Aspergers: paying attention

October 27, 2008 — xanthippa

Paying attention at school can, at times, be trying for anyone.  It can be even harder for kids with ADD.  Yet, for Aspie kids, there can be an additional thing at play!

I am an Aspie, married to an Aspie, raising a couple of kids who are Aspies – not a professional in this field!  For a ‘boilerplate explanation’, please see my ‘Guide to my Aspie posts’ page.

One of the ‘things’ that define Aspies’ is the inability to innately read and comprehend body language.  However, many of us (especially ‘girl Aspies’, or ‘Aspiettes’, if you’d like) tend to realize we have this ‘blind spot’ and we try to compensate for it.

This often involves becoming more ‘observers’ than ‘doers’.  It means an Aspie trying to ‘decipher’ this is more likely to choose to be present for a lot of ‘social’ situations, but not actually actively participate.  Yet, the Aspie will keenly observe everything that happens in order to try to analyze the situation for behaviour patterns which would give us our personal ‘rosetta stone’ to non-verbal communication.

This process, by itself, is enough to alienate (‘creep out’) many ‘neurotypicals’ who are our peers – resulting in more ‘shunning’ and greater social isolation….which leads to more ‘Aspie frustration’!  After all, you are only trying to learn the patterns in non-verbal communication:  with your usual OCD intensity…  Yet, THAT is not the point of this post!  The point here is to point out how many Aspies’ attempts to pay attention are really misunderstood.

Let me use myself as an illustratory example:

I was raised in Central Europe – with a somewhat different schooling system.  50% of our mark was based on written tests – just as 100% of it is in North America now.  The other 50% was based on ‘oral/verbal testing’:  the person ‘being tested’ gets called up, stands in front of the class and the teacher, and is asked a question they must answer.

There IS quite a lot of merit to this form of testing.  For one, many of us (especially Aspies) are WAY better at demonstrating our knowledge verbally than in writing.  Also, if we have concerns about the question (often, test questions are so vague as to be meaningless), we can ask the teacher for clarification.

The other – and often unnoticed – benefit of this form of testing is that no two people will explain the same material in exactly the same manner and wording.  So, when a student is being tested, the whole class is being presented with a repeat lecture presenting the material, but in a slightly altered manner.  The teacher conducting the test will correct any incorrect statements by the student – and this is really key in helping other students correct their own misconceptions and learn!

Thus, testing students by calling a student to the front of the class and asking them to demonstrate their understanding of the material taught acts to both reinforce the lesson to the rest of the students, as well as correcting misconceptions and presenting alternate explanations of the material.  To me, this seems like a win-win-win situation…as it also helps people overcome fear of speaking in front of an audience.

Usually, there is several days of ‘study time’ between the time new material is presented to students and when their testing on it begins.

Sorry for the long explanation – but it is important to ‘set the stage’, if you will.

I was in grade 6 when I became most acutely aware of the whole ‘facial expression/body language’ method of conveying ‘colouring’ to one’s statements.  Predictably, I became completely fascinated by this weird and counterintuitive phenomenon!  When someone would speak, I would begin to obsessively ‘superfocus’ on their ‘non-verbal’ message, so that I could relate the two to each other later, when I ‘replayed’ the experience (in my memory) for analysis.

Except that there was one tiny-little problem:  when I would superfocus, I would – wanting to or not – block ALL other stimulations!  Unfortunatelly, this meant that if I focused on ‘non-verbal communication’, I could not help but block out all sounds…  Yes, it kind of defeated the purpose.

Well, this one day, I was in a history class.  The teacher (who had issues with my Aspieness – without understanding it was Aspieness) was actually presenting an extremely interesting lecture!  I was totally fascinated by it, and did not want to miss a single word!  I was determined to pay full attention and not miss a single word, no matter what!

Yet, I knew that if I started looking at the teacher, I would ‘skip’ into the ‘superfocus’ mode, where I would ‘record’ every bit of her body language and facial expression nuance – but I would loose everything she said!  And I was too interested in the lesson to want to miss what she was saying!!!

So, I did EVERYTHING I COULD to pay attention to what my teacher was saying!

To keep myself from ‘getting stuck watching my teacher’, I forced myself to pointedly stare out of the window.  When that started failing, I looked at the ground under my desk.  Then I stretched my arms out on my desk and tried to burry my head in them – as aggressively as I could – so that I could prevent any visual stimulation which would distract me from listening to my teacher!  However, the temperature in the classroom was pretty cold, so even this was difficult.  So, I started hitting my head on my desk – just a little bit – to force myseld not to look at my teacher – just enough to keep focus so that I could pay attention to what she was saying.

I got told off for disturbing the class!

You must understand, back then and there, NOBODY knew (or was allowed to know) about Aspergers.  Even migranes – which I suffered terribly from since early childhood – were not a ‘legal’ diagnosis….  My mom, who got me to see a doctor at the hospital (not an easy task in a socialist country where the medicare is ‘free’ – she had to call in a bunch of ‘favours’ and give out a number of non-monetary ‘gifts’ to get me to be seen by a specialist) was told that my symptoms ‘would be’ a textbook example of migranes, except that officially (read ‘political correctness dictating medical diagnosis’), migranes were ‘something upper-class, bored ladies pretended to get to make themselves more interesting’ – and as such, ‘migrane’ was not a permissible diagnosis in a progressive, socialist country that did not have ‘bored rich ladies’…  It was CERTAINLY not an acceptable diagnosis for a little school-girl! The doctors would loose their jobs…

IF Aspergers had even been part of either the educator or medical training, it would still have been stigmatized, along the lines of ‘migranes’….but, it most definitely was NOT taught or mentioned at all!

Predictably, in the classroom, my many attempts to pay attention were greatly misunderstood!

I got into trouble for NOT paying attention!

Frankly, there was nothing I could do to pay attention more!  Yet, my teacher seemed (as usual) extremely angered by  my behaviour… 

And she did something unusual and unexpected!  (I knew it was unusual, because I had not witnessed this before.  I realized it was unexpected by analyzing the surprised and shocked noises and (YES! I had learned this much!) facial expressions of my classmates:  my teacher called me up to the front of the class to test me on the material she had just finished presenting!!!

Frankly, I think I shocked her.

I could repeat everything she said, every date she presented, understood and could explain every ‘reasoning’ she had presented to us in her lecture!  As she gave me an ‘A’, she said she was shocked because she ‘saw’ I was ‘totally not paying attention’ during the whole class, and this was meant to ‘discipline me’!  Looking back, I think she thought me defiant when I truthfully said I had NEVER tried to pay attention as hard as I had that day!

So, what is the point of this post?

When Aspies look like they are doing everything NOT to pay attention – they might truly be escaping into their own world of interests….OR, they might be doing their best to truly and honestly listen to what the teacher is saying!!!  Just because their behaviour does not conform to that of other children who are paying attention does NOT mean that Aspies are not paying attention, nor does it mean that they are not TRYING to pay attention!

Just as Aspies ‘suck’ at ‘reading’ body language, there are times when we just as much ‘suck’ at PRESENTING body language!  We are VERY BAD at emulating the ‘cultural norm’ external body language ourselves (especially when we are young and before we have learned to emulate/fake it).

Yet, just as WE are bad at ‘reading’ the body language of ‘nerotyoicals’, the ‘neurotypicals’ are eaqually as bad at reading OUR body language!

This may lead to ‘Aspergers’ so called ‘specialists’ of the past (hopefully not the present) to put inappropriate emotive labels on Aspies:  claiming we are lacking in empathy, social belonging, inability to sympathize, stunted emotions and so on.  Nothing could be further from the truth!

These false charges and many misunderstandings only hurt young Aspies and further undermine our regard for our abities, our self-confidence.  It is one of the many ‘drops of poison’ which causes many Aspies to shut themselves away from ‘the world’ and limit ourselves to our ‘internal worlds’, where such hurtful undermining of us is not a daily reminder of our inadequacies.

So, the next time you see a person whose body language you think inappropriate, please, consider the possibility that you are simply unable to understand THIS person’s non-verbal communications – just as much as that person is unable to understand yours.  Respecting this difference – and learning from it – is constructive.  Rejecting or ridiculing such a person – well, this is not so nice…and can ruin a person’s ability to EVER truly believe in themselves again.

Posted in Aspergers, education, freedoms, language, opression, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

‘We SO pwned them!’

October 15, 2008 — xanthippa

I am dreading Wednesday morning.

Why?

Because tonight, my kids got to stay up later than ‘New Year’s Eve’, in order to follow our Canadian election coverage.  And, tomorrow morning, it will be I who has to drag them out of bed and get them on the school bus – and I am NOT a morning person at the best of times!

But it was worth it!

This Canadian election may have seen the lowest voter turnout in history (58%, if one can rely on the preliminary numbers), but this apathy was NOT descriptive of the atmosphere in our home.  We went to vote as a family – with both kids observing and learning.  My younger son’s class really got into the mechanics – not the politics (well, not officially, though he did seem to come away with the opinion that the guy who sat beside the lady was the only one with the wrong ideas during the debate) – of the election, and he was eager to see it up close and real.  I must admit his enthusiasm was infectious.

He was aware that his hero, Ezra Levant, supported the Conservatives – that was all the leadership he needed.  From the moment the results began to trickle in, he felt sad – the Conservatives were trailing.  I explained that Atlantic Canada (especially Newfoundland) was a bastion of Liberals, and that as the results  go West (perhaps with the exception of Toronto), we would see the Liberal numbers be overtaken by the Conservative ones.

We went over a graphic example how ‘higher popular vote’ could actually result in ‘fewer seats’, if some ridings were won by a slim minority while others lost by a landslide.  And we discussed how having many (5, this time) political parties affects results, and how this can put an incredible amount of power into the hands of the few ‘independant’ candidates who got elected, and who would be wooed in a minority government where they just might hold the few deciding voices!

As the poll results were coming in, the Conservative numbers – both the number of seats and popular vote (and the popular vote seemed more important to him) – were rising.  When they both rose above the Liberal ones, there was no holding back! 

‘We’re pwning them!’  he called out and started punching the sofa, because he could not hold his excitement in any longer.  As the hour got later, and the sofa looked quite defeated, we compromised.  He would be allowed to stay up to see the results, as long as he limited himself to punching the air and stopped taking his excitement out on the furniture.

It was during Prime Minister Harper’s victory speech that he finally drifted off to sleep – but not before saying:  ‘Mom, we SO pwned them!  And our Prime Minister – he’s an Aspie like we are, isn’t he?’

While I am dissapointed that the Conservatives did not win a majority, I never really expected that they would.  And with both the Liberal Party and the Green Party (like THEY really count now…still they failed to elect a single member) quite openly plotting the removal of their respective leaders – combined with Mr. Harper’s excellent ability to run a minority governmen (having run THE longest lasting minority government in the history of our lovely country) – I do have to agree with my son:  ‘We SO poned them!’

It’s just the process of getting everyone up and off to school/work tomorrow morning that I dread!  Perhaps I should try to fall asleep – if only I could get the adrenaline out of my blood stream…

 

Note:  this post has been edited for spelling, as per a reader noticing my error (see comments).

Posted in human nature, society. Tags: , , . 3 Comments »

Canadian Voting Day!!!

October 14, 2008 — xanthippa

Today, 14th of October, 2008, is Canadian election day!

 

EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!!

 

So, please, pick the candidate YOU like the best, or the party YOU like the best, and

 

GO OUT AND VOTE!!!

 

After all, if you don’t vote, you will have given up your right to complain about the election’s results!

 

And that would be a shame…

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

‘Right’ versus ‘left’: not a telling distinction

October 3, 2008 — xanthippa

Many people are having a difficult time deciding how to vote, because it seems like we are having to decide between bad and worse….a discouraging proposition at best.  We see the ‘left’ as wanting to raise taxes and we can see how this will cripple the economy – and make us poorer.  We see the ‘right’ as ‘in bed’ with big business, not concerned with the well-being of the little guy, namely us.  And the ‘middle’ – we have seen the corruption there and it turns our stomachs…

What to do?

Big part of the problem is that we have been lookning at ‘politics’ as ‘left’ and ‘right’.  But, that only captures one aspect of the political spectrum, and not a very good one at that.

We need to re-define the way we view political party platforms and policies, but according to a different set of criteria.  Namely:  individualism versus collectivism. 

Collectivism is correct in recognizing that together, we can achieve more that each one of us could alone.  We should pool all our resources, and ‘the collective’ decides how we use them together in the best way. 

Of course, this is true – to a degree. 

The problem is that when ‘everything’ is decided by the collective, there is no longer such a thing as an individual – only ‘member of the collective’.  Thus, the good of the collective is placed above the good of any member.  The voice of the collective is placed above the voice of any member.  The will of the collective is placed above the will of any member.

The difficulty with this is obvious. 

There is an old saying that the ‘collective intelligence’ of any group of people is defined by the average intelligence of each person in the group – divided by two. 

‘Collective decisions’ are usually stupid – there is no denying it.  And in a setup where individuals are not heard, nobody can sound a warning against stupid decisions or doing counterproductive things.  To the contrary – anyone attempting to sound a warning will be perceived as opposing the collective and mercilessly torn to bits by a collective which transforms itself into the mob it inevitably becomes.

Individualism is correct in recognizing that every single one of us has a will and the ability to use it.  It places the individual as the ‘responsible’ ‘decision-making’ unit.  Sometimes, individuals may come together to pool their efforts and resources, but these are all voluntary arrangements and any individual has the right to opt out of them at any time.  In other words, there is no coersion to pool one’s resources with others.

Again, there is an obvious difficulty with ‘total individualism’.

We do not live in isolation.  We may be a group of individuals, but we are still a group and, as such, need the means of acting as a group.

We are a nation, a political entity – we need to pool our resources to protect ourselves and maintain order, etc.  And if most of us contribute towards maintaing order which all enjoy, those who ‘opt out of contributing’ are getting ‘free ride’.  This sets up a bad precedent and a bad dynamic.  Eventually, the ‘free loaders’ become resented… and could become just as torn to bits as the ‘member of the collective who speaks up’ in the ‘collectivism’ example, but this time by a bunch of individuals who ‘voluntarily’ form a ‘temporary mob’.

So, what we need to do is find a balance:  to form a sufficient collective to allow us to pool our resources and achieve those things we need to do ‘together’, but still retain enough individualism to not get lost in the process.  Achieving this balance is the difficult part. 

Before you protest that these are the same distinctions as ‘right’ and ‘left’, take a moment to look at history.  Yes, it is true that traditionally, ‘left wing’ idealizes ‘collectivism’.  But, just as having a ‘red square’ does not mean that a ‘circle’ must be ‘blue’, ‘right wing’ parties can – and often do – also embody the principles of ‘collectivism’:  Nacism, for example, is perceived as being ‘right wing’ – but it is very much ‘collectivism’.   It’s long name is ‘national socialism‘ – and socialism is a form of collectivism.

Similarly, George W. Bush’s policies are more collectivist than individualist – yet he is perceived as ‘right wing’!

This was the difference between the Canadian ‘right wing’ parties:  ‘Reform Party/Canadian Alliance’ were no more ‘right wing’ than the ‘Progressive Conservative Party’.  But where Progressive Conservatives were collectivists, the Reformers were fiercely individualist.  After the parties merged, the resulting party is somewhere in between…

Yet that is the difference between the current Conervatives in Canada and the current conservatives in the US – despite the US emphasis on the individual, it is the Canadian Conservatives who are actually (and very slowly) returning some of the decisionmaking to the individuals.  THAT is why the current financial crisis sweeping the US is not nearly as bad up in Canada – there simply aren’t enough individuals who had made as bad choices as some of the groups south of the border.

OK, this IS an oversimplification – and an intentional hyperbole.  But the principle meant to be demonstrated by it is the correct one – and ONE of the factors in this. 

So, if the ‘individualist’ ways are so much better, why are most successful political parties ‘collectivist’? 

In order to succeed in the political arena, a party has to present a unified image, stand for one thing that voters across the country can recognize and identify with.  A ‘Party Brand’, if you will.  This is easily achieved with a group of people who believe their individual voices are nowhere near as important as the voice of the collective.

If you have a group of people who are fiercly individualist, this becomes much more difficult.  The term ‘herding cats’ comes to mind!  The individualist will not hesitate to speak up when the party’s policy does not reflect their personal view of something.  That is what makes them individualists!

And that is what makes the ‘individualis’ parties look disorganized, not ‘together’.  That is why it is difficult for people to figure out what they stand for. 

And THAT is why most parties that value ‘individualism’ tend to be less successful than parties made up of collectivists. 

So, when you go to vote this time around – and if you are not sure whom to pick – take a look at the policies and ideas from this, slightly different point of view:  who will allow you the most individual freedom?  Who will respect you as an individual?  Is it the right ‘balance’ you seek – or as close to it as you’d like?

Perhaps if you do, you may arrive at a decision you will be happy with.

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

There is more than one way to stop ‘free speech’

September 29, 2008 — xanthippa

Many of us who are 100% ‘free speechers’ wave our hands dismissively and tune out when somebody raises the issue of ‘fair use rights’ on copyrighted materials.  This is a mistake. 

Just as ‘free speechers’ are not just a bunch of racists and rednecks, no matter how loudly their opponents laber them as such, ‘fair use rights’ advocates are not just a bunch of ‘pirates’ and ‘thieves’.  If they were, they would simply steal the content – and certainly not bother to stand up and fight for their rights.

What we need to recognize that these issues are connected:  both revolve around finding the ‘right’  balance of rights versus limitations.  Once we recognize the similarities between these two seemingly separate issues, we can better understand how to arrive at a balance we can all be satisfied with – at least a little bit.

Just like we are willing to put limits onto ‘free speech’ – the proverbial ‘yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre’, and similar limits – it is also justifiable to place limits on the use of ‘music’, ‘movies’, books’ and other intellectual content meant for consumers.  In the first case, ‘public safety’ is threatened.  In the second case, the rights of the creators of this ‘IP content’ need to protect their investment and their ability to reap a fair compensation for having created it.

This does make sense.  The trick is, and always has been, in finding acceptable balance of rights. 

The problem arises when the laws are written so as to only protect one side’s rights, at the expense of the other.  It is no less oppressive than having unreasonable limits placed on one’s freedom of speech, in order to protect some from ‘hurt feelings’. 

But there is another connection, a very fundamental one, between these two issues:  both seek to restrict communication.  Limiting freedom of speech imposes limitations on an individual as to what they are, or are not, free to communicate.  So called ‘fair use’ laws seek to control the means of communication….

Recently, I watched a program that drove home the difference.  It is one-hour long (and part 2 of a 2-part series), but it is well worth watching.  Here, in brief, is the background…

In Sweden, there used to be different ‘fair use’ laws than in North America.  Under Swedish laws, it was legal to set up a company called ‘Pirate Bay’ – even though this was, at that time, illegal under US laws.  The ‘Hollywood industry’ used its influence to pressure the White House, which, in turn, pressured the Swedish government, into police raids and materiel confiscation against ‘Pirate Bay’, even though their own attorneys advised the government that the operation was perfectly legal…..  Part 1 of the show, ‘Steal This Film’ deals with this.  I found the segments of it on YouTube here, here, here, and here.

Part 2 discusses the very interesting issue of how these ‘fair use’ laws are (and are not) balanced – and why.  And yes, how this directly impacts ‘freedom of speech’.  Very interesting, the whole lot of it.  The links for the YouTube version are here, here, here, here, here and here.

While Part 2, section 2 has a comprehensive history of ‘copyright’ and its implications from book printing on (and thus VERY much worth watching), it is Part 2, section 4 that sums up – in my mind – the essence of this debate.  It is not just about IP – it is about the control of the means of delivering ‘culture’ to us all…  And whoever controls the means of delivery also controls which voices will be heard.

I suppose one could see the ‘fair use’ battle as the corrollary to the ‘free speech’ battle.  While one is a battle to allow one to speak freely, the other one is the battle to allow one to be heard freely.  After all, if one is allowed ‘free speech’ – but only in isolation, where what one says is not actually heard by any other human being – it is a hollow victory…

It’s something to think about.

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

A new ‘page’ is added

September 28, 2008 — xanthippa

While I may be interested in all kinds of things, the most regular hits my blog gets is from people looking for advice and help in dealing with Aspergers’ Syndrome.

I have made no secret of it:  I am an Aspie!  My hubby is an Aspie!  And, predictably enough, our kids are Aspies!!!  It is therefore not too surprising that I have tried to share some of the more successful methods used by ‘us’ to successfully integrate into the social mainstream.  Not only am I proud of our successes, I am also motivated to help others who are experiencing similar things – as well as helping ‘the society at large’ learn to understand ‘us Aspies’.  Though I may not be one of the ‘exceptional ones’, many of the humans who DID change the course of human societies WERE Aspies…so the need for understanding runs both ways.

Therefore, I have written a bit about Aspergers and Aspies.  After a bit, even I was getting confused between what posts I had finished and published, and which ones I started and got distracted from….there are just so many distractions around!!!   Have I shown you the……

You get the picture.

So, I have made up a nifty page where I have listed my ‘Aspergers’ posts – with a little summary for each one.  It is not much, but I do hope it will serve as a useful tool for people who are seeking help and understanding.  I do hope to edit it often to include all future post on this topic, too (but, no promises – I am ADD, too….)

Anyhow, I do hope this page will prove useful.

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

Jack Layton insults Canadian artists

September 24, 2008 — xanthippa

Trying to paint himself as a supporter of the arts during this election campaign, NDP leader Jack Layton has accidentally demonstrated his contempt for Canadian artists with this election promise:

Mr. Layton promised that if elected Prime Minister, he will use the CRTC (the government tool used to reign in radio and TV stations in Canada and ensure their content is appropriately censored) to force all TV networks to only show ‘Canadian content with Canadian actors’ during prime time viewing hours.  (I could not find the audio clip of when I heard him speak – the link above is to an article reporting it….but the article had watered down his statement.  If you find the clip, please, let me know and I will edit the post to insert it here.  Thanks.)

What is this man thinking?

Yes, some say this is a mute point, as he will never win enough votes to be the next Prime Minister (even as a leader of a coalition, which he seems to be striving for now) – but his very suggestion normalizes this type of action and makes it seem less extreme the next time someone suggests it.  And I don’t like it. 

Why?

Aside from this being a terrible insult to Canadian artists (the ‘soft’ or ‘condescending’ type or ‘snobby prejudice’ – “they are so pathetic, without MY help here to eliminate all their competition, they could never make it on THEIR merits…..because they have NONE!”), he also made a call to heavily fund these ‘artists’.  Let’s follow the chain of consequnces here.  Step by step…

  1. Government subsidizes (pays for) ‘Canadian art’
  2. The government, of course, has to be ‘accountable’ for this spending, and so must select what bits of ‘Canadian art’ are actually worthy of being paid for
  3. Government forces the privately owned TV networks to show nothing but the ‘Canadian arts content’ during prime time TV viewing hours
  4. In order to be eligible for this ‘Canadian content’ (and thus eligible to be broadcast during these crucial-for-survival time slots), the ‘Canadian art’ will have to be certified as such by the government’s very own agency, CRTC

In effect, the government pays for the ‘Canadian art’ it first approves, then forces the TV networks to only show the bits it approves of the most.  Thus, the government has 100% control over what we get to watch! (During prime time only, of course…)

HOW could any artist in Canada stand for this type of subjugation? 

This turns every artists who would qualify for the label ‘Canadian content’ to be, in effect, a civil servant!  We have seen in the past Canadian hockey teams, starring Canadian athletes, in a Canadian sports league, be refused (by CRTC) the label ‘Canadian content’ on the grounds that ‘sports’ did not qualify (perhaps because people like to watch sports….and it is hard to slip in ‘approved social messaging’ into a hockey game ‘dialogue’…)

The only ‘art’ we would be allowed to watch would be produced by ‘de facto’ civil servants!

And we have seen what has happened to our doctors, when THEY were turned into ‘de facto’ civil servants:  the government, through various means, attempts to deny them even the freedom to act according to their conscience!  Frankly, I don’t think the government is wrong to demand that its employees/contractors provide all the services the government pays them to – the problem is that doctors should never have been made into government employees/contractors in the first place.

And nor should artists!

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

Jumping junipers!

September 22, 2008 — xanthippa

There are several types of blogs.  Some, much like ‘old-style newspaper’ editorials, present views and thoughts.  Others, much like ‘old-style newspapers’ themselves, bring you a collection of posts from other places by giving a little intro with a link.  There are other types of blogs, but this combination is usually quite effective in spreading news and ideas through the blogosphere. 

I like to think of the two types I described above as ‘articles’ and ‘newspapers’ – in the old fashioned ‘way’.  (In my own mind, I call the blogs who specialize in providing links to interesting places ‘blinks’ – ‘blogs+links’.)  And people learn which is which, and come to these sites with specific expectations.

Usually, I leave the ‘blinking’ to others much better at it than I….but when I came across this at Dime-a-Dozen, I didn’t quite know what to think…..

Robert writes:

Some random photos found on Flickr from a protest in 2006 – recognize the woman at the top?   Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party.  This is from the notorious anti-Israel/pro-Hezbollah rally in Toronto during the Lebanon War.  Scroll below to see why that rally was notorious.

This appearance of hers likely slipped under the radar as no one knew who she was back then.  We know who she is now, so doesn’t she have some explaining to do?

The sign reads: ‘Down with Zionism, USA, UK’

The fellow in the turban is Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah.  The flag of Hezbollah is obscured by the kid with the keffiyah headband.

The t-shirts read “Hezbollah”

 

I still don’t know what to think:  Elisabeth May, the leader of a ‘national party’ in Canada – and who had gained herself a spot at the ‘nationla leaders’ debate’ as such – featured speaking at a pro-Hezbollah rally??? 

By the way – did you know that green is the sacred colour of Islam?  Talk about a ‘hidden agenda’….

Holy junipers!

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

‘The Truth about big government’

September 16, 2008 — xanthippa

As the political debates rage on both sides of the 45th parallel, it might be timely as well as interesting viewing:

The Truth About Big Government (part 1 of 2)

The Truth About Big Government (part 2 of 2)

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , . 3 Comments »

‘Tax cut’ vs. ‘tax rebate’

September 15, 2008 — xanthippa

What exactly is the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’?  There are several very fundamental differences.

First, let us look at ‘taxes’: 

Taxes are the money we pay to our government.  This money is supposed to be used for something people need to get together for in order to achieve, such as ‘policing’ and ‘national defence’.  Other ‘common goods’, such as education, road construction, and so on,  are among the things we contract our governments to do.  Paying taxes is the way we ‘pool our pennies’ to do this. 

We pay taxes in many ways.  It can be through income taxes, where an employer has to take a part of a worker’s earnings and send it to the government – only the remnant goes to the worker.  Or, it can be through consumption taxes, where part of the price of each product or service is raised by some amount which is then paid (remitted) by the merchant or service provider to the government.  There is more, but – you get the picture.

The government has lots of wonderful, highly trained (and higly paid) civil servants who keep meticulous records of every penny that comes in:  whom it comes from and where it is going.  They also keep meticulous records making sure everybody has paid what they are supposed to.

Tax Cut

In a tax cut, the amount of money the government asks for is reduced.  Fewer pennies are coming into the government coffers, so more of them stay in your pocket – either because less of your wages gets sent to the government so that more can go to you, or because the price you pay for something is closer to its cost, since the price is less artificially raised by taxes. 

It also means that fewer pennies are entering the government coffers.  And (in an ideal world) fewer pennies coming in means fewer people who need to keep meticulous records of the pennies.  As in, fewer highly skilled, well paid professionals whose salaries are paid from all these pennies coming in.

Tax Rebate

A tax rebate works very differently.  The government is asking for the same amount of money to be sent into the government coffers, so the same amount of money is taken from a worker’s paycheque as before and sent to the government.  Buying ‘stuff’ is still expensive, because the price of everything still includes the same amount of of taxes – which are sent to the government coffers. 

The legions of highly trained (and highly paid) civil servants still keep meticulous track of all of this.  Then, at the end of the year, after the civil servants have done all the figuring out and balancing of things, they decide how much more you have paid than you should have.  So, they issue a cheque for this amount and send it to you. 

All this time, these pennies were in the government coffers, not in your pockets – so it was much harder to make the ends meet during the whole year….but now, you get a little bit back.

These are the ‘mechanics’, if you will, of the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’.  But there is another very important difference between these two – a difference I have not really heard people discussing. 

It is the difference in who is dominant in the government-taxpayer relationship.

When we pay taxes to our government, we are, in effect, contracting the government to act on our behalf in certain areas.  We, the taxpayers, are the boss.  Yes, the government has means to coerce us to pay, but the psychological and philosophical principle holds for how the relationship is set up.  The individual is the one who is employing the government, the individual is the empowering partner in the relationship.

When the government sends us rebates, it is the government who is the decisionmaker and the dominant partner in the relationship.  The taxpayer is reduced to the grateful recipient while the government is the power which decides who deserves to get money, and how much.

To make it easier to understand the relationship, let’s reduce the scale to the level of a family.  One partner works and earns a paycheque, the other looks after the household. 

If the earner controls the money, then the earner decides how much to hand over to the one who looks after the household and how much to keep.  The house-keeper may ask for extra when needed, but it is the earner who is in control.  If, on the other hand, the earner hands over the full paycheque to the house-keeper, and perhaps gets a little allowance for personal expenses, it is the house-keeper who is in control…  as in the first minute or so of the clip below:

To sum up, the idea behind a tax rebate in Oscar’s words:   ‘Holy hell!  The government has us on an allowance!’

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