – speak out.  It is enough for them to be secure in who they are, because they know that real bigotry is the problem of the bigot and perceived bigotry is not worth bothering with.  There is, of course, an exception to this:  when even the moderates within the group feel threatened, they will speak out.

However, that is not the situation I am attempting to address here:  it is an essential distinction!  When the whole of a group is truly threatened, then it is essential that the moderates are the ones who speak out.  So, how do we tell the situations apart?  It has been my experience that when moderates speak out, they speak for themselves – and they clearly state that they have no pretentions of speaking for everyone else.  They will share their experiences – and only by listening to their stories will one realize that it is not just this one individual who is affected, but other members of the community, too.  When people speak up and, before they even get to tell you what happened to them, personally, they start out by saying that ‘the group’ as a whole is being threatened, when they begin by claiming that they speak for ‘everyone’ – without having an ‘official spokesperson’ status – then, in my never-humble-opinion, one is justified in suspecting a manipulation.

Which kind of brings me to #4:  An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them ….

Ah, yes…I think I’ve made this point already.

Please, judge for yourself if in this instance, we are dealing with #1, 2, 3 or 4:

An MP (Member of Parliament) sent (several versions of) a brochure to his constituents, now that the Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13(1) of our Human Rights Code conravenes the Canadian Constitution.  In that brochure, the MP criticized ‘radical Muslim voices’ who, in many peoples’ opinions, abused this section of the HR code.

The key word here is ‘RADICAL’!

He did not criticize Muslims, or even the majority of Muslims, or any such thing.  He clearly (and, if the reports are accurate, unequivocally) specified that it was the extremists whom he was referring to.

This did not stop ‘unofficial spokespeople’ (though some claim to be official, since there is no external, universally accepted authority structure in Islam, it is not possible to actually have an ‘official spokesperson for all Muslims’ – by the very tenets of Islam!) from claiming that this MP had attacked ALL Muslim people!

Take note:  this is an important distinction!

The MP specified he was referring to a few extremist voices only.

The ‘spokespeople’ claimed he had maligned ALL Muslims!

Even a cursory application of logic makes it clear that these ‘spokespeople‘ are making the extravagant patently false claim that ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS!

I’m sorry, but I do not believe that for a moment!

More than just ‘believe’ – I KNOW it is not true!  One of my favourite cousins is a Muslima – and she is certainly not an extremist!  She is a wonderful person – I wish more people were like she is, because then more of us would get along without all these manipulations and ‘stuff’!

These self-appointed loudmoths do NOT speak for her!  I know, because I asked her.  THEY did NOT!

And, I want those ‘spokespeople’ to be found and dragged in front of the whole world community to answer for their slanderous misrepresentation of many, many excellent Canadians!

It is THEY who is spreading hate and division and discord among us!

It is high time they were held responsible for their evil deeds!

H/T:  Blazing Catfur whose site now includes the brochres which triggered this ‘outrage’.

Connie at FreeDominion has 6 pdf’s of the brochures.

P.S.:  If you would like to say a few supportive words to the MP, his address is Anders.R@parl.gc.ca

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

The ‘frog in hot water’ story…

September 1, 2009 — xanthippa

First of all, I must say that I do not approve of this sort of experiments.  Not at all.

Still, this story is worth learning from:

If someone puts a frog into a pot of very hot water, the frog will jump out of the pot.  BUT,  if one puts the frog into a  pot of cool water, and then heats it up very, very slowly, the frog will not jump out – it will allow itself to be boiled!

Because the temperature is increasing so slowly, there is no ‘trigger’ to signal the danger in the frog…so the frog takes no action to avoid it!

When it comes to our rights and freedoms, we are a lot like these frogs:  because our rights are being eroded very, very slowly, we just sit there and allow it to go on and on and on, without lifting a finger to try and preserve the very rights and freedoms which define our society.

Because  the process of erosion of our rigthts is so slow and gradual, we lack the ‘trigger’, that one ‘oppression’ which is, on its own, worth standing up and starting to fight!

And that is, in a very real way, true.  No single little encroachment on our rights, no new little oppression, is, by itself, so big that it alone would be worthy of a ‘revolt‘.  That is why it is so easy to ridicule those who get incensed about it!

But it is the continuous process of steady and unmistakable – and, it seems, unavoidable – usurption of our rights, encroachment on our freedoms, which is going to leave us slaves of The State:

  • The State will control what we can spend all of our money on (they will tax just about all our disposable income and only give us ‘tax-rebates’ to buy the products they ‘approve’:  an ‘allowance’ which we will only ‘get’ if we spend it ‘the right way’)
  • The State will control what medical care is warranted, and when, and who maybenefit from it and who may not (many ‘smokers’ are already being denied medical treatment…just the tip of the iceberg:  the justification that ‘we are all paying into Medicare, so we have the right what ‘risks’ to your health you must avoid’ will be used more and more to control people’s private behaviour, threatening to deny medical treatment to those who do not comply) (OK – I worded this badly…I am trying to get across that The State already does, and will do so more and more, use the justification that it is ‘paid into by’ everyone’ – so ‘everyone’  has the responsibily to only use it ‘wisely’ – and since they are administering it, they get to decided what is ‘using it wisely’ ‘ to weild ‘Medicare’ as a means of controlling more and more of our behaviours.)
  • The State already controls what we may or may not eat/put into our body – and these laws are becoming more and more intrusive, and will continue this trend
  • The State is passing more and more laws which erode private property rights and regulate how we may or may not behave while we are ‘in our private homes’
  • The State already controls education
  • More and more people are becoming directly or indirectly employed by The State, as The State is increasingly usurping the roles of private businesses:  this gives The State even more intrusive control over the populationwhile effectively suppressing dissent (most people are afraid to ‘bite the hand that feeds them’)
  • The State is increasingly controlling what we may or may not say – and has even, through its singularly misnamed ‘Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals’ – found a way to punish people for thinking forbidden thoughts!
  • …the list goes on and on and on…

And because each tiny little step is so small, we are letting it happen!

We should pay attention to the ‘frog in hot water’ story, before it is too late to ‘jump out of the pot’!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

A few banal observations…

August 21, 2009 — xanthippa

Rabbits may be reluctant swimmers, but they are very, very fast swimmers.

rabbits are very fast swimmers

Also, they have an incredibly keen sense of direction!

If you are ever stuck in the middle of some body of water, and you need to figure out which direction the closest land lies in – and you need to figure it out really, really fast – just put your rabbit into the water.  He’ll immediately and unerringly begin to swim towards the closest land.

Hip Hop swims to shore

And, they look cute in a little ‘jacket’:

A handsome rabbit with his wet dog

Another, completely unrelated observation:  if you tell your kids to turn the oven down by 25 degrees, it is very important to specify that you mean 25 degrees in temperature (naming the scale would not hurt!), and not 25 degrees as in the angle through which to rotate the temperature dial….  Not being clear on this will, at times, result in the oven being set to the wrong temperature!

Posted in about, human nature. Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »