Thank you, Suzanne from BigBlueWave!
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Email interview for Ottawa Election Candidates 2010
September 17, 2010 — xanthippa
The following set of questions will be emailed today to all the candidates who list an email – the rest can find it here, should they be interested.
If at least 10-15 of the candidates do respond, I will set up a separate blog at which I will post all the responses I receive (by Mayor/Ward#).
This election is likely to see many changes in the municipal political scene – and so it should be. Still, it can be confusing for the ‘regular voter’ to know who’s who and what their defining values are.
In order to help the voters identify which candidate stands for what, I have put together a few questions which I would appreciate if you would answer. In order to identify everyone’s stand on some of the issues which are important to the Ottawa taxpayers at this time, some of the questions are provocative, pointed and otherwise biased in order to highlight each candidate’s uniqueness.
If you would like to answer any or all of my questions (feel free to pick and choose), I will post each reply on a dedicated blog. It might not get a lot of traffic – but, then again, it might take off. All I ask is that the questions be answered by the candidate and not their political staff and that they be honest, direct and heartfelt.
(If some of the questions make you mad – please, say so: they are meant to! Which questions make you mad just may help voters identify with your core values! If none of the questions get you ‘hot under the collar’, then I have failed and I apologize.)
Part 1: tell us about yourself
1.1
Why did you decide to run for public office now – as opposed to another time?
1.2
Why did you decide to run for the Municipal level of government, as opposed to the Provincial or Federal?
1.3
What makes you the best candidate for this job?
1.4
What separates you from all the other candidates?
1.5
Whom do you admire and why?
Part 2: decision making
Each of the following questions will present you with 2 options: sometimes, these may be congruent, sometimes not. It does not matter. This section is meant to highlight, if elected, how much relative relevance you would give these considerations in YOUR decision making.
Dividing ten points between the two choices in each question, please indicate how many you would give to each of the two options presented (ensuring the sum adds up to 10).
Example: When considering a snack, how would you rate ‘healthy’ vs ‘convenient’?
Healthy __6___
Convenient __4___
(A snack can be both healthy and convenient – this just tells us, the voters, which quality you would consider more, and by how much.)
Please, feel free to comment as well.
2.1
To whom is the primary responsibility of the City Council?
City employees _______
Taxpayers _______
2.2
When introducing new initiatives (or evaluating existing ones), what should be the relative importance of these to each other?
‘Environmental good’ _____
Taxpayer burden _____
2.3
When introducing policies intended to change the behaviour of the citizens of Ottawa, how would you balance the following?
Advice of experts _____
Voter feedback _____
2.4
When motivating citizens to use public transit, how would you balance these two approaches?
Making it easier, more convenient and especially safer to use public transit _____
Introducing penalties/fees/traffic tie-ups to discourage the use of private vehicles _____
2.5
Who is responsible for the welfare of children?
Parents _____
Public officials (including all variety of school programs) _____
2.6
What is the relative importance of these?
Individual (including property) rights _____
‘Public good’ _____
2.7
What should be the relative focus of any government?
Providing services to citizens _____
Enabling citizens to provide for themselves _____
2.8
When implementing a policy that may not be popular, which is preferable?
Legislating behaviour _____
Permitting those citizens who wish to ‘opt in’ to do so, with no penalty to the rest _____
2.9
What is a better way to help people with ‘drug problems’?
Needle exchange/safe injection site programmes _____
0 tolerance of illegal drug users (including marijuana) _____
(I specify drug ‘users’, as opposed to ‘dealers’)
2.10
In policing, what is the relative importance of:
‘Public Good’ initiatives – such as ‘driver sobriety spot checks’ by police _____
Respecting the constitutional rights of citizens (random police checks illegal) _____
2.11
Who is entitled to decide the fate of trees?
The property owner (whose house may be getting damaged by the tree) _____
The community (as represented by City Officials) _____
2.12
Which is more harmful to the environment?
Raw Sewage _____
Carbon Dioxide _____
2.13
If ‘security’ and ‘freedom’ are in conflict, which should take precedence?
Security _____
Freedom _____
2.14
If a city official (such as a police officer or a by-law officer) is attempting to carry out an illegal order or to enforce an illegal law/by-law (one which contravenes the Canadian Constitution), what should be the reaction of the citizen?
Shut up and obey, like a good little slave _____
Place the city official under citizen’s arrest _____
2.15
Where do rights originate from (and thus reside with)?
Individual _____
Society _____
Part 3: Short and to the point
Please answer the following questions in 10 words or less.
3.1
What is the main purpose of government?
3.2
What is the main purpose of fines?
3.3
What is the proper role of by-laws?
3.4
Currently, the average salary (and benefits) of the City of Ottawa employee is roughly double the average salary (and benefits) of private sector employee (this average includes the high salaries of CEO’s and other executives – as shown in multiple studies). Under what conditions is this justifiable?
3.5
In many City of Ottawa departments, the workers and managers are members of the same labour union. Is this proper?
3.6
Should the City of Ottawa have departments which duplicate the services (and often undermine the policies) of Provincial and/or Federal departments?
3.7
Many businesses in Ottawa claim the amount of ‘red tape’ they have to go through simply to exist is excessive. Is this a problem?
3.8
Under what conditions is it justifiable for a government to financially subsidize one business, but not another?
3.9
Is ‘reverse discrimination’ also a form of discrimination?
3.10
Under what conditions should governments be permitted to fund non-core, non-essential programmes/services?
3.11
Does accommodating sensitivities of ANY/ALL religious groups by the City of Ottawa a breech the separation of ‘government’ and ‘religion’?
3.12
Should elected city officials be subjected to a specific term limit? If so, how long?
3.13
Similarly, should city employees (perhaps with the exception of front-line police officers, firefighters and paramedics) face a similar cap of a maximum number of years in the civil service (say, 15 or so)? (This would help bridge the public/private sector gulf and enrich both, as well as slow the destructive trend of emerging ‘privileged class’ of civil servants we are seeing in our society.)
3.14
Why should the City of Ottawa permit the operation of businesses (such as clubs) which ban a citizen from becoming a member based on their gender (or which set aside hours of operation for members of a specific religion)?
3.15
Should the City of Ottawa tolerate the practice of gender discrimination in any form, including ‘gender segregation’ on City property? (In privacy/modesty situation, the existing measures such as ‘family changing rooms’ and ‘family rest-rooms’ are a perfect accommodation to all without implementing gender apartheid.)
3.16
Should City of Ottawa financially support public events (including sports competitions) which practice gender apartheid? Should it tolerate such intolerance in City owned facilities?
3.17
It is difficult for most non-communications specialists to be ‘perfectly bilingual’: still, it is even more difficult to be ‘perfectly trilingual’. As such, the current City of Ottawa language policy unfairly prevents non-linguist allophones, mostly from immigrant backgrounds (such as myself) from even seeking employment with The City. If elected, will you work towards a more inclusive, tolerant workplace which only requires ‘functional bilingualism’, and only in ‘front-line positions’ for personnel which is directly serving the public?
Part 4 – deeper questions
Please, answer the following questions.
4.1
The classical role of government is defined as protecting territorial integrity (not applicable to a municipal government), protecting the security of person and property of its citizens and providing an impartial and objective judiciary. This is a much narrower role than what the modern governments tend to play. Most citizens would likely agree that the role of municipal government also includes supplying clean water, proper sewage treatment/waste (garbage) disposal and road infrastructure.
Should a municipal government to provide any service other than listed above? (Please list.)
Why/why not?
4.2
This will be difficult to put in practice, but…
Do you support, in principle, the assertion that since civil servants are paid from the salaries of ‘regular citizens’, the average civil service salary should not be higher than the average salary in the private sector?
If elected, would you work towards implementing this principle into practice?
4.3
Multiple studies over decades have established that people who regularly use public transit suffer from many more infectious illnesses than people who don’t. If elected, what measures will you pursue to minimize this public health hazard?
4.4
Public transit is used by downtown commuters more than any other group. Yet, most of the people who work downtown are civil servants – whose salary is, on average, already roughly double that of people working in private industry. As such, concentrating on providing increased public transit service to downtown is an additional subsidy to already overpaid civil servants. When the property taxes are rising to unprecedented high levels, forcing people from their homes, how can such a blatant subsidy to already overpaid bureaucrats be justified?
4.5
Cities which have light rail public transit are increasingly converting their systems to uses buses. Since the accommodation to the unions states that no rail system which the City of Ottawa might implement would reduce the number of drivers/commuters had been made, there will not be any cost savings on the salary of operators if a rail-based transit system is brought in. Yet, the construction of rail-based transit systems is much higher than of bus-based systems while at the same time it lacks the flexibility inherent to a bus-based transit system. If there is a justification for a publicly run transit system (which is far from established), will you oppose all the hair-brained schemes involving rail-based system in favour of a reasonable, bus-based system?
‘Regular Tamils’ are returning to Sri Lanka: so, who is aboard the MV Sun Sea?
August 13, 2010 — xanthippaSometimes, one has to wonder at the level of our ‘public debate’.
The latest example is the ship which had entered Canadian waters today, loaded with ‘Tamil political refugees’.
Some claim the boat is chock full of ‘human smugglers’ and Tamil Tigers – a terrorist organization which is best known for (among other things):
- the invention of ‘the suicide belt’
- using women as suicide bombers
- oppressing (even murdering) other Tamils who refused their militant methods and who tried to negotiate peace with the Sri Lankan government
- extorting money from emigrant Tamils to financially supporting the Tigers’ terrorist activity by threatening to harm their relatives still living in Sri Lanka
- ethnically clensing the Singhalese and Muslims in ‘their’ territoty
- being a terrorist organization that is Hindu and not Muslim…
The ‘public debate’ is dominated by the questions of how to separate the ‘legitimate refugees’ from the terrorists hiding among them, how to treat them, what process to apply to them, and so on. This is all done among the warnings that several more ships are ready to set out. Whether they also head for Canada depending on how Canada treats this shipload….because Canada has a reputation as a naive pushover when it comes to aggressive immigrants.
The mainstream media is, rather predictably, not getting to the core of the issues – which pretty much ensures that the public remains ignorant of them, much less that they get discussed.
As it happens…
Until recently, my husband used to work with an excellent engineer who just happens to be a Tamil émigré.
Very intelligent, a competent and skilled engineer, with a six-figure salary.
Her husband also had an excellent job.
When their homeland on Sri Lanka was being torn apart by the ‘conflict’, they left, came to Canada and made a home here for themselves and their kids.
But, the conflict is over.
Done with.
Gone.
No, things are not ‘perfect’. Of course not. 25 years of bitter conflict, with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides, take a while to ‘work out’.
But, the time for fighting is over and the time for re-building has begun. And, many ‘regular’ Tamils who had been driven from their homeland are returning and starting the process of rebuilding everything, from the infrastructure and the economy to the social fabric of the country.
According to my hubby’s friend, ‘things’ are now ‘safe’ on Sri Lanka, even for ‘regular Tamils’. Safe enough for these two intelligent and practical people to bring their kids back ‘home’.
Which makes me wonder:
If ‘regular Tamils’ and their families are returning home to Sri Lanka, who are the people claiming to be refugees?
If Sri Lanka is now safe for ‘regular Tamils’, why is it not safe for the people on the MV Sun Sea?
If law-abiding citizens – Tamils or not – feel that Sri Lanka is safe for them, exactly whom is it NOT ‘safe’ for?
Could it, perhaps, be the people who were part of the Tamil Tiger terrorist network?
This would be in agreement with the warnings we have received that the boat is loaded with Tamil Tiger terrorists… Except that, instead of genuine ‘refugees infiltrated by some terrorists’ – as the boat’s passengers are being presented to us by the mainstream media, the whole boat is, perhaps, filled with people who are ‘refugees’ because they (and their kids) are escaping justice for their terrorist activities?
I don’t know. But, if Sri Lanka is now so safe, pragmatic Tamils (and engineers do tend to be pragmatic) are returning there from Canada because the situation there is now ‘safe for regular Tamils’, I don’t know what other conclusion to reach. At least, not logically….
Which brings me to my second point.
I am an immigrant to Canada. Before I came here, I was a refugee – a genuine refugee – and was granted a political asylum in Austria. So, I do know a little bit about the international laws that govern that whole pesky ‘refugee’ thingy… both in theory and from practical experience.
The thing is – international law has very specific laws governing refugees.
There are several kinds of refugees: coming from a country which is now peaceful (no civil war or conflict), which has not experienced any natural disasters lately, one where the economy has not collapsed, the only kind of refugees the international laws recognize are ‘political refugees’.
There are specific protections for political refugees under international law – for obvious reasons. However, there are also some very strict rules political refugees have to obey in order to earn those legal protections and enjoy the status of ‘political refugee’.
The number one rule – the one every country (other than Canada, to the best of my knowledge) – for ‘political refugees’ is that they MUST request political asylum in the nearest country where it is safe for them to do so.
The reasons for this are simple, yet important: countries in the region are better aware of the details of the internal political situation of the country the potential refugees are coming from. So, the understanding of the nuances of the local picture is much more likely – both because the closest ‘safe’ country’s government is likely keep abreast of the latest political developments in their area of the world and because it is bound to have ‘good assets’ on the ground to verify specific claims.
Plus, if there is a specific area of the world which is, over an extended period of time, seeing more political refugees than other parts, either UN-run or UN-supervised refugee camps can be set up there. I went through one of these: they are not necessarily more ‘comfortable’, but they certainly are much more efficient. They have channels set up to verify people’s identities, check their international criminal records, assess the veracity of their claims as well as the potential danger they are in.
Yes, the advent of the internet has made much of the checking easier, without the need for centralized facilities. But, some of the other ‘stuff’ is still best verified as locally as possible.
Which brings me back to the MV Sun Sea: Canada is not exactly the NEAREST safe country for Tamil refugees to seek shelter in!
Sri Lanka – formerly known as Ceylon – happens to be right next to the subcontinent of India. The same India which has been a strong supporter of the Tamils, sometimes even accused of being too supportive of them.
This ship has had to pass right by the – perhaps – safest, most supportive of the Tamil cause. Then it has had to pass by a whole slew of countries, navigate directly away from the democratic countries of Australia and New Zeland. Then it has had to traverse across the largest body of water on Earth, the Pacific Ocean, intentionally avoiding the US islands there….
…before making it to Canada!
That means that the boat (and the refugee-status seekers on it) have intentionally breeched international laws and bypassed many safe havens – just to get here.
This act, in itself, makes each and every passenger on the MV Sun Sea NOT ELIGIBLE to receive the status of ‘political refugee’, according to international laws. (Yes, I am not a lawyer – but, that is my best understanding of the laws.)
To sum things up: ‘regular Tamils’ are returning from countries like Canada to Sri Lanka, because the conflict is over and it is safe for those Tamils who were not terrorists to return ‘back home’ and begin rebuilding the society. And, the political asylum seekers on the MV Sun Sea have disqualified themselves from being eligible for that status under international law by not seeking asylum in the closest available safe haven to Sri Lanka.
Until these facts are highlighted and Canadians in general are made aware of them, we cannot even engage in any kind of a reasonable, informed debate as to the appropriateness of actions our government ought to take with respect to these asylum seekers….
Senator Patrick Brazeau joins the ranks of ‘the good guys’!
April 13, 2010 — xanthippaWow!
This is one more Senator who really, really ‘gets it’!
I can’t resist but quote:
Freedom of speech is not, as some have suggested, an American idea. It is an extension of free will. It is a by-product of democracy and it is reflective of the notion that all men and women were created equal. Freedom of speech knows no political station, no power structure nor race, colour or creed. Given this, how sad it is that we seem as a society to place the notion of freedom of speech as less important than ensuring none might become offended by the hard truths of 21st century living.
…
The erosion of many of these freedoms is nowhere more evident than in First Nation’s communities. In many instances, the utter absence of accountability and transparency that has plagued Aboriginal politics for so long can be attributed in large part to the infringement of the rights of grassroots Aboriginal people to their freedom of speech. For many reserve residents, the price for their attempts at free speech and the expression of their concerns in an open manner is often restriction of access to essential services such as housing and post-secondary education. The price of speaking out against corruption and demanding accountability can at times be even more severe, involving physical violence and threats to family and friends.
…
This cannot happen in a vacuum where people live in fear of retribution and retaliation if they have the courage to speak out. This will not happen if divergent opinion is termed racist – and it surely will not happen without the full engagement and participation of grassroots Aboriginal peoples, convicted and convinced enough of the need to embrace the need for change.
Senator Brazeau, if I ever get to meet you, you have a kiss coming!
Thanks, BCF, for pointing it out.
Genetic Modification: What defines you as ‘human’?
March 17, 2010 — xanthippaThis is a discussion we really, really ought to have had long before we developed the technology to do this.
It is not a good situation when ‘public debate’ – for whatever reasons, be it cultural, religious or just because it is easier to control an ignorant population – does not keep up with our technological abilities.
This all comes down to the whole ‘knowledge’ versus ‘wisdom’ thing…
What prompted this?
We have long been served plant-foods which contain artificially spliced in genes from other plants – or, possibly, animals. And, we are not permitted to know (legally) what is what. Now, we are about to be presented with meat which contains the genes of several animals…. (H/T: BCF)
We may know what we are doing – technologically. But, do we understand what we are doing, both morally and legally?
* * *
We can no longer even agree on what defines ‘male’ versus ‘female’.
Really – do think about it.
It used to be easy: the external presentation was sufficient. And, any hermaphrodites were either so successful at passing themselves as one or the other sex that the question was really mute. Even that really, really weird case in some isolated pacific islands where ‘every generation’, some ‘clearly female children’ would, during puberty, develop into males. To the islanders, it was clear: while the child ‘appeared’ female, it was ‘a female’. When the external presentation changed and the child began to look like a man, the (now) youth became ‘a male’!
But, now….
It is no longer so simple!
At first, it looked like our scientific knowledge actually simplified things: females have two X chromosomes while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Simple, right?
Except that….
Back in the late 1980’s, we learned that there are many men who have the required XY combination – plus another X chromosome! Sometimes, as many as 5 or more ‘scrunched’ looking X chromosomes were found! (Not important here, but they also found that the men with the extra ‘scrunched’ X chromosomes had a propensity for becoming very, very violent criminals.)
The question then becomes: is a person with two X chromosomes legally female?
Or, is the presence of a Y chromosome that which defines a person as ‘male’?
We never really had that public debate….when we learned that one’s self-perception as ‘male’ or ‘female’ is set by specific hormones affecting our brain development while we are still fetuses! If a particular chemical gets released during a very specific point of our fetal development, we will think of our selves as ‘male’. If it does not get released – or gets released late, or in too small amounts, we self-perceive as ‘female’, regardless of our genetic makeup or our sexual orientation!
Then we learned how to perform ‘sex change’ operations….
…which opened a whole new debate!
If a person is born female – double X chromosomes – and undergoes a sex-change operation, that person is now legally male: regardless of ‘genetic makeup’. So, we are back to ‘external presentation’ as being the key defining element.
Except for the case of Caster Semenya…
(Aside: this case would be mute if we did not practice strict sexual apartheid in sports – another issue we should really, really take a look at … but that is not the focus of this post.)
What I am trying to point out is that where ‘male’ and ‘female’ used to be defined easily (more or less), using ‘common sense’, the scientific advances we have led to technology which muddles the debate, to the point where different countries around the world have irreconcilably different legal definitions of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’!
* * *
Still, this is a minor debate compared to the ‘what defines ‘humanness” debate!
In my never-humble-opinion, this debate is more charged with religious pitfalls than just about anything else! After, all, the whole ‘abortion’ debate is only a sub-section of this greater debate of ‘where’ we draw the legal – as well as moral, as it is wrong to legislate morality, so the two ought not necessarily be the same – line of what defines who/what is or is not human!
(This is NOT meant to be an ‘abortion debate’ – please, don’t turn it into one! I only mentioned it because I wanted to underlie both just how important and charged this debate is ….and how bizarre it is that we are NOT having this ‘greater’ public debate!)
For many years, I had a neighbour whose daughter was born missing a pair of chromosomes. Still, she was completely human! Disabled, yes. But, she WAS a human being!
Yet, because she was missing two whole chromosomes, she was genetically more different from ‘average human’ than most primates are….and we certainly don’t consider THEM human! ALL primates are used as ‘live meat’ – without any regard to anything else – in all the vaccination-producing and other ‘medical’ labs in the world!
So, what defines YOU as ‘human’?
Just how much genetic damage and/or mutation do you have to suffer before you and your children are no longer defined as ‘human’? Legally or morally?
We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees – yet, legally, they are ‘live meat’.
And people missing way more than 2% of human DNA, like my ex-neighbour, are still ‘human’!
This is a really, really important public debate we ought to be having now! OK – we should have been having it long ago…. Still, delaying it now is dangerous to the very core of our society!
Why?
Because now that we have the technical ability to swap genes between species, we are putting our ability into practice without having defined how we will ‘consider’ the ‘results’!
We can take genetic material from one species, splice it into another – and have the ‘spliced’ genes passed on to the next generation!
And, we have not had the public discussion about this. About what makes one species unique – and how that uniqueness is or is not affected by splicing in genes from another species!
Yes, this has been going on for a long time. Animal genes were spliced into plant genes, genes from one animal are being spliced into another – we have the technical ability! Yet, we have not really – really – had the public debate about it…
Oh, sure – we have talked about ‘Franken foods’! About plants which have been genetically modified in one way or another. Still, much of the public debate has been stifled – and, perhaps more ominously, there is actual legislation that forbids produce labels which would identify whether the food one is about to purchase has – or has not – been genetically modified!
WHY?
“To prevent prejudice against genetically modified foods!’ – we are told…
No – I don’t mean to get into weird conspiracy theories here. I think the answer is very simple: money. If a genetic manipulation is financially beneficial to the ‘genetic manipulator’, that ‘genetic manipulator’ will consider investing in ‘product-favourable legislation’ to be no less important a component of their investment in ‘bringing the product to market’ as ‘scientific research’ how to do it actually is. That is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ – that is simply ‘good business sense’.
Again – the mechanics of this are not the point of this post. Let’s just accept the current state of things as they are now – not as they ‘ought to be’ – and get to the greater issue.
Just how MUCH genetic material from one species does a living organism have to contain (or be missing) before it is legally considered (or no longer considered) a member of a particular species?
We do now have mice which have had ‘human breast cancer’ genes spliced in – and pass them on to their offspring. That means that human genes (OK – ‘broken’ human genes, but human genes none-the-less) are present in sentient beings which do not enjoy any of the rights and freedoms of fully-human beings. Just how MUCH of our ‘human’ DNA should a creature contain before it is ‘human’?
Legally?
Morally?
What about my neighbour, born missing a few chromosomes? If a child is born with ‘sufficiently large’ genetic disorder, will it no longer have the legal protections of other humans?
* * *
OK – let’s consider the story I linked: ‘ pork’ which contains mouse genes is now being proposed for sale, without any labels informing the customers that they are buying (presumably for consumption) meat which contains both pig and mouse genes. We also know there are ‘genetically designed’ mice out there, which contain human genes…
And fish are about to enter our food markets which contain ‘beef-genes’…tip of the proverbial iceberg!
How long before we are being served ‘animal meat’ which contains ‘some’ human genetic material?
How MUCH human genetic material does a meat have to contain before it is considered ‘cannibalism’ to consume it?
Will it be illegal for us to even know we are consuming ‘flesh’ which contains ‘some’ human DNA?
What I am trying to say is….before we physically blur the lines between species – something our technology today permits us to do with impunity – we ought to remember that we, humans, are just a species ourselves!
Any ‘genetic pollution’ we permit, any ‘genetic-line-smudging’ we allow, will, necessarily, set a precedent for all ‘species-specific’ blurring of lines – even the lines of the human species.
I do NOT pretend to have any of the answers. I freely admit I am deeply conflicted on the issue….
Really – we ought to talk about this!
IPCC references – I’m checking them out
March 11, 2010 — xanthippaI did it!
I signed up to be a part of the group of ordinary citizens which does some due diligence on the IPCC 4th report’s references!
We’ve been bombarded with assertions that the IPCC review is based on ‘solid, scientific studies which were published in reputable scientific journals after undergoing a thorough peer-review which ensured only ‘sound’ science gets published.
Right.
Yet, it is exactly this claim that the IPCC review is using peer-reviewed (peer-review is ‘quality control’ in scientific studies) – and therefore high-quality and somehow ‘unassailable’ scientific studies – it is this claim that is being widely used as a shield to any criticism of the report and the political policies it is attempting to mandate. In short, the IPCC ‘crowd’ is deriving the authoritativeness of their report from the claim they used peer-reviewed science!
And – even after their earlier predictions have clearly not come true (their own top scientists have testified that there has been NO statistically significant WARMING in the last 14 years – and the total warmingfrom 150 years ago to-date just over 1/2 degree Celsius: well within the ‘noise’ one would expect due to natural variation) and every respectable scientist would admit their hypothesis is faulty, these people are still claiming that the IPCC report is accurate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and that we should all approve shady schemes which will make them rich!
So, we are checking nothing but the veracity of this claim – just how much of the report is based on solid science and how much is based on ‘gray literature’ !
Volunteers who sign up each take a chapter and see which references are actually peer-reviewed scientific studies. Each chapter’s references will be reviewed by at least 3 different volunteers, to minimize errors….and if there is any doubt as to the count of ‘peer-reviewed’ versus ‘other’ references, the number most favourable to the IPCC will be used.
And, we’re not even digging into the whole ‘pal-review’ instead of ‘peer review’ – all we are ‘tagging’ are references to government policy reports, WWF publications (yes, I HAVE come across one of these in the first 100 references I checked), random websites (yes, I saw one of them, too), self-references, EU or UN press releases, various government policy statements (yes, I saw many of these, too), and so on.
This project is not ‘examining the validity of the science’ – that is complex and people who are imminently qualified are already doing a great job doing that.
Nor are we taking a look at ‘what studies were included’ versus ‘what studies were available’. That is, we are not checking if the report is based on ‘cherry-picked’ studies – ones that only show one side of the issue – also a very important factor which could be a source of a bias.
No – not going there.
In other words, we are not auditing the science in the IPCC report.
Instead, we are testing the assertion – nay, claim! – that the IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed, scientific studies published in reputable scientific journals!
That is all!
Still, it is a big task: the chapter I am checking has over 600 references…. it takes time to check them!
But, it is a little ‘walk-on-part’ in this war of scientific skepticism against politicized subversion of science….and that is important.
Once the good folks (Donna and her helpers) from NOconsensus.org get all the well documented results and meld them together, they will let us know just how much the IPCC report is based on scientific studies vs. ‘gray literature’!
Stay tuned….
Agnostic: what it does – and does not – mean
February 19, 2010 — xanthippaOne term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term ‘agnostic’.
Perhaps it’s the Aspie in me, but I think that if people are going to make passionate arguments, often using some terms in an authoritarian or patronizing manner, they ought to have taken the time to learn what those terms actually mean. (Of course, not everyone does that – but, many do…)
The term ‘agnostic’ does not describe a person’s ‘belief in’ or ‘non-belief in’ or ‘belief-in-the-non’ existence of god(s).
Not even a little bit.
An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the existence of god(s).
An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the non-existence of god(s).
An ‘agnostic’ can hold no belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).
Still, many people use the term to mean ‘someone who does not believe one way or the other if god(s) exist’…..
Sorry – that is NOT what the word ‘agnostic’ describes!!!
Certainly, some agnostics fall into the category of ‘not holding a belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s). But, that is only because there is an overlap in ‘groups’ or ‘states of belief’ that various definitions describe.
…kind of like there is an overlap between ‘long arms’ and ‘long hair’. Both revolve about something being ‘long’. And, some people with ‘long arms’ also have ‘long hair’. But the terms each describe a different ‘long’ – so they cannot be used as if they meant the same thing!
Yes – I am getting bogged down in words. To re-phrase: the term ‘agnostic’ may include theists, non-theists, atheists or any other -theist group because it does not describe the state of one’s belief in the divine.
Rather, it describes one’s belief about the ‘ability to have knowledge’ of the existence of the divine.
Let’s look at the root of the word:
‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’ in Greek.
The term, when used in English, refers to ‘spiritual enlightenment’ – as in, the type of ‘mystical enlightenment’ a person receives during a ‘spiritual rapture’ or ‘spirit quest’ or another altered-state type meditation or similar experience.
For example, Gnostic Christians do not recognize the authority of any church or clergyman, because they strive for direct spiritual knowledge – gnosis. This they regard as much more important than any dogma…
The prefix ‘a-‘ simply means ‘apart from’.
Thus, ‘a-gnostic’ – taken bit by bit – literally means ‘apart from (spiritual) knowledge’.
Once ‘put together’, the term ‘agnostic’ means ‘belief that it is un-knowable ‘ if god(s) do or do not exist.
Thus, this is a statement of belief. Yes, to be an agnostic, one must hold this belief!
But this belief is not about the existence of the divine: it is a belief about existence of knowledge of the divine!
Specifically, an agnostic actively believes that we cannot know whether god(s) exist.
This does not preclude choosing to believe, anyway. Many people have concluded that they cannot know for sure if god(s) exist, so, to be on the safe side, they decide to believe! This is the very point of Pascal’s Wager.
Blaise Pascal argued that we cannot know – through reason, so really, really know – if God exists. Therefore, we ought to consider the 2 possible scenarios (God exists and God does not exist) and our 2 choices of action (believe in God or not believe in God) and do a risk-assessment:
Scenario 1: God does not exist
Choice 1: behave as if God does exist
Result – more effort during life, but, nothing gained.
Choice 2: behave as if God does not exist
Result – nothing lost and nothing gained.
Scenario 2: God exists:
Choice 1: behave as if God does exist
Result – more effort during life, but huge gain at ‘the end’! Eternal Salvation!
Choice 2: behave as if God does not exist
Result – less effort during life, but then… everything lost! Eternal damnation!
Therefore, Pascal’s reasoning goes, the cost to one’s soul of ‘not believing’ in God is much greater (eternal damnation) than the cost of believing in God while alive (obeying the church). Therefore, the only reasonable choice is to believe!
(OK – there could be an argument made whether Pascal actually said ‘choose to believe’ or ‘live as if you believe’: the first one would be an agnostic who chooses to be a theist, the second one would be an agnostic who is an atheist, but chooses to behave as a theist. But, that – as well as just how ‘voluntary’ it is ‘to believe’ – is a whole different discussion!)
Aside: this same argument has been used by some people to justify spending tons of money on ‘preventing the disaster of global warming/anthropogenic climate change’. That ought to suffice in helping us recognize that the whole ‘ACC’ movement is a religion, not science, and that ‘carbon credits’ are its ‘indulgences’.
But – back to the main point…
Summary: The term ‘agnostic’ does not refer to one’s ‘beliefs’ about the existence of God. Rather, it is the positive (‘actively present’) belief that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist.
Thus, it is a belief about the nature (presence) of knowledge. Specific knowledge, in this case, but knowledge none the less.
It is not a statement about one’s state of belief in the subject of that knowledge – the existence of god(s).
Agnostics can either believe that god(s) exist – or not. They just believe they cannot ever actually know…
‘Atheist’: a definition
February 9, 2010 — xanthippaBefore I get started on defining ‘atheism’ or ‘what makes someone an atheist’, it is important to say some things about what ‘atheism’ is not.
‘Atheism’ is not a formal or codified doctrine, like, say, Christianity, or even Humanism, is.
There is no set of ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ which ‘atheists’ share or subscribe to.
That is because in order to have a shared ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’, a label must describe some types of ‘held’ beliefs or convictions of the people being thus labeled. ‘Atheism’ does not describe a set of ‘held’ beliefs – or even just one belief.
Instead, it describes ‘absence of belief’: a very specific absence of one specific belief – the belief in the existence of deities.
Atheist:
An atheist is a person who does not ‘hold the belief’ that God(s) and/or Goddess(es) exist.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Some people refer to monotheism (not believing in the existence Gods or Goddesses – except one) as ‘selective atheism’: people who believe in just one deity necessarily disbelieve in the existence of all deities but one.
Atheists may still belong to a religion: not every religion has deities in it! From ‘the big 5’, Buddhism is a religion which does not address the question of deities. And, no, Buddha is not a God – not in any way, shape or form – and never was. And – Buddhism is not the only atheistic religion.
Communism, for example, is another example of a religion which does not have any deities: it requires the ‘belief in’/’submission to’/’acceptance of’ certain principles (of collectivism, in this case) instead. And, there are countless more!
Describing something as ‘atheistic’ means that it does not address the question of the existence of God or Gods or Goddesses. Therefore, any and every thing, conversation, organization and so on, which does not specifically proclaim the ‘belief in the existence of deities’ is, by definition, atheistic.
To lump all ‘atheists’ together as if they all subscribed to a common doctrine or school of thought would be even less accurate than lumping all ‘theists’ together: while all ‘theists’ actually have a positive belief in the existence of one or more deities, defining someone as an ‘atheist’ does not define any actual belief. It just says what these people do not believe. It’s like identifying a group of people by saying ‘people who do not die their hair’…this can include anyone from people that have no hair to die, to people who like their ‘natural’ haircolour…all the way to people who would change their hair colour, if only they could (or, if it were easier).
OK – this is getting muddled. Let me try another approach.
Though there are ‘shades in-between’, these are several distinct ‘types’ or ‘major classes’ of atheists. In order to describe them, please, indulge me and play a little thought experiment with me:
Let’s say that I tell you I have a neighbour. Let’s say that I now show you a picture of a woman with blond hair and say this is my neighbour.. Do you believe my neighbour is a natural blond?
***
Having never thought about my neighbour – much less a blond one – before now, it it not likely that you
- believe my neighbour is a natural blond
- believe my neighbour is not a natural blond
Therefore, you are ‘apart from belief’ whether my neighbour is a ‘natural blonde’.
This roughly approximates what I think of as the ‘what are gods and why should I believe in them’ atheists. Not only do they not hold a belief either way, they don’t see the point of even thinking about it. They simply do not care – and most of them don’t want to care.
***
Having looked at the picture, you may find there simply isn’t enough information there to make you
- believe my neighbour is a natural blond
- believe my neighbour is not a natural blond
Therefore, even though you have taken the time to investigate (you looked at the picture) and to think about it, yet, you don’t ‘believe’ one way or the other. You may think it is likely – say, 80% likely – that she might be a natural blonde. Or not. Who could tell?
This roughly approximates what I think of as ‘considered atheists’. They have considered the question of the existence of deities, looked at the religions ‘out there’, thought about it, and did not become convinced enough to hold a belief one way or the other. They may still be searching for ‘belief’, hoping to find it. Or, they may not be.
***
Or, having looked at the picture, you may have noticed that the woman in the picture has blond hair with black roots… Therefore, you
- believe my neighbour is not a natural blond
This is actually REALLY substantially different from the above two types of ‘apart from belief’ groups: you actually believe in the truthfulness of one of the choices! You just happen to believe in the ‘not’ option…
While you still ‘do not believe’ that my neighbour is a natural blond, but, in addition to ‘disbelieving’ that her blond-ness is natural, you actively believe that it is not. Therefore, you have ‘an absence of belief’ in the first proposition, and active/positive ‘belief’ in the second one.
Many people today refer to this group as ‘strong atheists’. Frankly, that is not just wrong, it is silly.
The ‘atheist’ label refers to ‘absence of belief’ – and associating it with a belief (the belief in the ‘non-existence’) is inaccurate and misleading. Unfortunately, the term ‘atheist’ became used in this very sense from very shortly after it was created, because many people find it difficult to understand that ‘absence of belief in Gods’ does not imply ‘belief of absence of Gods’…
…which does not mean that continuing to misuse the term is a good idea.
Plus, it seems to me that holding ANY ‘belief’ is a weakness – NOT a strength.
Therefore, referring to a ‘purist’ non-beliver as a ‘weak atheist’ and to a person who actually holds ANY form of a belief as a ‘strong atheist’ seems, to me, stupid at best. (OK – I’m not being particularly eloquent: but I am being honest!)
***
Of course, there are many people whose reactions – given this thought experiment – would be quite different. Like…
- I believe the woman in this picture is a ‘natural blonde’ – but I don’t believe she is your neighbour!
- What woman? You are showing me a picture of a car!
- Whatever her hair colour is, how natural it is – that is irrelevant. She should cover her hair!
- Hey! This is a crayon drawing! You drew this yourself! You are trying to trick me!
….plus about a hundred other possible responses. But, this post is NOT about THEM. It is about showing that ‘disbelief’ is different that ‘belief’ – even different from ‘belief in not’….
Of course, there are people – even self-identified as ‘atheists’ – who just don’t get this.
They did not do their homework.
They are confusing any and all discussions on this issue.
And, that is too bad…
At a loss for words…
February 4, 2010 — xanthippaA bit ago, I wrote a post ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘religious right’ threat’.
This was one post in a ‘Winning back our liberty’ series based on a ‘freedom of speech’ seminar I went to in December. Earlier posts included ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘commercial’ threat’ and its afterthought and ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘international’ threat’ .
It took me a long time to write this post – the ‘religious right’ one – because I was afraid that people on ‘the religious right’ would either not take it seriously – so I had to strongly support my point – or that they would focus solely on the ‘supporting evidence’ and miss my actual point completely.
Well, it seems that my fears were not misplaced. Please, just scroll down past the LEAF bit to get to where ‘Binks, the Webelf’ goes medieval on my post.
To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement.
And, ever since he posted it – a bunch of days now…hence no posts from me – I have been trying to compose a response to his criticisms.
However, I am having trouble with this. In my typical Aspie fashion, I get lost in the details: I wish to pick apart the fallacies in his reasoning, the errors or incomplete comprehension of the historical facts, or the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of some of the key concepts in the debate.
Either I get caught up in the minutiae.
Or I get sidetracked into correcting some serious errors in his statements.
Or I explain myself, but, I don’t think I support my arguments sufficiently.
Or – I accomplish all of the above….and my post is at over 10K words…so I delete the draft and start again.
I’ll have to work on this some more. In the meantime – any help would be appreciated!
P.S. I wonder if his remark about the ‘buzzing of a bee’ was an allusion to Gnostic Christian dogma, with which Binks, the Webelf knows I have been familiar with since early childhood. Because, if it is, it means at least another 10K-words-worth of a response will be required!
Catching up…
January 10, 2010 — xanthippaAgain, I apologize for the lack of new posts lately: it seems that just before I manage to actually recover from some bug, I catch another…. This last one included high fevers, so while I did a lot of ‘philosophising’, I didn’t even open up my computer for days on end. And while there is a real danger in trying to post before all the fever is fully gone (things make WAY more sense in my feverish brain than when I read them later), there is SO much that needs to be ‘caught up’ on, I do not quite know where to start.
I’ll just try to touch on at least a few diverse topics…
- Irish blasphemy against free speech
1. January, 2010, the new Irish anti-blaspemy law came into force. This one is straight out sur-real…. Just months after the Irish representative stood up in the UN to lecture the Islamic nations on the fundamental incompatibility of laws against blasphemy with our Western culture, rooted in the freedom of speech, thought and religion, Ireland goes and imposes just such a law….and, not to appease Christians, but from fear of Islamist retribution!
- Swine-flu Swindle
I have been very, very restrained when commenting on the whole swine-flu thing: from the fear-mongering, partial information, the vaccines released before the results of the studies to see if they are safe were even collected – much less analyzed, the recall of ‘ineffective’ vaccines most of which had already been administered to hundreds of thousands of children…. Well, the list of outrageous ‘stuff’ is long – and, I was very, very good and restrained myself from commenting on almost all of it while it was happening.
Why?
I was waiting for the inevitable!
OK – one day, may be, I’ll write a little bit of what I know about the serious decline of proper scientific procedures in medical research: the scope of it is truly, well, shall we say, ‘uncomfortable to contemplate’…. This ‘swine-flu swindle’ thing is just a little pimple on its bottom.
- Caledonia
If you are unfamiliar with the events, you may find it difficult to believe the depths of depravity that this affair had sunk to. A native group disputed some land, claiming that despite a valid deed, the land ought to be theirs – fine, that is their right. What followed – not so nice. The native terrorists – that IS what this particular group of thugs was, and is – occupied the disputed land AS WELL AS NEIGHBOURING AREAS. As in, areas which were not disputed to be their land. And, they terrorized the inhabitants, limited their access to their homes – well, the details are unbelievable….but, testified to in courts!
What was, perhaps, the most shameful chapter in this has been the conduct of the OPP. They failed, over and over, to uphold the law. They refused to answer 9-1-1 calls for help from residents in the occupied territories. And, when law-abiding citizens who happened to be white-skinned wanted to go to their homes against the wishes of the occupying forces, they arrested the citizens, instead of upholding their right of free travel to their property!
My husband and I have had heated discussions about the role of individual OPP officers in this situation: while he thinks that if the order comes not to interfere with the native protesters, their hands are tied into inaction, I maintain that any order not to uphold the laws of the land is an illegal order, and every single police officer who obeys an illegal order is guilty as hell and MUST be prosecuted to the fullness of the law…
Now, the OPP commissioner himself, Julian Fantino, has been charged with trying to influence elected officials (bully the town council)… What a nightmare!
- Torture
This is the `Canadian`story, not the ‘American’ one….
Perhaps what we need – before we engage in a constructive discussion on this topic – to define what ‘torture’ means….here, there, everywhere…. Because until we do, this discussion will be nothing but a peeeing contest between the various parties, with our troops stuck in the middle. And, when someone gets stuck in between a few sides having a peeing contest, they are bound to get wet!
There is SOOOO way much more that I ought to be commenting on and bringing up….there is correspondence and comments I ought to be replying properly to…. Yet, it seems that whenever I have long bouts of fevers, I start to go all philosophical.
All in its time!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 