Carleton University introduces new course: ‘How to rig an election 101’

February 18, 2009 — xanthippa

Warning:  In order to comply with the CRTC  (CBSC) ruling on a similar situation, please note that the following post may contain sarcasm and may employ facetiousness as a method of criticism.

Press release by Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering:

For immediate publication:

Following the failure of the progressive students in their attempt to only support research into diseases which are politically correct, it has been deemed necessary to introduce more effective training in social engineering into the curriculum of Carleton University.  We are therefore proud to announce that, the Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering is introducing a new course, titled ‘How to rig an election’.

The course number is ‘CUFSE 101’ and will be open to all students deemed ‘intrinsically sufficiently progressive’ following an extensive interview process.  If there is sufficient demand, higher-level courses will be designed to follow.

CUFSE 101 Course Curriculum:

This course has been specifically designed to teach students how to ensure that our governments – at all levels – are sufficiently progressive and promote the development of diverse and inclusive society.  In order that proper government policies are developed, it is necessary to teach future progressive candidates how to ensure they will be successfully elected.

To train students in the required skills, the course will focus on the following electoral techniques:

1.  Long term strategic planning:

  • ensuring that the body which supervises the election is stuffed staffed with progressive individuals.  This step must be undertaken by the progressive elements who have been elected, in preparation for future election.
  • ensuring that the wording of electoral rules is sufficiently vague and obscure so that, if necessary, it can be interpreted in completely unexpected ways.  Particular attention will be given to teaching the proper language which will not give any future non-progressive candidates clues as to how these rules can be applied.

2.  Short term measures:

Specialized linguistic training will focus on

  • skills in interpreting electoral rules so as to penalize or disqualify those candidates who have won, but who are undesirable due to their lack of intuitive progressive thought.
  • design of ‘election results’ web page which will obscure the number of votes won by undesirable candidates, or be similarly conducive towards positive reactions to progressive candidates.
  • phrasing of ‘electoral board rulings’ against undesirable candidates in  a way that will raise the least journalistic interest and minimize any attention to the techniques employed to achieve the desirable ends
  • how to engage popular – but not appropriate – candidates in conversations calculated to make them loose temper.  Any resulting ‘strong response’ will be a useful weapon against such a candidate, while an absence of a ‘strong response’ will indicate the best methodology for marginalizing said candidate.

In preparation of this course, a pilot project has trained some progressive candidates in the 2009 Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) elections in these skills.  As can be seen from the CUSA 2009 election results, the pilot was successful beyond expectations!

Points of particular success:

  • Within 4 hours of winning the largest number of votes, the undesirable candidate for CUSA president, Bruce Kyereh-Addo, was notified that he has been disqualified as a candidate, and therefore did not win.
  • To ensure that the ‘progressive candidate’ won, the pilot study graduates outdid themselves in also disqualifying the other non-desirable candidate for CUSA presidency, Cameron MacIntosh.  Thus, Erik Halliwell, the progressive candidate, was the only candidate who was not disqualified, ensuring his election to the post of ‘President of CUSA’.
  • Only anecdotal evidence exists that the electoral board was ‘stuffed’ with Haliwell’s friends, making it easy to dismiss any charges of ‘partiality’ as ‘hearsay’.  The praise here falls on the previous CUSA councillors:  having failed to stop ‘Shinerama’ fundraising to go to support a research into a non-inclusive disease which “has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men”, they have now redeemed themselves in ensuring that the right people staffed the CUSA elections office – and, more importantly, they have not left tangible trails.
  • The CUSA election rules are so well written, the disqualified and/or ‘ruled against’ candidates were completely unaware of how the election rules could be applied.   This has left them unprepared and unable to effectively defend themselves.  Kyereh-Addo is quoted as saying:  “This is just ridiculous. I can’t believe what’s going on right now.”
  • Had this been a credit-course, rather than a pilot, high marks would have been awarded to the person(s) who devised the successful application of the rule that ‘unapproved Facebook messages sent by their supporters’ – without the candidates’ knowledge or approval’ – are a misconduct’ which earns the candidate(s) a ‘ruling against them’.
  • Another sign of brilliance among the ‘election rule drafters’ is that it is a breech of the rules if there are any posters/promotional materials – or electronic messages, approved or not, by the candidates or their supporters – which promote more than one candidate – or which are posted in ‘non-approved areas’!  Simply brilliant!
  • The ‘linguistic training’ also scored a major success when an electoral board officer managed to involve Mr. Kyereh-Addo in a conversation so frustrating, Mr. Kyereh-Addo lost his temper and punched a wall.  As this was on the grounds of Carleton University, the electoral board promptly charged him with “damaging university property in a physically violent manner”:  and thus supplied the grounds for his disqualification of Mr. Kyereh-Addo as a candidate.  Kudos!
  • Much praise also goes to the pilot programme graduate who managed to handle the press coverage of the event, as can be seen in the ‘Charlatan’ (campus newspaper) coverage of the election.  There is not hint of ‘scandal’, ‘electoral fraud’ or even ‘serious controversy’.  This is success beyond expectation.  When reading the article, please note the successful spin which does not even identify that Mr. Kyereh-Addo simply ‘punched a wall’, but leaves the reader with the impression that he had indulged in wanton destruction of University property.  Well spun!
  • The ‘election results’ webpage:  brilliant!  Conveys the ‘information’ without letting people know what happened, does not even make the appropriate candidate look like a looser!  Not including the ‘total number of votes cast’ per category on the website hides the truth without telling a lie!!!  Faultless!!! Simply brilliant!

The above notes are only a few of the examples of the many successful applications learned by the progressive students in the pilot study on the basis of which ‘CUFSE 101’ was developed.  The Carleton University Faculty of Social Engineering is confident this success will lead to an establishment of a large number of courses in this area in the future.

The instructor for this specific course has not been named yet, though among the leading candidates are such role models as Warren Kinsella, Richard Warman and our own Matthew Crosier.

For any additional information, please, contact the information officer of CUFSE.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in education, freedoms, Humour, language, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

The ‘fatwa’ against Lowell Green

February 13, 2009 — xanthippa

Struggling through the ‘brainfog’ of the flu, I have not made my post about what had happened to Lowell Green as clear and understandable as it should have been.  Please, accept my apologies.

There is some clarification needed…

The Canadian ‘airwaves’ (radio and television) are regulated.  That means that in order to broadcast a signal, a person – or, more typically, an organization – has to purchase the ‘right’ to broadcast from the Canadian government (though, this is the standard in most countries).  The Canadian government has created an organization to deal with this:  the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), which bills itself as ‘an independent public authority in charge of regulating and supervising Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications’.

Aside:  the government ‘regulation’ of any news-media or any private industry is dangerous.  While it is important to assign ‘proper’ bandwidth to different broadcasters – so that their signals do not overlay each other, and so on, there is a serious danger, creating a body which is not ‘answerable’ to anyone but itself to govern this process is not just ludicrous, it actively endangers our society’s freedom of expression.  If a government body can, at will (and without needing to provide justification), approve or deny ‘bandwidth’ to a private company, there is a very large ‘opening’ for abuse.  Will this ‘body/commission’ approve licences to anyone who criticizes them?  How about anyone who criticizes ‘bureaucratic-abuse within licensing bodies’???  What if a special ‘interest group’/’political faction’ gains control of this body?  The list of potential abuses is endless…. think about it!!!  No ‘government’ and no ‘bureaucratic body’ should EVER have this kind of power over a society!

Back to the story…

So, if any person hears or sees anything on the radio or TV that they do not like, they are free to complain.  That, I have no problem with.  What happens next – …

The CRTC, upon receiving a complaint, has a number of options.  It can dismiss it – no more action done.  Or it can investigate it itself – as it has done on many occassions.  Or, as it most often the case, it ‘passes’ the complaint onto the ‘Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’ (CBSC).

The CBSC is a ‘self-regulating’ ‘professional association’ of all people/organizations who wish to ‘broadcast’ in Canada.  Canadian broadcasters MUST belong to it in order to even apply for a broadcasting license.

Now, ‘professional association’s are not necessarily a bad thing.  This is a deep tradition, rooted in the ‘craft guilds’ of the medieval times:  a ‘guild’ would test any ‘apprentice’, to make sure they had ‘mastered the craft’, before he could hang a shingle in front of his hut and practice his craft. It  was a ‘self-policing, quality control’ type thing – and, historically, there was a role for it. Of course, it was also used to limit competition…too many ‘guild-members’ meant not enough demand  – and therefore income – for any one of the members!  So, ‘strict’ – and ‘unquestionable’ – regulations were put into place…

However, modernization and the necessary ‘scaling up’ of these ‘guilds’ and ‘professional associations’ did not always go smoothly.  Just as unionized ‘closed shop’ workplaces became legally forbidden from employing people who were unwilling to join (or rejected by) a workplace union, ‘professional associations’ have become a similar ‘closed-shop’ thing among many professions, regardless of the employer.

Thus, if the Ontario Medical Association refuses to grant an accredited MD membership (the reasons could be simple as ‘having reported more than 3 factual adverse vaccine reaction in children/infant patients per calendar year’ – according to an ex-Ontario MD), such an MD is stripped of their OMA membership –  and thereafter legally forbidden from practicing medicine within Ontario.  Similarly, lawyers (and other professionals) have a ‘self-regulating body’:  if these ‘bodies’ refuse to let you into their ‘country club’, your law-school graduation diploma (etc.) is only worth its decorative value…  You may hang it on your wall, but you are not allowed to practice your profession.

While it is a good idea in principle, this ‘self-regulation’ of professionals, it is deeply flawed in practice…

It gives a group of people the extrajudicial power to decide who may – or may not – practice a ‘profession’.  While this is excellent for ‘quality control’, it is also – rather glaringly – a method of discrediting anyone who might ’embarrass the orthodoxy’ of the profession by holding independent points of view, or by exposing corruption within the organization, etc…. the possibilities are endless.  In short, this is the perfect body to filter out (without legal recourse) anyone who does not ‘play ball’, ‘adhere to orthodoxy’, is ‘not-one-of-the-good-old-boys-network’…. with no legal recourse for those who are ‘rejected’ or ‘censored’ or ‘censured’….

Well, it would appear that the CRTC does – often – pass complaints it receives about TV or radio coverage/broadcast on to this extrajudicial, non-transparent body called the CBSC…

Even the broadcasters themselves – according to what I hear on the airwaves – are now aware of how the ‘decisionmakers’ within the CBSC are selected.  Yet, their decisions are binding on anyone who wishes to continue to remain  a member – and thus have a licence to broadcast.  Transparency of process?  Please….

In this particular case, Mr. Green was not allowed to know who (or, if there were several ‘whos’) complained about the broadcast he made.  He was not allowed to know what the specifics of the complaint were.  And, he was not allowed to present any defense on his behalf – personal, professional or legal.

So, do you think this ‘professional organization’ stands up for its members? Will it be the ‘buffer’ to protect them from petty government censorship or bureaucratic interference?  Will it protect the professional ideals of its membership:  freedom of speech, the right to deliver news and opinions, no matter how diverse?   Will it shield its members from government or bureaucratic censorship?

Or, has this ‘professional association’ become an instrument of censorship itself – not answerable to anyone, with no legal recourse for appealing unjust decisions?  Just an organization with the unquestionable ability to silence those whose opinions it does not find politically useful?  An organization that has the ability to silence anyone who broadcasts any ‘news or opinion’ that it does not approve of – without any responsibility to the populace whose news/opinion sources it limits?

Please, you be the judge:  here is the decision in the Lowell Green case… sounds to me like the CBSC has issued a fatwa against Mr. Green!

One more question I have:  the document itself states that the ‘decision’ was reached in October of 2008.  So, why was it not announced until February, 2009?  Everything else aside – what is the reason for this delay?

I’m sorry – I just don’t get it.

Freedom of Speech – good bye!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Bad ‘medical science’…

February 12, 2009 — xanthippa

I hate bad science.

I REALLY hate bad science.

‘Modern medicine’ is riddled with bad science.  As a matter of fact, I think that the term ‘medical science’ is a oxymoron.

Yes, I think the whole ‘medical industry’ is riddled with deep problems.  And, I promise to rant on this later…at great length!  (It is one of my ‘buttons’ – once you ‘push’ it, it is difficult to get me to shut up again…)

Yet, here, I would like to concentrate not on the ‘systemic faults’, but on ‘downright fraud’ in medical science!

Autism is a problem.

Yes, I know that many high-functioning Auties – as well as Aspies – do not consider themselves to be ‘disabled’, or their so-called ‘condition’ to be ‘a problem’.  To the contrary – many think it is an integral part of what makes us ‘us’, and would not wish it changed.  Even regarding it as a problem is offensive to some of us….and some even consider Aspies to be the next step on the evolutionary ladder of humanity.

However, comparing Aspies – and high-functioning Auties – to people who are seriously affected by Autism is like comparing a person who has a little-bit looser ligaments/tendons, and therefore excell in gymnastics and similar things, to a person whose ligaments/tendons are so loose, they cannot stand up, hold a pen or a spoon….  Obviously, a little bit may be an advantage:  a lot may be crippling!

And, perhaps because I am an Aspie – as is all of my immediate family and most of my extended family – I am very interested in any medical study about Autism and/or Aspergers.  (For the uninitiated:  both Aspergers and Autism seem to have a ‘similar cause’… a large number of ‘undifferentiated’ (not ‘properly specialized) cells in the brain.  However, where Auties have most of these ‘undifferentiated’ cells in their frontal lobes, Aspies have them in the amygdala.  This localization difference accounts for the difference in manifestation/’symptoms/characteristics’ – though, in many instances, there is some overlap which makes exact ‘differentiated’ diagnosis difficult.)

OK, re-focusing…

Parents of ‘significantly affected’ kids are often very desperate to help their kids be ‘more normal’.  Of course, this is more pronounced in the more severe cases, which are ‘obvious’ earlier on in life (many ‘high-functioning’ Auties and Aspies can ‘hide’ their symptoms for many years – or they may simply live in an area where the ‘mild’ symptoms are interpreted as ‘being mean’ or ‘antisocial’ and ‘merely’ scar the person for life, without recognizing what is happening).  What I am trying to say is that the more ‘outwardly obvious’ the symptoms are, the more eager loving parents are to find answers.

Many parents are so desperate to help their kids, they will grasp at straws.

There has, for a long time, persisted a perceived ‘connection’ between the MMR vaccine and Autism.  As a parent of a child who had suffered significant motor-nerve damage within days of receiving the MMR vaccine – and being told by his physician that the ‘damage is typical of what he has seen with this vaccine, but he cannot report it because he had been warned that if he reports yet another adverse vaccine reaction, he will be stripped of his ‘Canadian Medical Association’ membership, and thus no longer allowed to practice medicine….and that though this damage is ‘well known’ among doctors, I will never find one brave/reckless enough to testify about this reality in court…’, I have been very keen on ‘any news’ about vaccination in general and the MMR vaccine in particular…

Which is why the following story is so disturbing…

…

The reporter also discovered that Dr. Wakefield’s interest in a MMR vaccine-autism connection began when he was retained as an expert witness two years earlier by a lawyer representing the parent of an autistic child. The parents were planning to sue the MMR vaccine makers because they believed the vaccine caused their child’s illness.  According to Mr. Deer, Dr. Wakefield then launched the Jabs program, the name for clinic that led to the study.  The program was advertised by the lawyer’s firm, and the clinic was not a routine screening, accuses Mr. Deer.

…

England’s General Medical Council has brought charges of medical misconduct against Wakefield and two other co-authors, Dr. John Walker-Smith and Dr. Simon Murch (the authors who continued to support the paper).  The charges revolve around the ethics of the researchers testing on children, not the new accusations.  The paper, though, has forwarded its results to the board and expects new charges to be forthcoming. {Note:  the new accusations are of having falsified the data…}

So, which is it?

Is this a case of a doctor who truly is telling the truth, but whose team has been ‘bought’ by the people who fund most medical research?  And the ones who would not budge are being subjected to a ‘witch hunt’?

Or, is this a case of a crooked doctor, who had ‘fixed’ the tests to show that the MMR vaccine was ‘at fault’, so he could get money for his testimony?  Have we (parents) wasted time and effort here, when we should have been trying to find other ways to help our kids?

What about ‘my doctor’ (who has since entered dentistry school, because ‘he could not stand the politics subverting medicine today)? Were his claims true?

He also said Ontario MD’s got a substantial monetary ‘bonus’ if they could prove they convinced more than 98% (or was it 95% – it has been a while…high nineghties, anyway) of the parents of their child-patients to allow their children to be vaccinated with the full spectrum of ‘childhood vaccines’?  He said this money did not come from the government, but the vaccine manufacturers.  Was he lying to me? If so, why?  I was not paying him to…  If not, what is the significance of this kickback?

What is a parent left to think?

Perhaps it is not surprising that so many people today mistrust ‘scientists’!  Actually, I would call them all ‘pseudo-scientists’ – but they give a really, really bad name to us all!!!

And, perhaps this explains why I consider the term ‘medical science’ to be an oxymoron….  Medicine may use some scientific tools – but ‘modern medicine’ itself does not, under any definition of the term, qualify as ‘scientific’.  Just like because you ‘live in a house’ does not mean you are ‘an architect’, so ‘using scientific instruments/tests’ does not make medicine ‘science’.

And, something pretending to be science when it is not only undermines the credibility of ‘real, proper science’!!!

Did I mention I hate bad science?!?!?

Posted in Aspergers, education, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Lowell Green: another martyr of the ‘pc’ fascists?

February 10, 2009 — xanthippa

If you follow my blog, you are aware that I am ‘Pro-Free-Speech’… and you might have also picked up on the fact I am a huge fan of Mr. Lowell Green.

Mr. Green is an open-line radio show host – funny, intelligent and outspoken.  Brash – perhaps.  Well-informed – always!  If you live outside the Ottawa area, you can listen to his show online, at CFRA.com, 10am-12noon, EST.

Over the more than 50 years in broadcasting, Mr. Green has been a thorn in the side of those who value appearances over substance, ideology over reality, political correctness over the truth.  He has also penned 3 books:  ‘The Pork Chop– and Other Stories : a Memoir’, ‘How the Granola-Crunching, Tree-Hugging Thug Huggers Are Wrecking Our Country’ and  ‘It’s Hard to Say Goodbye’.  (I have each one – autographed by Mr. Green!)  The middle one is my personal favourite.

Now, Mr. Green has come under attack for – you guessed it – something he said.  Not only is it an attack, it is a ‘judgment’, pronounced against him, by CRTC, the body which regulates the Radio and Television station licensing in Canada.

The judgment:  his opinion-based talked show contained uninformed discussion and – he was rude.

It’s not about Lowell Green.

It’s not about what he did or did not say on that show – or if his opinion was or was not informed.  There are (I hope) no laws against being stupid…

Yet, he was censored.  Huge apology announcements run by his station – wording clearly designed to besmirch his good name.

During the whole process of the CRTC hearing, he had exactly zero opportunity to defend himself.

He was not even allowed to know the name of the person (or organization) which launched a complaint against him.  He was not even allowed to know if it was one or more complaints.  Nothing.

This reminds me of the time my son was – during school lunch-hour – attacked from behind (so he had not seen them) by a group of school-mates.  It was officially classified by the police as a ‘racially-motivated hate-crime’.  Yet, neither he, nor we – his parents, were ever allowed to know the identity of the school-mates who attacked him, or what had happened to them as a result.

Some society we are becoming!

Sorry…my brain is somewhat mushy while I am fighting this nasty flu that is ‘making the rounds’, but this is outrageous!  Until I get somewhere ‘reasonable’, please, listen to Michael Coren’s show with Ezra Levant, where this incident is being discussed:

I LOVE that line:  “SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!”

P.S.:  Since when does ‘offensive’ or ‘aggressive’ = ‘vilification’??? Do people no longer learn English (and, I say this an an immigrant – who LOVES the English language!)

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Marijuana-smoking athlete should be stripped of medals

February 5, 2009 — xanthippa

Over the last little while, I have been amused at the discussions generated by an admission from an athlete that he smoked cannabis.

This, in a nutshell, is the situation as I see it:

  1. Michael Phelps, an athlete with 8 Olympic blood medals, is photographed inhaling from a marijuana pipe.
  2. Following the publication of the photo, he admits to cannabis use.
  3. This creates negative publicity:  from dismay over an again-tainted role model (he faced a drunk-driving charge earlier), to the discussion of ‘recreational use of cannabis’, to calls that he be stripped of his medals.
  4. The athlete issues an apology.
  5. Public debate continues – but not only does it not look like the athlete will not be stripped of his medals, it looks like he will be eligible to continue to compete in athletics!

THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!  WRONG DEBATE!!!

While I have some very strong opinions (sic) about the use of illegal drugs – recreational or otherwise – this is not the post where I would like to explore them. I’ll be glad to oblige later.

The ‘legal status’ of cannabis should not be the main focus of public debate about any athlete admitting to smoking cannabis.  The debate should be about how to treat an athlete who admits to using a performance-enhancing drug, after the competition is over…

After all, cannabis is a performance-enhancing drug!

There are several active chemicals in cannabis which have medicinal effects. One of the two main ones is Beta-Caryophyllene, an anti-inflammatory which may be very useful in fighting immune system diseases.  Yet, I would like to focus here on the other one – cannabidiol, which turns into THC under some conditions and into quinine under others. THC is the ‘active’ ingredient in cannabis, which gives people the ‘high’ associated with its use.

THC, of course, is known to trigger the release of dopamine – the very word from which ‘doping’, as in ‘using performance-enhancing drugs’, comes!

In a very real way, by triggering the release of dopamine, THC affects the endorphins (natural pain-killers) and serotonin levels in the brain, both immediatelly and in the long term.  These two effects, in my never-humble-opinion, classify it as a ‘prformance-enhancing-drug’!

Cannabis creates a temporary high – that is true, and that is why it is illegal in many jurisdictions.  THC blocs pain-perceptions by causing the brain to produce too much dopamine, which numbs one to pain and causes a euphorea.

Even after the ‘high’ associated with cannabis use is gone, not all of this chemical is metabolized.  Some of the THC gets stored in a person’s fatty tissues, where it stays inactive for weeks – perhaps months.  When a person is in a situation of great pressure or stress, their body releases adrenalin (and related hormones).  This ‘under-stress-hormone coctail’ triggers a chemical reaction which causes the stored-up THC to be released into the body.  And, yes, this has the same physical effect on the body as if the person had just toked up!

In other words, cannabis can produce the immediate, ‘short-term’ effect of a ‘dopamine high’ even months after it was used.  It’s called a ‘marijuana flash’.

Also, it has been medically demonstrated that people with low serotonin levels feel pain much more easily and much more acutely.  (This is especially true of people suffering from depression.)  When the serotonin levels are increased, the person’s long-term pain threshold goes up significantly.

Cannabis effectively raises the serotonin levels in that brain.  That is why it has consistently been found effective in treating medical conditions involving dopamine-serotonin balance:  migraines, melancholia, loss of appetite, nausea, pain –  both topical and systemic, insomnia…and is used in treating very serious psychiatric conditions, like dementia and schizophrenia.  This very real, long-term effect is why cannabis has been prized since the times of ancient Egypt!

So, let us consider these effects on an athlete who had, in the past, used cannabis.

The athlete now has an overall higher tolerance to pain than is natural – so he can push himself harder during training than his peers.  This will necessarily result in achieving an artificially high physical condition, one the athlete could not have attained without the use of cannabis.  Even if there were no THC left in his body by the time of the competition, the athlete would still have used performance enhancing drugs to achieve his physical condition, making any competition unfair.

Perhaps even more importantly, if there are still even small amounts of THC in the athlete’s system, the stress of a high-level contest, the ‘competitive juices’ that flood an athlete’s body, will ‘flush them out’.  Now, this athlete has a flood of extra dopamines in his blood stream!

In a very real sense, the athlete’s own body released the ‘stored-up dope’!

Unless I am greatly mistaken, competing while ‘doped up’ is against the rules…

Now, back to Mr. Phelps:

Since he has admitted to cannabis use, he had – knowingly or unknowingly – used drugs to enhance his performance. Therefore, it would be unjust to other athletes if he were allowed to compete again.

The only question remains:  did he use cannabis BEFORE he won 14 Olympic medals?  If the answer is ‘YES’, then he must indeed be stripped of each and every one of them.  Even if unintentionally, he was ‘doping’…

It has nothing to do with ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ drugs.  It has nothing to do with making ‘good’ or ‘bad’ choices.  It has everything to do with fair play!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in human nature, philosophy, society. Tags: , , , , , . 14 Comments »

Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater

February 4, 2009 — xanthippa

Just about everybody agrees that there ‘ought to’ be some limits on ‘Free Speech’.

One of the ‘classic’ examples is ‘Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater‘: it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, thus causing a panic during which people could be hurt or even killed.  Most people agree that this is a reasonable limit.

So, what if the theater IS on fire?

Should people be forbidden to raise a warning in a theater that is actually burning?

When first formulated, this ‘reasonable limit’ on Freedom of Speech was phrased ‘it is reasonable to limit Freedom of Speech to prevent someone from falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater’.

In our eagerness to apply this limit on Freedom of Speech, we have forgotten the ‘reality check’ bit!  Truth has now become irrelevant.

We have become extremely adept at prosecuting people who are figuratively ‘shouting fire’ by criticizing the failures of our current social policies which ghettoize citizens based on cultural or religious grounds and create multiple classes of citizenship.  Any time a person speaks up to criticize social policies which contain principles of ‘culture’ or ‘religion’, or the faulty implementation of these social policies, or their negative impacts – we prosecute them for ‘Shouting “Fire!”‘

Everyone gets all righteously indignant, points fingers at them and condemns them.  These people get dragged through the mud (the courts) and, too often, they get convicted of ‘shouting fire’.  After all, they did!

Our courts – both legal, kangaroo and the ‘court of public opinion’ – have forgotten that  ‘shouting “Fire!”‘ in a burning theater is not only acceptable, it saves lives!  In fact, shutting up the very people who give a true warning – that is what puts us all in serious danger.

Geert Wilders …

… Ezra Levant …

… Mark Steyn …

… Sussane Winter …

… Ayaan Hirsi Ali …

… Kathy Shaidle …

… and many, many more.  The list is getting dangerously long.

FIRE!!!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Aisha

February 3, 2009 — xanthippa
Aisha

Aisha

Posted in art, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Groundhog Day – What does it mean?

February 2, 2009 — xanthippa

If you live in North America, you are likely ‘familiar’ with ‘Groundhog Day’:  on the 2nd of February, ‘The Groudhog wakes from winter slumber and sticks hear head out of her den.

If it is sunny enough for the groundhog to cast a shadow, the sleepy gal will get startled and run back into her den to continue napping.  This will cause the cold winter weather to continue for 6 more weeks.  If it is cloudy, there will be no shadow to startle her and she’ll wake up nice and slowly.  She will then stay awake, causing the winter weather to recede and the spring weather to come early.

So, what is this quaint little legend all about?

Perhaps there is a reversal of causality:  this could simply be a weather pattern observation, set into a quaint little story.  After all, during the coldest winter temperatures, the sky is cloud-free and sunny.  Clouds act like a blanket that traps heat, so cloudy winter days tend to be warmer.  That is why it never snows when the temperatures are cold.  (We are talking relative winter temperatures here….as in, -40 degrees (Celsius and Fahrenheit ‘meet’ this point) is ‘chilly’, -10 degrees Celsius is ‘warm’.  Remember, I am writing from Canada.)  When it gets that cold, one could not even drive a groundhog out of its den!

It is conceivable that, over generations, people observed that if this time period was particularly cold – it was likely to signal that the winter weather would drag on for a bit.  Conversely, if the temperature at this time was mild, it would be followed by more mild weather, bringing the spring in earlier.  So, the co-relation.

Plausible.  Or, the roots of ‘Groundhog Day’ may lie somewhere else….

There are several things which are significant:

  1. The date – 2nd of February (plus or minus a day or two)
  2. 6 more weeks of winter
  3. The Groundhog herself
  4. The Groundhog affects the weather

1.  The date:  2nd of February

It is the halfway point between the Winter Solstice and the Spring Equinox:  this makes it a ‘cross-quarter day’.

From earliest historical records of human civilizations, we have seen that the solstices and equinoxes had been noted and celebrated by our ancestors.  These 4 ‘easy to define’ (through simple observation) markers of the Earth’s annual cycle are called ‘quarter days’.  The midpoints between them – when that season is most ‘intense’ – are also marked: these are called ‘cross-quarter days’.

Many cultures have described this ‘cycle’ as the ‘Wheel of the Year’:

http://www.midnightmoonchild.com/images/wheelx.gif

This image is from the names of the ‘marker days’ reflect the one of traditions descended from the British isles.  The ‘Pagan’ belief systems which accompany the annual cycles associate various Gods and Goddesses with specific parts of this cycle.

The 2nd of February is Candlemas, often also called Imbolc.  When considering the roots ‘Groundhog Day’, its date would suggest that we are not discussing simple long-term weather pattern observation.

2. ‘6 more weeks of winter’

This is also closely connected to the Wheel of the Year:  the period between each of the 8 ‘markers’ along the wheel is 6 weeks.

Let us consider the ‘season’ of ‘winter:

Astronomically, Winter Solstice marks the first day of winter and the darkest day of the year – after this point, daylight periods: begin to lengthen.   Astrologically, this marks the ‘Rebirth of the Sun’:  still too ‘young’ to bring warmth, but his strength is growing.

Even though the Sun had been ‘reborn’ and the days are now getting longer, the momentum of the ‘cooling’ takes 6 weeks to ‘ripen’.  That is why, 6 weeks after the beginning of a season, its’ ‘weather characteristics’ are the ‘strongest’.  And, winter is usually most bitter around the beginning of  February… just as we approach the ‘height of the season ‘holiday’:  Candlemas.

Accordingly, following Candlemas, winter begins to recede.  It is still there – but overall, the temperatures begin to warm, the sun is more visible and begins to slowly but surely melt the snow… and it will only be 6 weeks before the day is longer than the night!

Is it only co-incidence that the ‘Groundhog Day’ tradition cites this identical time period of 6 weeks?


3.  The ‘Groundhog’ herself

Spring is the time when things begin to grow.  Accordingly, Pagans associated growth and fecundity with spring and anthropomorphised the principle into the Goddess of Spring and Renewal:  Eostera (also spelled Ostara, and about 8 other ways, like ‘Easter’).

What is interesting about this goddess is that she is said to ‘awake’ on the winter cross-quarter day, Candlemas.  As she awakens, she adds her own magic to strengthen the growing Sun and because of her effort, the winter begins to recede.

Her power is greatest at the full moon following the Spring Equinox:  that is how we derive the timing of our Easter celebrations even today.  (Yes, there is a ‘detour’ through the Judeo-Christian tradition, but their ‘timimng’ of these festivals in Judaism and Christianity ultimately leads to the same archetype, even if through Ishtar and Isis.)

Since chickens only lay eggs when the day is longer than the night, the Spring Equinox marked the return of this cherished source of nutrition:  it became one of the symbols of the Goddess Eostera.  With their renown fecundity – and the timing of giving birth to their babies – rabbits also became symbols of Eostera.  And yes, that is why the ‘Easter Bunny brings eggs’.

Yet, there was another shape Eostera is said to take on when appearing to humans:  Groundhog.

So, is it co-incidence that it is Groundhog, as opposed to another hibernating animal, day?


4. The Groundhog affects the weather

Our little modern myth of Groundhog Day specifically states that it is the groundhog who changes the weather – not the other way around.  Why should the groundhogs ‘going back to sleep’ cause the weather to be colder, while ‘staying awake’ would cause it to warm up?

Curiously enough, it is when Eostera awakens and lends a helping hand to the Sun that the Pagan myths say winter begins to recede…  Co-incidence?  I think not!

In Conclusion

Today, ‘Groundhog Day’ is in no way a ‘religious celebration’.  Not in the least!  It is nothing more than a bit of fun to liven up chilly winter days.

Yes, it contains an echo of its roots in old Pagan traditions.  And that’s great!  Just as ‘inheriting your mother’s smile’ does not make one the same person as one’s mother, having fun with Groundhog Day does not mean one is inheriting its ancient religious significance.

Yet, just as looking at an old family photo album is fun, allowing one to trace certain characteristics they inherited from various ancestors, it is also fun to trace our today’s fun little customs, to see which echos of our ancestor’s traditions we have inherited!  It’s just a different kind of a ‘photo album’…

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, education, human nature, perceptions, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »

The concept of ‘murder’ is not ‘universal’

January 30, 2009 — xanthippa

In the dawn of civilization, we lived in smaller groups – sometimes little more than extended families of 20-30 people.  The actual number depended on many factors, such as the environment, population density, how developed our societies were and what they depended on for sustenance, and so on.

For thousands of years, these earliest societies hardly ever grew to more 150 people – the Dunbar’s number – and formed our monkeysphere.  In these small communities, we could care about each person as an individual:  we knew them, their family, and we could relate to them on  an individual, personal level.  This group was what we related to as ‘we’ or ‘us’.  Everyone else was ‘them’, an outsider.

This is very important, because these concepts of ‘us’ and ‘them’ were key in the evolution of our concept of morality.

For example, the Yanomamo of the Amazon basin live in relatively isolated ‘traditional villages’.  They have a very specific understanding of the concept of  ‘murder’.  ‘Murder’, in their view, is killing someone or something ‘of the village’.  Killing a person who is ‘not of the village’ is ‘killing, not ‘murder’.  For the Yanomamo, killing a dog or a chicken that lives in the village is just as much ‘murder’ as killing a person who is ‘of the village’.

After all, everyone living ‘in the village’ forms a community which shares social bonds and therefore has an expectation of trust from the other members of the community.  It is killing a being with whom one shares social bonds that defines ‘murder’ for the Yanomamo.  The act of transgressing against the social bonds, the breaking of  trust which was built up through living together in one community, that constitutes ‘murder’.

This little example shows how a concept we consider universal can be thought just as universal, yet interpreted completely differently in other societies.

As we ‘scaled up’ our communities and instituded rules/laws – rather than direct resolution of specific actions – to govern our behaviour, we have moved from the early, Yanomamo-style concept of ‘murder’=’breaking social bonds of trust’ to the more general concept of ‘murder’=’killing a human’.

It is we, ‘The Westerners’, who have a shifted our moral concepts somewhere along our society’s development.  Instead ‘drawing the line’ based on ‘trust’ and ‘social bonds’, we have made them more abstract (emotionally) choice:  we base in to genetic similarity, belonging to the same species.

Yes, it is much more complex than just ‘genetic similarity’…  The strong and undeniable influence of Christian doctrines of ‘soul’ and their separation between ‘human’=’soul’ and ‘non-human’=’no soul’ probably has a lot to do with why our ancestors shifted their definition of ‘murder’ from ‘breaking the expectation of trust’ to ‘killing a member of our species’.  The root cause is not the point here – the fact that it happened is.

We can still see the ‘old morality’ hold true in some of our attitudes:  many of us struggle with the cultural understanding that killing an enemy soldier during war does not constitute ‘murder’, while killing a stranger on the street during peacetime does.  These ‘conflicting attitudes’ have been much remarked upon.  Still, most people who comment on it miss the true significance of this apparent contradiction:  this is a vestige of our original, ‘human’ concept of ‘murder’ – from before we drew an abstract line around ‘human’ and began to consider it to be ‘absolute’.

This is a clear and undeniable demonstration that it is our own cultural morals which have deviated from their original meanings.

There is nothing wrong with that – societies evolve and so do their ideas of morality.  Evolving our morals to keep pace with social evolution is usually a good thing – in my never-humble-opinion.  I am not criticizing that in the least. Yet, I am calling attention to the fact that most of us still have trouble even conceiving of the very idea that OUR understanding of what constitutes morality is not universal!

Hinduism, for example, has a much broader concept of what constitutes ‘murder’ than we, in ‘the West’ do.  While the very idea of ‘soul’ originated in the area of today’s India (and influenced certain mystic Jewish sects, like the Essenes – via whom Christianity acquired the concept of the divine soul), the Hindus do not limit the concept of ‘soul’ to just humans.  Therefore, their idea of ‘murder’ is also different from our ‘Western understanding’.  To pious Hindus, killing any living being constitutes ‘murder’.

And Islam teaches that all Muslims are members of the same greater family (Umma), or tribe: to be a Muslim is to be one of ‘us’ – non-Muslims are ‘they’.  Therefore,  killing a member of the Umma is ‘murder’….but killing someone who is not a Muslims (and therefore not a member of the Umma, not one of ‘us’) is not ‘murder’, it is just ‘killing’.  The ‘Umma’ may have grown beyond a single village, but the concept of ‘being of the Umma’ has not!

Understanding this is essential in order for people form different cultures to communicate effectively.  This is especially important as we are reaching the next stage of ‘scaling up of our communities‘ – this time on the global scale.

When negotiating how we integrate our cultures (because that is what is happening, like it or not), none of us (all sides) must fall into the error of considering our interpretation of deep concepts, of what constitutes ‘morality’, to be somehow ‘universal’.

Doing so would only lead to deep misunderstandings which lead to conflict and suffering.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in human nature, perceptions, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

Geert Wilders: NOT a ‘perfect poster boy’…SO?

January 30, 2009 — xanthippa

While reading the reactions to ‘The Geert Wildres case’, I have been saddened, dismayed and disheartened….

Why?

Because so many people who – in principle -think they support Freedom of Speech are critical of supporting of Geert Wilders in particular!

I have read criticism in many places, to the effect that if we ‘want to fight for Freedom of Speech’, we ‘should find a better poster-boy’….

People who express these sentiments are missing the point!!!

Let’s go back to basic human psychology…

Whom does a bully pick on first???

The successful bully will first pick on the strongest opponent who does not have allies ready to come to his/her defense!

This is a very basic psychological principle, taught to us both in school (if one were inclined to study psychology or anthropology/sociology or even history or business skills) and also in fiction – good fiction (including ‘science fiction’ and ‘historical novels’, ‘where’ most good ‘fiction’ writer are).  From Waltari to Card, from Čapek to Asimov.  The lesson is clear.  One would expect that most intelligent people would have learned it by now…

It is precisely because Geert Wilders is not likable, it is precisely because he is on the fringes of society, that he is one of the ‘first lines of victims’ of this new form of totalitarianism which hides its ugly face beneath a pretense of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘accommodation’.  Not aware of his new totalitarianism?  Please, look around!  (Or read Kathy Shaidle’s book, ‘Tyrany of the Nice’.)

More and more invasive internet censorship….

More and more government regulation of our information streams…

More and more interference with mainstream media (through not using ‘organized means’)….and more and more media activism…

Add to this the growing debts by ‘Western’ governments – and the reality of who holds the bonds on these debts….

Include the Western obsession with the intentionally manipulated ‘Global Warming‘ agenda – with the billions paid in ‘carbon indulgencies’ by European countries….  (Along with unsupportable social systems, do you think sucking billions out of the European economies could have played a tiny role in the economic meltdown?)

And, last but not least, these latest ‘economic bailout packages’ with ‘strings attached’ give governments way too much control over industries (not that the European countries have not been racing down this road already…).  Whenever big business and big governments get all nice and cozy with each other, the rest of us need to worry.

This little peek around should dispel any last doubts that ALL our governments are steadily moving down the road towards totalitarianism….perhaps a little slower in Canada and the US than in Europe, but, slow and steady….

But, back to my main point:

Totalitarian governments are always bullies – it’s part of the definition.  That is why they follow classical bully-psychology:  beat up the biggest guy nobody will come and help because he’s a jerk.  When they want to establish – set a precedent – that they have the power to control something, totalitarian governments will pick on their strongest opponent who is least likable.  Once the precedent is set, they can then pick on their other opponents, one at a time. Please, notice the pattern!

In the words of Martin Niemöller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Have we really forgotten the lesson?

For those who have, or who have failed to learn it, let me say it once again: IT’S NOT ABOUT GEERT WILDERS.  IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH – AND ABOUT POLITICIANS USURPING THE POWER TO SILENCE US.

Don’t let them.  Please!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, perceptions, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »