If Apple Loses, the Terrorists Win

Hello my friends,

I hope all is well with you! Today is my birthday, so, Happy Birthday to me!

I have been thinking of late about the recent court order obtained by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation which compels Apple to create a new iOS to hack the iPhone of one of the suspects in the 2015 San Bernadino terrorist attack. Apple has of course refused and appealed the order and many other tech companies and experts are uniting to stand with Apple in this argument.

Obviously, I don't think that the government should be able to force any company to do such a thing. The FBI's arguments are spurious at best and the law that the order was based on was written in 1789. Seriously. 1789. A smartphone would have seemed like either magic or something devilish in 1789. No law regarding technology could encompass the security of a smartphone. Here's the link to the Wikipedia article regarding it that even mentions the Apple case and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't really want to get into the legal arguments here. That's why lawyers make so much money... so they can argue with each other.

I want to discuss why the FBI wants the phone unlocked and why the families of the victims want it too: fear. (The families are also probably angry and hurt and would like some closure.)

Fear is a powerful motivator. Fear can make us do things we might not otherwise do. Things that would seem ridiculous if we had never had reason to fear. Things like force a technological giant to write new software (that doesn't even currently exist) to hack into it's current software and open up the potential (heck it's not a potential it's practically guaranteed) for the US Government and their Patriot Act to access anyone's phone (and all that entails) anytime.

Sure they say they'll only use it this one time... Right. Then it'll happen again. And again.

Of course it won't stop with the FBI. If we're lucky, it will stay in the US. (As if.) If it exists, it will get everywhere. If the US government can compel Apple to do this and give it to them, then why can't Russia? Or China? And if it exists then the hackers will get it too.

The FBI is playing right into the terrorists' hands. What do terrorists want? To cause terror. To instil fear in a population; usually for political purposes. Well they have succeeded. We are afraid of terrorists.

But are we afraid enough to give up all of our civil liberties? The Patriot Act was seen by some as the beginning of a slippery slope, but the government response was: if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear from it. Obviously that's not a quote, but that's the gist. It's called a slippery slope for a reason: once you're on it, it's very difficult to stop sliding down it to the inevitable end (hell, an Orwellian-like state aka 1984, etc.).

I have a tendency to take a situation to the extreme in a hypothetical because it's always a possibility: what's the worst that can happen? Everyone everywhere can lose their privacy. Why? To what end? For the semblance of safety? Giving the government access to our phones won't make anyone anywhere any more safe than anyone currently is. (A much more effective way to keep more people safe would be to take guns away from the citizens of the US but that's not happening is it? But that's a whole different kettle of fish for a different post.)

The FBI wants to access the phone because there 'may' be information relating to other 'potential' terrorist activities or other 'potential' terrorists. They don't even know that there is anything on it for sure and they are willing to risk eroding basic civil liberties... A judge is willing to do this!!!! How scared are they?

We can't live our lives in fear. Terrorists have committed atrocious acts, yes; but we can't allow those few acts to dictate how we govern ourselves or we have already let them win. Wikipedia tells us that the number of people in the US who died in car accidents in 2014 was 32,675. Another statistic I found from START (Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism) indicates that according to the Global Terrorism Database, 3,066 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks from September 11, 2001 through December 31, 2014 (2,902 occurred on September 11, 2001).

I am not suggesting that those 3,066 lives don't matter: all lives matter. But are they worth changing the fabric of society for? Because that's what this argument is about.

Heart disease is the number one killer in North America but potato chips are still legal (as they should be). We are more likely to die from our lifestyle choices (texting while driving, heart attacks, Type II Diabetes, drinking alcohol, smoking) than we are from terrorist attacks but no one is suggesting that our right to make our own nutrition choices be curtailed.

In another post, at another time, we can discuss the idea of privacy in this new world of cameras everywhere, but for now, I respect the right to privacy and your ability to have whatever funny photos you want to keep private, kept private.

Drive safe peeps!

The Social Contract... wait, what?

Hey peeps!  Long time!  Thanks for tuning in!

Yes, I am still around, and I do occasionally think of interesting things, I've just been really busy playing Candy Crush for a while... ;)

All kidding  aside, I finally decided to write something down because a) I find myself with a little spare time this evening, and b) it occurs to me that perhaps not everyone (of the age of majority) in Canada knows that they are indeed participating in a social contract and what that entails.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a good book about the idea of a social contract a few hundred years ago.  It was called Leviathan; famous for it's rather quotable idea (often misquoted) that life 'in a state of nature is... nasty, brutish and short':  

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.^[5]

 Rousseau later wrote a book called (oddly enough) The Social Contract.  Both excellent works as far as I'm concerned. 

To save you the effort of reading them (I know you're busy too), I'll sum up:  in order to enjoy a life free from the constant anxiety found in a state of nature (i.e. free from worry that your neighbour will rise up against you at any time for any reason; free to pursue your pursuits, whatever they may be; free to actually walk around freely, without undue fear) society needed to get together and come up with some kind of agreement.  An agreement that would allow us to feel safe in our homes.  An agreement that it was indeed not cool to attack your neighbour just because you wanted some of the stuff in her house.  An agreement that society could be and should be civilized and that we, as citizens of that society, should work together for the greater good.

Clearly I am paraphrasing A LOT.  And obviously, I've left out a lot about their discussions regarding government  and personal liberties etc., but the essence of a social contract is that we, the people participating in the social contract, agree to do so willingly, for the greater good (our safety and our betterment is included in this greater good too).  And that we give up certain things in exchange for the security the social contract affords us.  Things like the freedom to kill others willy-nilly, or steal their stuff.

So what is this greater good you ask?  I'm glad you asked!  Hobbes mentions some things in the quote above.  Arts, letters (written works), society itself, commerce, exploration, (and I'm going further here now) advancements in technology, education, medicine.  This list could go on ad infinitum.  Essentially the greater good is that which is good for humankind, that which is good for the advancement of the species:  our species.  US.  All of us.  You and me.

One of the reasons that I've been thinking about the the idea of the social contract lately is that we, as a society, seem to have forgotten the idea of a greater good.  I don't know whether or not you've noticed this, but it seems to me that we have become incredibly self-absorbed.  To some degree it may be that we just aren't as polite as we used to be but even beyond that, it's as though nothing else matters but us.  You could call it self-absorbed-ness (I know, that's not a word).

Everyone with access to the internet seems to think that he or she is an expert on something (or everything) and that everyone else in the world needs to know this and should join in (read: follow his or her example).   There is a ridiculous ad being shared on the interwebs by Similac that is supposed to remind us (well, mothers I think) that despite our differences, we all have the same goals, but it really just serves to remind us how extreme we've become in our know-it-all-ness (again, I know it's not a word) and our self-absorbed-ness.  We are so busy surfing the web and trying to tell other people how great we are that we lose sight of what's really important:  the greater good.

There's that term again!  What is up with that?!?  Well, when we're parents, the greater good is raising our children and everything that goes into that.  But then of course, everyone is an expert on that too:  no one agrees on anything, and everyone does their own thing which does no one any good, least of all the children; who, as Whitney Houston told us, are our future.  I jest only slightly.  I really do believe that raising children is a very serious responsibility.  It's why I haven't chosen to do it:  I would probably mess it up.  Before any of you think I'm being judge-y about parents, I'm not:  I admire people who are creating our future.  It is a tough job raising children, and, as is evidenced by that commercial, lots of people are always judging you as a parent.  It is always easier to criticize than to create.

I think one of the reasons that parents in particular seem to have forgotten 'the greater good' is that there is SO much involved in being a parent.  People want to do the best they can.  They want to provide the best life they can for their kids; they want to make sure their kids are as best prepared for the big scary world (which we know from Thomas Hobbes can be nasty, brutish and short) as they can be.  They want to protect them from it for as long as they can, and they want to make sure that they are not hurt by it in any way.  Unfortunately, this is impossible.  No one is perfect.  Life is not perfect.  Life is not fair.  You are never going to prevent your child from ever getting hurt ever; no matter how much research you do.  Regardless of how much you love them and how hard you try:  you can't always protect them from everything.  They have to live in this world.

But in our efforts to protect our children from the nasty brutish world, we seem to have lost sight of why we have a social contract in the first place.  Of course our instincts have always been to protect our children (it's why vaccines were developed in the first place), and now that most of us have never seen first hand what life in a developing nation is like, we have no idea the privilege we've been granted by our ancestors who first created the social contracts which enabled the societies we live in today.

As a result of social contracts, we, Canadians, enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world.  (I know, I've seen the discrepancies.)  With very few exceptions: we have hot and cold running water in our homes; we have national highways and railways from coast to coast to coast.  We have an airline that flies coast to coast to coast.  We have phone service all over the country.  (And we take all of this for granted:  not everyone can get anywhere in their country easily, or phone anyone from anywhere.)  We have universal healthcare (granted it's a little broken, but if you're having a heart attack, you'll be taken care of).  We have universal public education (again, not perfect, but it's pretty good and it's covered by your taxes).  We have labour laws.  We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  We have the right (obligation) to elect our own government, and the right to complain about it.  These are just the basics;  we have world class universities, museums, hospitals, and there is so much more, too much to list.  Compare all of this to life in Hobbes's state of nature:  we would have none of that if no one ever thought beyond what was best for him or herself (or their children).

So what is the actual greater good?  I'm sure people would debate that too.  A little bit of knowledge (and access to Google) can be a dangerous thing.

My short definition of the greater good is the advancement of humankind; not at any cost mind you, but overall.  I know that's easy for me to say when I have no children.  I know that your life changes completely when you have a child and that nothing else seems to be very important anymore (this seems to hold true for people in my life anyway).   

From a slightly distanced perspective (i.e. not a parent) it seems to me that the more import we put on ourselves and our children (i.e. the good of the one or few over the good of the many) the closer we get to being back in a state of nature.

I don't want to live like that.  Do you?

If we've learned anything from Star Trek, it's that Spock is usually right and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Until next time, drive safe!

Lesley

Judge Blames Victim in Sexual Assault Case? In Canada!

Hey Peeps!

Hope all is well with everyone.

A friend of mine posted a link to this article on Facebook.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at first. The I clicked on a few more stories (here's CBC's) and it seems to be true. A judge actually let a convicted rapist go free without jail time because the woman the rapist assaulted was dressed provocatively.

I'm in a little bit of shock right now. I know that there are still men in the world (and even this country) who probably believe that women 'deserve' to be raped, or 'are asking for it' when they're dressed in short skirts and tight tops and are wearing make-up, but I used to think that the men we trusted in our judicial system were more enlightened. I used to think that women who were brave enough to face their rapists would at least find some justice in the system and would be able to feel safe for a little while whilst their attackers were thinking about their actions in jail. I used to think that our justice system was moving forward, not backwards.

It seems that I was mistaken. This makes me sad. Decisions like this reinforce the idea that we really are not even close to being equals. Every now and then I get a little bit too optimistic, and I believe that we're moving towards equality in a slow, but steady manner; then something like this happens and I'm reminded that we're really only half a step above the state we were at when we weren't even allowed to own property.

I have nothing more to say about this right now.

Drive safe peeps,

Corrective Rape???

Good day my friends! I know it's been a while; I hope you've all been well.

The following was forwarded to me in an email and while it includes a plea to sign a petition, I'm not asking you to do so: you can follow your own conscience there.

The reason I'm copying it here is because I had never even heard the term 'corrective rape' before and I'm fairly up-to-date on current events. Or so I thought. The story is not pretty (rape stories never are), but the statistics included in the email are abysmal. I am aware that you can't believe everything you read, but I did a little checking and found that while I couldn't get all of these stats verified exactly, the numbers are supported elsewhere on the net (at least to some degree).

The stories at the ends of a couple of the links made me want to cry. Just warning you.

Anyway, that's enough from me because it's a bit of a long-ish post on its own, so without further ado:

Millicent Gaika was bound, strangled, tortured and raped for five hours by a man who crowed that he was ‘curing’ her of her lesbianism.

She barely survived, but she is not alone -- this vicious crime is recurrent in South Africa , where lesbians live in terror of attack. But no one has ever been convicted of 'corrective rape'.

Amazingly, from a tiny Cape Town safehouse a few brave activists are risking their lives to ensure that Millicent’s case sparks change. Their appeal to the Minister of Justice has exploded to over 140,000 signatures, forcing him to respond on national television. But the Minister has not yet answered their demands for action.

Let's shine a light on this horror from all corners of the world -- if enough of us join in to amplify and escalate this campaign, we can reach President Zuma, who is ultimately responsible to uphold constitutional rights. Let’s call on Zuma and the Minister of Justice to publicly condemn ‘corrective rape’, criminalise hate crimes, and ensure immediate enforcement, public education and protection for survivors. Sign the petition now and share it with everyone -- we’ll deliver it to the South African government with our partners in Cape Town :

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

South Africa , often called the Rainbow Nation, is revered globally for its post-apartheid efforts to protect against discrimination. It was the first country to constitutionally protect citizens from discrimination based on sexuality. But in Cape Town alone, the local organization Luleki Sizwe has recorded more than one 'corrective rape' per day, and impunity reigns.

'Corrective rape' is based on the outrageous and utterly false notion that a lesbian woman can be raped to 'make her straight', but this heinous act is not even classified as a hate crime in South Africa . The victims are often black, poor, lesbian women, and profoundly marginalised. But even the 2008 gang rape and murder of Eudy Simelane, the national hero and former star of the South Africa women's national football team, did not turn the tide. And just last week Minister Radebe insisted that motive is irrelevant in crimes like 'corrective rape.'

South Africa is the rape capital of the world. A South African girl born today is more likely to be raped than she is to learn to read. Astoundingly, one quarter of South African girls are raped before turning 16. This has many roots: masculine entitlement (62 per cent of boys over 11 believe that forcing someone to have sex is not an act of violence), poverty, crammed settlements, unemployed and disenfranchised men, community acceptance -- and, for the few cases that are courageously reported to authorities, a dismal police response and lax sentencing.

This is a human catastrophe. But Luleki Sizwe and partners at Change.org have opened a small window of hope in the fight against it. If the whole world weighs in now, we could get justice for Millicent and national action to end 'corrective rape':

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

This is ultimately a battle with poverty, patriarchy, and homophobia. Ending the tide of rape will require bold leadership and concerted action to spearhead transformative change in South Africa and across the continent. President Zuma is a a Zulu traditionalist, who has himself stood trial for rape. But he condemned the arrest of a gay couple in Malawi last year, and, after massive national and international civic pressure, South Africa finally approved a UN resolution opposing extra-judicial killing in relation to sexual orientation.

If enough of us join this global call for action, we could push Zuma to speak out, drive much-needed government action, and begin a national conversation that could fundamentally shift public attitudes toward rape and homophobia in South Africa . Sign on now and spread the word:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

A case like Millicent’s makes it easy to lose hope. But when citizens come together with one voice, we can succeed in shifting fundamentally unjust, but deeply ingrained practices and norms. Last year, in Uganda , we succeeded in building such a massive wave of public pressure that the government was forced to shelve legislation that would have sentenced gay Ugandans to death. And it was global pressure in support of bold national activists that pushed South African leaders to address the AIDS crisis that was engulfing their country. Let’s join together now and speak out for a world where each and every human being can live without fear of abuse.

With hope and determination,

Alice, Ricken, Maria Paz, David and the rest of the Avaaz team

SOURCES:

Blog of Luleki Sizwe, South African organization leading the call to their government to stop 'corrective rape', and provides support to victims
http://lulekisizwe.wordpress.com

Minister of Justice Radebe’s nationally televised interview (South African Broadcasting Corporation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkx-PYqHM0U

Protest against ‘corrective rape’ (The Sowetan)
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/01/06/protest-against-corrective-rape


Petition launched on Change.org by activists from Luleki Sizwe
http://humanrights.change.org/petitions/view/south_africa_declare_corrective_rape_a_hate-crime

" South Africa 's shame: the rise of child rape" (The Independent)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-africas-shame-the-rise-of-child-rape-1974578.html

"Exploring homophobic victimisation in Gauteng , South Africa : issues, impacts, and responses" (Centre for Applied Psychology, University of South Africa )
http://www.avaaz.org/out_ucap_gauteng_study

"We have a major problem in South Africa " (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/18/south-africa-murder-rape

" South Africa : Rape Facts" (Channel 4)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/south-africa-rape-facts

"Understanding men’s health and use of violence: interface of rape and HIV in South Africa " (Medical Research Council)
http://gender.care2share.wikispaces.net/file/view/MRC+SA+men+and+rape+ex+summary+june2009.pdf

"Preventing Rape and Violence in South Africa " (Medical Research Council)
http://www.mrc.ac.za/gender/prev_rapedd041209.pdf

Drive safe peeps,

Peace out

Dr. Morgantaler, I presume?

Greetings loyal friends and readers.

Happy summer to you all! Well at least to those of you living in the northern hemisphere. To those who do not, I wish a jolly cozy winter!

Enough with the niceties though. I've been thinking a fair amount recently about the appointment of Dr. Henry Morgantaler to the Order of Canada.

As you may expect, I think that this was an appropriate decision. If you know anything about his history, you don't need me to explain why, or if you read the story in the link, you also don't need me to explain why. I will simply state here that Dr. Morgantaler was perhaps the single most important figure in Canada's road to legalizing abortion.

What I've been thinking about though isn't really about what Dr. Morgantaler has done, or why I feel he is so worthy of one of our country's greatest honours. I was thinking about the other members of the Order, a former lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, Gilbert Finn, a B.C. Priest, and a charity organization whose founder received the award posthumously, the Madonna House, who have either returned their awards or have stated publicly that they are going to because the Order has been 'degraded', 'devalued' and 'tarnished' by Morgantaler's membership.

Why am I focussed on this you ask? Predominantly because Canadians are, in general, polite, and the actions mentioned above are not at all polite. Why were they doing this? What was their motivation? Clearly this was a good opportunity for at least one or two of these people to get another fifteen minutes of fame. I'm torn on how to feel about the Madonna House people's motivation. The award wasn't really theirs. Who are they to give it back? Regardless, it struck me that people have become so entirely self-centred and self-serving that it doesn't seem to matter that they are insulting our country. They have been granted one of the highest distinctions available in our country and they are publicly throwing it back in our faces and spitting on it. Figuratively of course. Who would even do that with a gift you didn't really want? Did no one teach them manners? It's as though they were invited to a party and arrived and found out that someone they don't like was also invited so they make a big fuss about not staying, but they're probably going to take their loot bags with them.

It's one thing for anti-abortion activists to protest in front of Rideau Hall. People are always protesting something (they clearly have known no real hardship in their lives and thus need some excitement) and they will continue to do so until they get what they want (which will never happen). It is a whole other thing for someone who has done good works and has been recognized by the government as such to publicly protest the government's decisions in such a gross and childish manner.

If they felt this strongly about abortion then why did they accept the awards in the first place? Abortion was legalized by the government, not by Dr. Morgantaler. If it's abortion they abhor, they should be protesting at abortion clinics or at the legislative buildings in Ottawa. That's where abortion became legal. Instead, they're simply discriminating against one man who was brave enough to stand up for what he believed in to the point of incarceration, death threats and attempts on his life.

As far as I'm concerned the abortion issue is closed. Any person should have the right to self-determination. That is a basic human right in Canada. Abortion became legal in 1988. Twenty years ago it was decided that a woman should not have to ask a committee for permission. It took a long time to get to that point. Dr. Morgantaler was instrumental in that process. He was a key figure and a leader in his field. He deserves the Order of Canada just as much as Wayne Gretzky.

Thanks for stopping by!

Drive safe peeps,

Guillermo Vargas Habacuc

Hello all!

How are you? I hope this finds you well. Sorry I've been out of touch for a while, but I can be like that sometimes. I do sincerely apologize. Especially since I have so many things to write about!

The first thing that comes to mind is in regards to the above-mentioned person: Guillermo Vargas. Ever heard of him? I hadn't until a couple of my friends joined a group called 'Starving Dogs is Not Art - Please Stop this Artist!' on Facebook. Needless to say, I followed the links and found out (through many many links and several twists and turns and convoluted allegations) that this man (allegedly an artist) tied a starving dog to a wall in an art gallery in Costa Rica, placed a bowl of food just outside the dog's reach, and allowed it to die. This was his 'art' piece.

The reason I have used the word alleged more than once is that, as with many sensational stories found on the web, there are many different threads one might follow and it's not always easy to determine the truth.

The truth, as far as I could determine, is that the artist did pay some local kids to catch the stray dog, he did tie the dog to the wall of the gallery, and he did place dog kibble outside of the dog's reach. The patrons of the gallery did not seem to do anything to try to save the dog. The dog did ultimately die (it was already a hungry stray, and it happened in a couple of days). This happened last August. The judges of some art contest decided (on the basis of this show) that Vargas would be among those who represent Costa Rica at the Central American Biennial Exhibition of Art 2008 in Honduras. There has been considerable public condemnation of this artist and his art and there is an on-line petition asking that he not be allowed to show at the biennial. The petition has over one million signatures on it.

Here is a link to one of the original stories published in a Costa Rican online paper, nacion.com. It's in Spanish. You can translate the page using babelfish or you can believe me.

Some people are suggesting that the whole thing was a hoax and that the artist made his point. However, from what I can tell, the dog died. Snopes claims that the status is undetermined. The artist has pulled his website and his myspace pages. Prior to pulling them, he had apparently claimed that the dog would have died anyway, so the fact that the dog died after a day tied to a wall in a gallery makes no difference. He wanted to show people the hypocrisy of humans who ignore stray and dying dogs on the street, but feel anger when one is tied up in a gallery and denied food. Another sound bite from him (translated and paraphrased of course) was that if they were so worried about the dog, why did none of the people call the police or try to remove the dog. He also claimed the exhibition was in honour of a man who had been attacked and killed by two rottweilers in a factory: Mr. Natividad Canda.

This is a link to a page which claims to have the whole true story...

Regardless of why he did it, it seems pretty clear that it was done. Apparently, the Costa Rican powers-that-be in the arts realm have decided to let Vargas go to the Biennial because he will not be using a live animal in this exhibition, so it will not be like the last one. Care2

Wow... that was a pretty long back story wasn't it? I was considering not writing this post because I did not want to contribute to the press, but figured I wouldn't really be adding much.

So, what do we think about this? I don't mean about the poor dead dog. Obviously it's a bad thing for any being to die cruelly of starvation. Tethering a dog to a wall is as bad as putting it in a cage and I don't like putting any animals on display in an enclosure from which they cannot escape. No, I don't like zoos, and I leave it at that.

... but I digress.

My take on this story (and the ensuing public backlash) is that I don't think that Mr. Vargas counted on the power of the internet to spread his cruel photos all over the world. I think that he may have wanted to make the point about hypocrisy (and garner some extra publicity via the sensational nature of his exhibition), but didn't take into account the fact that animals have different rights in different parts of the world. Particularly in North America (I'm sure they do in Europe too, but I've no direct experience with that) where the family dog is literally a part of the family, and stray dogs are essentially a thing of the past. Of course, we all know that there are still strays, but not nearly to the extent that there are in other places in the world I've been, and apparently, in Costa Rica. A stray dog would not last long here before someone called the SPCA or Animal Control to take the dog to a shelter. We love our dogs! (Well, I love my cat, but I was using the royal 'we'.)

Thus, I think his mean (and I use that word in it's truest sense) exhibition and intentions have backfired against him and have shown that he is primarily sensationalist, rather than insightful commentator on the human spirit. He would not be allowed to show that exhibition in Canada (I'm not sure about the States, but I doubt it), not only because we have laws about the prevention of cruelty to animals, but also because there would be far too much public outcry even before he could set it up.

I don't really have much else to say about this. I sincerely hope that we (humans) do not become so debauched and desensitized that someday we will view torture of living beings as art or entertainment because that would be wrong.

Poor little Minou has been in hiding since she read about this... I told her she didn't need to worry because I would protect her!




Thanks for tuning in peeps!

What's Happening to our Little Girls?

Hello peoples,

I was sitting in a waiting room again the other day so I picked up a Maclean's that I hadn't read. It was old(ish); I think it was from January. The letters section had several letters from readers about an article in a previous issue on how we're dressing our daughters. They made me want to read the article, but that issue wasn't there and I had to go, so I looked it up online and found it here.

It's a little long, but the essence of it was that we're dressing our daughters like little tarts and the author of the article was investigating the possible reasons as to why. She covered most of the common answers: girls are hitting puberty earlier, they are trying to emulate older girls, girls and young women have become one of the most targeted demographics for marketers, and my personal fave "everyone else is wearing it".

I will grant you that girls are reaching puberty at earlier ages on average now than we did when I was a pre-teen. I will also grant that little girls have always looked up to and wanted to imitate the older girls in their lives, this is not new. However, the next two reasons don't really hold water for me. Since when do we buy kids things they don't need just because someone has introduced them to the market? Further, I don't know about you, but when I was a kid if someone said to my mom "everyone else is doing it", her usual response was "if everyone else decides to jump off a bridge are you going to do that too?"

The article mentions that one company introduced a line of thongs for little girls 'because little girls worry about visible panty lines too'. The only reason a child would possibly care about this is if we told her to. There is no reason to even mention something like that to a child, and even if she has visible panty lines, that's okay. She's a child: she should be wearing underwear! With the days of the week, or superheros or flowers or something on them! Not things like 'juicey' or 'sweetcheeks'.

Another argument for allowing your daughter to dress like a skank is that parents don't want their daughters to not fit in with her peers and what with all of the pressures of life, sometimes it's just easier to give in. Well, I admit, I am not a parent, so this is a little bit like a priest giving marital advice, but I'm going to anyway. As soon as you let your children pressure you into making decisions you don't want to make just because you're tired or stressed out, you've lost control and you will never get it back. What kind of a lesson are you teaching your daughter with behaviour like that?

Or, you just don't care all that much and are just using that explanation as an excuse. Which is entirely possible. There are many many young women today leaving nothing to the imagination and they think they're sexy. They dress like that on purpose. Perhaps they think it's cute to dress their 6 year old just like mommy.

For the record, these clothes are not practical. Plastic heels for toddlers are counterproductive to their proper spinal development. Plus, they could hurt themselves. Tank tops? On a child? Low rise jeans? Toddlers and little girls typically do not have hips to hold them up and thus, they slip down. Belly tops? Mini skirts? You really can't do much in a mini skirt.

One of the biggest obstacles we have to overcome as a society before women and men are really equals is the sexual exploitation of women. One of the more insidious aspects of our sexual oppression is that it is so ingrained in society that most of us (women included) don't even question it. We think that because women can 'choose' or we can say 'no' that we are now equals. We think that pornography is okay because the women participating aren't being forced. This is simply not true. I am not going to digress into a rant against the pornography industry right now, but this is where it begins. With little girls. And they keep getting younger and younger.

Why are we dressing our little girls like tarts? If it's not sexual exploitation, then what is it?

Drive safe peeps, (and put a sweater on your kid!)

A Fitting End for a Dictator?

Good Morning Friends and Countrypeople (and Citypeople too ; )

Perhaps you'll all know this by now, but just in case reading my little blog is more imperative than reading real news, I will provide a bit of my own news coverage today. According to Iraqi news media, Saddam Hussein was hanged just around 0600 local time on Saturday (their local time, not mine).

Here are some links if you want all the salacious details...

From the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/29/saddam-dead.html

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm

I'm pretty sure that everyone who's ever read an article or seen a story on Saddam has an opinion about him and his 'crimes against humanity'. I would never deny that he has committed any: I don't really know. He has been found guilty in a court of law (I won't deal with the legality of that court here, it's not my purpose), and thus (according to our social contract) he should be punished for his actions.

My topic for today is: What should that punishment be?

The question is whether or not any of our crimes should be dealt with by death. I'm not personally a fan of the death penalty. I don't believe that 'an eye for an eye' brings justice to anyone concerned. If I steal from you, taking my hand will not return your goods, it will only serve to fulfill your sense of vengeance, and cause more animosity and resentment (and perhaps more need for crime) in the world. It has nothing to do with justice. Revenge is not justice. If I kill your child, I have committed a wrong and I deserve to be punished. Is it right then to do the exact same thing in return to me? Is it okay just because it is state-sanctioned? Again, it is essentially just vengeance. I am not going to split hairs and discuss whether or not innocent people may be executed by mistake. I'm just talking about the guilty ones here (this is theoretical). Even if I am guilty: there is incontrovertible proof, and I have confessed to premeditated murder, how is it just to do the same to me? Capital punishment is clearly premeditated. It is the deliberate taking of a human life. It is not just.

However, if you're not worried about justice and you're simply practical, then you might be in favour of capital punishment for the following reasons: as a deterrent (to others), as a method of removing the offender from society completely, and as an efficient way to deal with criminals (especially tryannical dictators perhaps). I think that it is relatively safe to say that we (as a society) have not been sucessful at rehabilitating criminals after a certain developmental stage (in fact, some stats show that prison is where many criminals become better criminals), so yes, the cost of incarcerating criminals can be a factor if you are more concerned with the bottom line than with justice. The bottom line ($), of course, being the end-all and be-all in the capitalist world. (Wow, I used the word criminals 4 times in one sentence!)

I'm sure that many of us have heard the same arguments (as listed above) for capital punishment, plus others perhaps. I've also heard people say that they were only in favour of the death penalty in extreme cases (e.g. Clifford Robert Olson). The biggest problem with that argument though is that it's difficult to draw a line. What exactly constitues an extreme case? Is it the depravity of the crime? Is it the number of deaths the person is responsible for? Is it the intent? And who decides where these lines are drawn? Can they be discretionary? What about Saddam and his crimes against humanity? What was his intent? Does he qualify as a serial killer? Did he actually kill people?

I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein is not guilty of anything or that he should not be punished. I'm simply suggesting that we do not have the answers to these questions. I'm also suggesting that the premeditated killing of people is never just, regardless of the cost of incarceration. When we let vengeance rule, we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by a 'mob mentality'. I've been told that I'm naive and that I would think differently if I had kids. Who can say? I can, however, say that exacting revenge as a society upon a criminal in a time where we need not do so to protect ourselves from that person (as an immediate threat) does not feel at all like enlightenment to me. In fact, it seems to be very visceral, violent and blood-thirsty. Especially when the dictator is hanged.

That's all for now!

Drive safe peeps,

George Stroumboulopoulos Plays Softball with Belinda

Greetings Good People,

I know, it's been a while, but you know me... I've been busy getting lost in the dark. So, I apologize and I would sincerely appreciate your forgiveness.

Moving on... CBC's The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos began its new season last week (how very exciting!) and like a good little Canadian, I've been watching it. Partly because it's Canadian, and partly because George amuses me; he makes me smile and frankly, I can use all the help I can get these days climbing back up out of the dark place. But I digress.

One of his first guests was Belinda Stronach and he did bring up the Tie Domi affair, but he let her off easily. She practically admitted it and he just let the statement float by without pouncing on it (la la la... I'm not listening). If you want to watch the whole interview, you can view it here:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1075

One of the points George made is that everyone is concerned about her personal life (i.e. whom she's dating) because she's a woman. However, I think that's wrong. He mentioned the next day after receiving email about it that he wasn't going to ask because he wouldn't ask a man. Well, isn't that nice and polite of him? I guess that's why we all love him so much. How very Canadian.

However, as a woman, I'd like to know why he didn't ask her why she thinks it's okay to commit adultery. I am nowhere near being a Conservative, nor am I a member of the religious right, but seriously folks: she practically admitted to being an adulterer on national television and George let it go. Yes, I know it happens all the time, and I know that you shouldn't judge someone until you've walked a day in her shoes, but she is one of the most powerful women in Canada and is supposed to be a role model for young women. What kind of a message is she sending? I seriously don't care about whom Belinda is dating, but could she not wait to go out in public with him until the separation papers were filed? Yes, I am holding her to a higher standard. It may seem unfair, but that's part of what you get when you sign up for the job. She is an elected official. I think George was going easy on her specifically because she is a woman and a newbie at politics. She's not ready for prime time and he knew it. Doesn't he realize that it's more insulting to treat someone with kid gloves than it is to give them a place at the grown-ups' table and let them take their lumps like everyone else? Maybe Belinda doesn't mind being babied because she's a woman and a newbie, but it bothers me. And yes, I would feel the same way about a single male politician committing adultery and admitting to it on national television.

Aside from the whole role model aspect, it bothers me that Belinda is a cheater. She broke the code. It's one of those unwritten female rules: you don't cheat with someone else's guy, even if you don't like her. You wouldn't want it to happen to you. If he wants you enough, he should break up with her first; if he doesn't then he's not worth it. Because if he's willing to cheat on her, then he's willing to cheat on you. I used to respect Belinda; I don't anymore.

For a little while I thought maybe George had lost more than his nose-ring. Then I saw him interview Iggy, and then Charles McVety and I regained a little faith. I will continue to watch Gemini-award-winning George. He makes me laugh and he interviews interesting people.

Thanks for dropping by.

Peace out peeps,

end internet child abuse: the light a million candles project

From Cold Desert via raincoaster... pass it on

The innocent victims of Internet child abuse cannot speak for themselves.

But you can.

With your help, we can eradicate this evil trade.

We do not need your money.

We need you to light a candle of support.

We’re aiming to light at least One Million Candles by December 31, 2006.

This petition will be used to encourage governments, politicians, financial institutions, payment organisations, Internet service providers, technology companies and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the commercial viability of online child abuse.

They have the power to work together. You have the power to get them to take action.
Please light your candle at lightamillioncandles.com.

Together, we can destroy the commercial viability of Internet child abuse sites that are destroying the lives of innocent children.

Squatting in the City

Aloha good peoples,

I was watching a bit of City TV news last week and saw a piece on this guy who lives under the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto who was being 'evicted' by the city because the city had planned repairs to the expressway:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2952.aspx

For those of you who do not live in Toronto, the Gardiner is a raised freeway which runs across the bottom of the downtown core along the lakeshore. It would be prime real estate, if not for the monstrosity of the actual freeway.

The background of this story (such as it is) is that Chris, who goes by the last name of Gardiner, started to live under the expressway in 1988 and built himself a little three room home there. A couple of months ago, the city notified him that he would have to vacate the premises because of the planned repairs. He refused to leave claiming that no one should have to pay to live on God's earth, and that city officials would have to forcibly remove him if they wanted him gone. Homeless advocates and poverty groups banded together to protest alongside him, so that when the eviction date came and went, the police had to remove not only Chris, but several other protesters as well. Seven of the protestors were arrested. City officials have said they will find Chris somewhere else to live. For details you can click here:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_2961.aspx

So, it seems that Toronto is the place to go to squat. This man lived rent free in downtown Toronto for 16 years before anyone did anything about it. I wouldn't mind living downtown, but I can't really afford a condo at Spadina and the Lakeshore. My place down there would cost at least $350K, plus maintenance fees, plus property taxes. This is why I don't live downtown; I like to have money for other things as well, like food and clothes. Granted, my place is a little nicer than his place looks. I have lots of amenities that he doesn't have (like hot and cold running water), but I pay for those amenities.

His argument is that people shouldn't have to pay to live on God's earth. That's a nice little argument, but it's impossible to prove. Let's not get into the whole 'does God exist argument' for the sake of argument, and stipulate that there is a God. How do we know that the earth belongs to God? How do we know that it doesn't belong to Bill Gates?

The bottom line is that we live in a capitalistic world whether we like it or not. This is not a choice. It's like suggesting that we have a choice as to whether or not we are born, or where we are born. We can protest capitalism and we can protest the nature of what society has become, but we can't simply deny it and expect everyone else to go along with it just because we want them to.

Our ancestors decided many moons ago to form the society of which we are now a part. If we want to change society, we can do that too, but not by simply not following the rules of society. I know I seem to harp about this a lot, but we agree to the terms of the social contract for many reasons. This man was benefitting from the shelter of the Gardiner Expressway, and benefitting by being a member of society (albeit a fringe member by choice) but was not contributing in the same way that is expected of every other free citizen who has reached the age of majority. That behaviour does not uphold the social contract. Once people stop meeting their obligations to the social contract the fabric of society will disintegrate. (I know, that seems extreme, this is only one guy who wants to live under a freeway, but I'm trying to make a point.) It's as though he's saying 'I'll obey some of your rules because they fit in with my lifestyle, but I don't really like these other ones, so I won't bother with those, but you guys can still provide me with the same benefits'. If every member of society picks and chooses which norms to follow, we will have chaos and society will revert to a state of nature.

And, as we know from Thomas Hobbes, life in a state of nature is 'nasty, brutish, and short.'
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/item/books-978039396798/0393967980/Leviathan?ref=Search+Books%3a+'thomas+hobbes'

I don't want that... do you?

Until next time peeps, peace out

The Social Contract Between the State and its Citizens

Bon Soir Mes Amies...

I was sitting in a waiting room today and so picked up a staple of doctors' waiting room reading in Canada: Maclean's. One of my personal faves for waiting room reading because not only do the articles vary in length: they can be short (sometimes only a page or two) or, if you're in for the long wait, they can be longer (six to ten pages even); they are current (if you have this week's issue) and they are Canadian.

The editorial this week brought up a thorny issue which I've not only heard discussed much of late, it's also something I've pondered somewhat frequently recently: did Canada have an obligation to rescue (at some risk and a not inconsequential expense) all Canadians from Lebanon and bring them back to Canada safely?

Apparently, the Canadian government promised passage to Canada to anyone holding a valid Canadian passport. This included full-time residents of Canada who were visiting Lebanon (i.e. people who live here and pay taxes here on a regular basis). This also included people who are not residents of Canada and no longer pay taxes here, but maintain a passport (presumably because a Canadian passport is good to have). And this included everyone in between these two states.

So, where do we stand on this one? Typically, in the event of wars, it is a government's responsibility to protect its citizens. (Silly me, it's a government's responsibility to protect its citizens in times of war or peace!) However, how far does that responsibility extend? As the editorial pointed out, Canada does not have a policy to govern these decisions, so we have made these decisions in the past (including this most recent one) on an ad hoc basis. Now that we've made this decision, law and policy following the rules that they usually do, we will probably continue along these lines that we have drawn in the sand: i.e. we have set precedence here and next time, the same will be expected of us. If we do not behave in the same manner (policy or not) that sitting government will be chastised and maligned as being heartless or brutal or some such beastly bureaucratic adjective.

Does that mean then, that we should continue along this same path simply because this is what has been done? Well that would be foolish; lemming-like even. It's possible that this is what will happen, but what should happen?

Some people have suggested that the government should be responsible for all Canadian citizens, regardless of where they currently reside. Others have suggested that we should be responsible only for those of us who are current residents. The editorial in Maclean's mentioned that others have even gone so far as to suggest that people who travel to high risk areas are putting themselves at risk and thus, the government should not be held responsible for the choices that those individuals make.

Currently, this is a very hot topic because of the war going on in Lebanon. Therefore, this is probably not the best time to come up with policy regarding these types of situations. I think it's also somewhat negligent of the government, because this is not the first time in the history of our country that this (sort of thing) has happened. We have been involved in world wars in the past. We have, more recently, had ex-patriates in parts of the world where there was civil unrest, or outright wars between other nations. After those crises were dealt with, we should have come up with policy. That is a responsibility of government. I don't suggest that the policy necessarily need be written in stone or be all-encompassing, but at least some general guidelines should have been sketched in at some point when there was no humanitarian crisis underway.

I mention the social contract in the title because that is precisely the issue at hand: with rights come responsibilities at some expense (whether the expense of some type of freedom, or, in some cases a monetary expense), and how far do those rights extend? Or, put another way, what exactly do you gain by consenting to the social contract? Well, currently, in Canada, once you become a citizen, you can get a passport, then move away, stop paying taxes and being a productive, contributing member of Canadian society, but as long as you maintain your passport, you are entitled to all the privileges and benefits that a resident Canadian taxpayer is. Healthcare is a slightly grey area, but you are essentially entitled to a rescue mission from your home in another country and relocation in Canada if need be. Once relocated in Canada, if you're hurt, you would not be denied medical attention. You are entitled to this even after you stop contributing to Canada in any way. You do not need to pay taxes, nor do you need to vote. You are entitled to other things as well, but for our purposes today, this is what is important.

While I may not hold a very popular view in light of the current situation in the mideast, I think that we need to get our government to come up with a policy which protects our citizens; predominantly the ones who actively participate in the social contract. Taking responsibility for people who do not participate is failing to protect those of us who do participate. We are being exploited by those people who take advantage of the fact that we have no policy and that we have a history of generous social programs.

How do we rectify this? By getting involved. Actively participate in your social contract. Make sure that your MP knows that this issue is important and that we shouldn't let this opportunity slip by again once the media hype moves on to the next big story.

I am not suggesting that we leave people to fend entirely for themselves, but it struck me as somewhat odd that many (perhaps most) of the people that were opting to be evacuated from Lebanon, were residents of Lebanon. These people live there. They were leaving their homes to come to Canada to avoid the war (understandable), but I kept thinking, 'why is this our responsibility?' It's one thing to give aid to foreign countries, especially in times like these, but what I was questioning was the tacit assumption that Canada was responsible for these ex-patriates. Not that we were helping, but that it was an obligation.

For many people, helping others (any others) is an obligation. I don't disagree: I think it's a moral imperative. But not all people all the time. I think the murkiest problem with this situation is that there are no official guidelines as to what the government's obligations are. People here don't know how far our rights extend, and people who leave here but maintain their passports do so with some degree of expectation of benefits. Unless and until those benefits are defined, there will always be confusion on this point.

That's all I have for now kids. Peace out,

Big Brother & Biometric Scans

So, I was perusing the news today and found this interesting little tidbit:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153692610630&call_
pageid=970599119419

According to this story, Canada's passport office is on the road to using biometric scans. The short version of the story is that once the system is implemented, they will be able to take your passport application photo, scan it into their system and run it against not only their database of passport photos (to see if you still look like your old passport photo, or if you've got another passport in a different name perhaps), but also against other databases of photos; photos of terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or maybe even photos of people we just don't like. Who knows who they'll compare your photo to right now; they haven't decided yet.

So, how do we feel about this one? Strangely enough, it doesn't really bother me. Of course, I've had my whole hand scanned into the INS' QuickPass database and that didn't bother me either because it meant that I could bypass the lines at US Customs & Immigration at the airport whenever I was flying into the States. That means that my prints are on file with the US government. Yes, I know what that means. Perhaps I'm naive, but I've always felt that if you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing serious to fear.

However, I do recognize the dangers that come with the new laws that were enacted after September 11 in the States and I am aware that the US government can now hold people (citizens of the US included) for an indeterminate length of time without charge, bail or attorney present on the suspicion of terrorism. Scary? Definitely. Even if you're caucasian and born in Canada. Luckily I don't have to travel to the States as much as I used to anymore.

So, am I at all worried about Canada's passport office scanning my photos into their database? Still not really. This may slow down processing time and it may increase the price of our passports, but I think the biggest reason it doesn't frighten me is that they're telling us about it.

When the time comes for them to implement the system, they will have decided which databases of photos they will be comparing the applicant photos against and they will tell us that too. If you'd like to opt out of this, you don't have to apply for a passport. If you're seriously against this, then you can protest it. However, at least we live in a country whose government tells its citizens when it is doing stuff like this. I think it would be more frightening if we didn't know about it and you only found out when your passport application was rejected on the basis that you look like someone else who already has a passport. Or worse, when they arrested you.

Ciao ciao peoples,

Cloning

So, it has begun.

Or at least, sort of. Those clever people at Harvard are proceeding directly against the wishes of Mr. Bush and they are starting to clone human stem cells.

This is a link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/06/stem-cells.html?ref=rss

This is a link to the BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056554.stm

This is a link to the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: http://stemcell.harvard.edu/index.jsp

So how do we feel about cloning? This particular project will not actually produce cloned individual humans. They are cloning human stem cells (or at least, that is what the stated goal is). There is a big difference.

For today's purposes, let's take them at their word and assume that they're just going to clone stem cells. Why is Mr. Bush so against this? He has apparently banned the use of federal funds for research in this area. What harm could there possibly be in cloning human stem cells?

First and foremost, stem cells are essentially the building blocks of the human body. These cells are the precursors to all of the other cells in the body so theoretically, any type of tissue can be grown from stem cells. That's why hospitals are saving babies' stem cells now; so that in case the child ever needs something in the future (blood, bone marrow, a new liver etc.) they will have their own stem cells available from which to grow the potential tissue.

Theoretically, this will eliminate the need for donor organs; or at least reduce the need. I don't mean tomorrow, I mean in the long term. Being able to grow new organs for replacement when the original ones give out will also mean that there will be a much greater chance of those organs being compatible and not being rejected by the rest of the body. Think of the lives this technology and skill will be able to save. At the very least, think about skin grafts. How many burn patients could be helped using grafts grown from stem cells and their DNA? Where is the harm in that?

Some people automatically look to the negative. They are the 'glass is half empty' type of people that we typically call pessimists. Others, like me, automatically look at the positives that are to be found. Strangely enough (I know, some of you may find this hard to believe) I am an optimist. I think that while there will almost always be moral quandaries, we cannot allow fear to hold us back from learning all that we can. I do not believe that we should allow a narrow view to hem in or create boundaries for science and our body of knowledge.

Yes, there will be negatives. Yes, there are possible harms; there almost always are. However, if the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms, then I don't think that we should hold ourselves back simply because there may be harm. There will always be people who will bring up the negatives. And there will always be people who will try to take advantage of any situation that they can. That is an unfortunate side effect of our current society. I don't want to come down too hard on capitalism (because once again, I don't have a better option at my fingertips), but some of the bigger moral dilemmas would arise from the gap between the haves and the have-nots and the distribution of the available technologies / services.

For example this technology is being developed in the US, using private funding at a private university. They do not support the idea of socialized or universal health care in the US. I doubt very much that the people who are funding this research are really doing so solely for the good of humankind. Not that one can ever truly know another's motivation, but certainly those funding the research will own any patents that will result from it and will profit from being the first across the line. The actual scientists will gain fame and acclaim and perhaps a certain degree of personal profit as well, and certainly there will be some amount of rigorous testing (any medical procedures require testing) which involves volunteers and double blind experiments etc. However, once the procedures are tried, tested and true, they will be offered to patients at a cost.

To begin with, how many of us have our stem cell blood available? Well, we don't, but some of our children do. But whose children do? In the GTA (greater Toronto area) there are some hospitals that offer the service for an initial harvesting fee then a yearly storage fee. This is in Canada, the land of universal health care. So, if you're not a yuppie, don't understand what the potential benefits of stem cell blood may be, or just can't afford the extra expenditure (which is relatively reasonable, less than most people spend on coffee in a year I believe), then you are excluded from this service. At least in the GTA. In Calgary or Edmonton (please forgive me for not remembering which) the hospitals have created a stem cell blood bank. Apparently, they harvest the stem cell blood from every birth at the hospitals and store it (they don't ask for permission and they don't charge) so that it can be used when and where needed. This resonates more with the universal health care chords in my head, except that your child's contribution is taken without your permission and may be used randomly, also without consent.

But I digress slightly. The moral issue I was intending to raise was the dilemma regarding distribution of services. It's one thing in Canada where we're saving our own stem cells, but what they're doing at Harvard is going to enable people to use stem cells to replicate anyone's cells. They will, theoretically, be able to remove the DNA from the donor stem cells and replace it with the DNA of the person who needs the new liver (for instance). Then the stem cells will generate a new liver according to the DNA of the intended recipient. It will be a clone (so to speak) of the person's original liver. So, the problem will arise in places like the US of A, where people will maybe not have to wait on lists for someone with compatible organs to die and have their loved ones consent to donate them. They will simply have to cough up a certain amount of money and wait for a new liver to grow in a lab somewhere. Then they can have their life-saving surgery. A person of lesser means on the other hand, may still have to wait for a donated organ. Once again, the haves will benefit and the have-nots will not.

Is this ethical? Well, I guess that depends on your basis of measurement, but my answer is no. Does that mean that I think the people at Harvard (or anywhere else) should stop their research until we can solve all of these possible moral dilemmas? Again, my answer is no. Some good will come of this. Some 'not so good' will also come along as well. We have to be prepared to deal with the bad along with the good, and we can't let the 'bad' prevent us from doing good.

Clearly there is a lot more to this subject, but that's all I have time for right now peeps.

a bientot,

$75 Million

The Globe and Mail recently published a list of the highest paid CEOs (I think in Canada). Apparently the highest paid CEO on the list made $75 million last year. Yes, you read that right, seventy five million dollars (okay, it was actually like 74.8, but I think we can round up for our purposes).

That is, in my humble opinion, completely beyond the pale. How can anyone justify that salary? I know that it wasn't all salary (it includes bonuses and other options), but seriously. That's just downright obscene. Absolutely no one deserves to make that much money (and if you know me at all, you know I don't like to make absolute statements).

I do not believe in the pursuit of profit for its own sake. I do not believe that capitalism is a good system. I have always believed that it will ultimately implode (the earth has a finite amount of resources, we will use them up, the only question that remains is: when will that happen?) once it gets too big, and here is a prime indicator that it is getting too big. Unfortunately, I have not yet come up with a solution to the problem, so I don't like to criticize too much (if you're not part of the solution, then clearly you're part of the problem), especially since my realization last year in Brazil that I have completely become a sell out.

However, I could not keep quiet on this one. $75 million dollars in one year is more than most people would even dream of. What the heck is he (and you know he's a man) going to do with all that money? It's not as though he had nothing prior to 2005. A CEO is probably living fairly well to begin with, so I'm sure he won't need it to buy a house or anything. His children are adults, so they're probably not going to need university tuition. Thus, I have a suggestion: spend the money educating people who need it.

I don't mean create an endowment for a chair in something rich and fancy. I don't mean create a scholarship for rich or privileged kids with good grades. One of my pet peeves is that almost all scholarships (except those that were created specifically for minorities by minorities and good for them because they are few and far between) are awarded to students with the best grades. Sure there are exceptions, some are for kids studying in certain fields, but within those fields, they are awarded to the kids with the best grades. Or they are awarded to kids from certain places, but again, they're given to the kids with the best grades. Sometimes they indicate something like 'must be able to demonstrate financial need', but just about any middle class kid in Canada who is going to college or university needs help to some degree.

You're probably all wondering what I have against kids with good grades. The answer is nothing really. What I have a problem with is the system. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all created equal. We are not all brought into this world on an equal footing and we do not make it through the primary and secondary school system as equals. Also contrary to popular belief, our capitalist society is far from being a meritocracy, and thus, we should not be awarding scholarships as though it is. If we want to further our society, we should invest in our children; all of them, not just the children of the elite. Not just the children born into privilege (and by privilege I'm including the middle class), but the children who may be able to excel with just a little bit more of an equal start.

Because once capitalism's bubble bursts, someone is going to have to try to pick up the pieces, and I think it would be best if we started planning for this future as soon as possible.

Rulings on Responsibility

Bonjour,

Those of us in Canada may have seen, read or heard about our Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Zoe Childs case. For those of you who are not in Canada, or who have managed to avoid the news recently, go here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/supremecourt/childs.html

Background: Zoe Childs and her boyfriend were driving in the early morning on January 1, 1999 after a New Year's Eve party and were hit head-on by a drunk driver. The accident resulted in the death of Zoe's boyfriend Derek (aged 17) and left Zoe (aged 18 at the time) a paraplegic for life. The driver who hit them (Desmond Desormeaux) lived and received a sentence of 10 years in prison for his crime. Zoe sued both the driver and the hosts of the party that he was attending for negligence to the tune of $6 million. She won her suit against the driver, but the suit against the hosts of the party was rejected by the court. She then appealed that decision at the Ontario Supreme Court level, which also denied her claim, so she took it to the Supreme Court of Canada which began hearings on her case in January of this year.

The results are in. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the hosts are not responsible for the actions of their guests unless the hosts' behaviour exacerbates the risk.

"A social host at a party where alcohol is served is not under a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by a guest’s actions, unless the host’s conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk," the Supreme Court said.

I think that what Zoe, her family, Derek's family and their whole community has suffered is a tragedy and I don't deny their pain. I do not deny the responsibility of the driver in any way, and the courts didn't either. However, there is now and there has always been a difference between moral obligation and legal obligation. While I don't want to delve too deeply into my philosophical roots, there is a dinstinction between the two.

There is a certain point at which childhood ends and we become responsible for our actions as autonomous moral agents. In Canada, the age of majority is 18. This means that this is the age at which we can vote, enter military service, enter into legal binding agreements etc. Without splitting too many hairs about the ages between 16 and 18, essentially if you screw up as a child, the state will let you off gently because we have determined that you're not fully formed as an autonomous moral agent yet. After that magical time at which you become an adult though, we expect you to take responsiblity for your actions. Sort of. At least until around the late 1980s or early 1990s anyway. I'm not an expert on this, but sometime around then people in the States started the trend of suing others (particularly big corporations) when they screwed up. For many reasons. The biggest one that comes to mind happened in the 90s when a woman successfully sued McDonald's for millions after she spilled her coffee in her lap and it burned her. As a result of this one lawsuit, all take away coffee cups (or lids) have 'Caution, contents may be hot' or something similar printed on them. (Which is helpful, because otherwise, I wouldn't know that the tea I just paid good money for was piping hot.)

So, when did we stop being responsible for our actions? Read the newspapers. Watch the news on t.v. It's staggering (to me anyway). The best place to start looking is at crime stories. The person who perpetrates the crime never seems to be responsible anymore. There is always an excuse for their behaviour. Perhaps they were abandoned as children (see earlier blog on abortion), perhaps they were abused. Perhaps they were downsized. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Some of the most bizarre lawsuits I've read about come from the US (seemingly more litigious than we). I have read stories about burglars suing homeowners because the family dog bit the burglar during the course of a break-in and the burglar won the suit and was awarded damages.

I'm reminded of something I heard as child. (Whoever told it to me is going to be upset that I don't remember who told me, but please forgive me if you're reading this.) The reasoning behind your behaviour when you screw up doesn't excuse it, it just explains it.

So, after rambling a little far and wide on this one, I'm not suggesting that Zoe is not taking responsibility for her actions. That's not what my rant today is about. It's kind of general. Zoe's story just brought this up. I'm glad that the Supreme Court held the driver responsible for his actions and not a third party. I'm sorry for Zoe and I understand why she would want people to pay. I would not wish her experience on anyone, but I wouldn't hold the hosts responsible.

To get back to the distiction between moral and legal obligations, as a party host (who doesn't often drink) I do pay attention to what my guests are drinking and I would feel a certain degree of responsibility if someone at one of my parties got into an accident after leaving as a result of drinking too much. However, that is a choice I make. I don't have big parties and I typically don't drink. This is something manageable for me. The law is something completely different. It is decided upon by our government (in this case a body of people appointed by our elected representatives), and it is something which applies to all citizens. We do not have a choice in this regard (aside from the choice to obey the law or not); the law is there as a part of our social contract which helps keep society functioning. After we reach the age of majority, we are active participants in that social contract (whether we vote or not) and we are responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others. We are not the babysitters of our guests. We are not responsible for other members of the social contract unless they are our children.

I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling.

Equality Goes Both Ways

Aloha,

I was watching Dr. Phil last week and I saw a segment about a guy who was suing the court to be released from the obligation to pay child support because he was not given any choice as to whether or not to have the child. He had a lawyer who was claiming that his rights were being denied using the same argument used in Roe v. Wade.

The background is that this guy and his girlfriend (both pretty young-looking) had discussed children. He had said that he wasn't ready, she told him she couldn't get pregnant, but was on the pill for other medical reasons. So he had stopped using condoms. Lo and behold, she became pregnant and kept the child. He had been ordered by a Michigan court to pay over $500 per month in child support.

As Dr. Phil pointed out, the only way to be sure that you're protected is to use protection (and as Ross from Friends found out, even then you can't be sure). However, while I'm glad I'm not the guy in the hotseat, I'm also glad this has finally come up. I've often thought the law a little one-sided when it comes to this issue. Please don't get me wrong: I know that women predominantly bear most of the burden and all that stuff, however, thinking abstractly, we really do have more options than men do.

We choose what type of birth control we use (for the most part), and after the fact, if we get pregnant, we have the ultimate voice in determining what happens with the pregnancy. We choose whether or not to tell our partners we're pregnant, we choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy full term and we choose whether or not to keep the child if we decide to have it. If we're married or in a committed relationship, chances are, we're going to make that decision with our partner, but if we're not, then the man involved might not even find out that he was almost a father.

So when a woman gets pregnant and chooses not to have the child, we applaud that woman's right to choose and her right to self-determination. However, when a woman gets pregnant (in this case against the expressed wishes of the man) and decides to keep and raise the child, the man is reviled by the audience of the Dr. Phil show as a deadbeat for not wanting to have anything to do with the child. That seems awfully incongruous to me. This particular case is still before the courts, so we didn't get to hear all the details from the woman's side (she declined the invitation to the show), but she was apparently not denying that they had discussed the baby matter before she got pregnant and his position had been made clear.

I do not think that a man should be able to choose whether or not a woman should be able to have an abortion, or could be made to have an abortion, but I think that in a case where a pregnancy occurs and the woman proceeds against the wishes of the man, perhaps we should rethink our ideas about what that man is responsible for.

How can we ever consider ourselves equal if we don't start taking responsibility for our actions? If a woman chooses to have a child on her own, she should be prepared to raise the child without the support (emotional, financial or otherwise) of the man involved. In a perfect world, this wouldn't happen. All pregnancies would be welcomed with open arms and there would never be another abortion or deadbeat dad; but we don't live in a perfect world.

The moral of the day: always wear a condom, except when you're trying to get pregnant.

Later peeps,

Hippocrates & Hypocrisy

Hi,

I can't sleep again, so I thought I would keep myself occupied by scribbling a little.

To further develop the train of thought I last hopped on, I thought I might discuss the role that doctors can/should/do play in this whole jumble we call life. First and foremost, it is a physician's responsibility to 'do no harm'. That is basically what the Hippocratic oath is. They take an oath to not hurt people. Beyond that, the rest is gravy.

Seems simple enough right? Unfortunately nothing is simple when it comes to abortion. The first question here is what constitutes harm? Then, harm to whom? Then, how to weight harms? Who decides the answers to these questions? On what basis are those decisions made?

Not so simple anymore...

So what constitutes harm? The new legislation passed in South Dakota makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion unless the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you have to stipulate that a law which prohibits doctors from acting in the best interests of their patients on an individual basis is one which prevents them from upholding their oath to do no harm. You may argue that an abortion is harming a fetus, but not performing an abortion on an unwanted pregancy is also doing harm; perhaps not as dramatic, but harm nonetheless. It is refusing the woman's right to self-determination.

So let's get back to our doctors' role in this mess. What's a doctor in South Dakota to do? Or better yet, what's a doctor in El Salvador to do? If a woman is admitted to hospital and a doctor suspects her of having had an abortion, that doctor is supposed to report her to the police. Not only is that a breach of what we would consider doctor patient confidentiality, it would most likely lead directly to harm. So, a doctor in a place where abortion is a felony finds herself stuck between a rock and a hard place: obey the law or uphold the Hippocratic oath.

If a woman and her physician decide that the right course of action is an abortion, then that should be the result. A doctor should not face criminal charges for helping patients. Pierre Trudeau once said that the government had no place inside the bedrooms of the citizens of the nation (or something to that effect). I don't believe that the government has any right to be inside the doctors' offices of its citizens either. I'm not suggesting that doctors are infallible; they are human, and thus, prone to err. However, we can't expect them to excel when we won't even let them uphold the basic oaths of their office. Abortion is not always the answer, but neither is abstinence; clearly. This situation is complicated enough without the threat of jail time.

One of the articles I read quoted a woman (an American who worked for Planned Parenthood) who said something to the effect that Republicans only cared about protecting life until birth. After that, they didn't care about the child anymore. I'd never seen that written or heard it said that way before, but it seems so true. Where are all the pro-life protesters when the unwanted children are abandoned and become part of the foster system? Where is all the love and respect for the child after she is born and becomes neglected?

I think that's probably enough of my rant for today.

Ciao ciao,
Lesle

Felonies & Pharmacology

Greetings from sunny Toronto!

I've been reading lately about the recent passing of legislation in South Dakota which "makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman." So, if the mother's health is at risk, they still can't have an abortion, they have to wait until she's about to die. Even in the case of rape and incest, this legislation would make abortion a felony. The doctor would (theoretically) face jail time.

The purpose of this legislation is to challenge Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court of the US now that there are two new Justices sitting who were appointed by President Bush (and are theoretically pro-life).

This situation has sparked quite a debate and prompted me (among many others I'm sure) to start looking into the frightening possibilities. This is not the only state in the union that has taken a step down this path. Clearly, there is a large contingent of 'The Moral Majority' that would still like to control women and what we do with our bodies. If not South Dakota, then Ohio, Georgia, Indiana or Tennessee (similar bills are in the works there).

Whilst I was surfing the web looking into this, I found some articles about abortion bans in other countries... the ones in latin America. The ones that are almost entirely Catholic. They can't have abortions there either. In El Salvador, for example, doctors can't even perform an abortion if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy until the fetus is no longer viable (for anyone who doesn't know, an ectopic pregancy is what they call it when a fertilized egg attaches itself somewhere outside the womb, and the embryo / fetus is 'viable' until just before the mother starts hemorrhaging). In El Salvador, if a woman has a late-stage abortion, she can be charged with aggravated homicide and the minimum sentence for that is 30 years (the maximum is 50 years). If they catch the doctors, they would be charged also. (I wonder how long rapists get?)

It's possible that some of you may not have a position on the pro-life / pro-choice debate. It's possible that some of you may be pro-life. Either way, I'm about to sound a little bit feminist again... I think my position is probably pretty clear.

Has it ever occurred to you that several of the 'hot-button' feminist issues are directly related to women's bodies and our control over them?

I am not a 'conspiracy theorist feminist' and I do not think that men have deliberately conspired over the ages to keep us oppressed and 'all men are evil' and all that stuff, but think about it for a minute or two; abortion, prostitution, pornography. Three things that you should not bring up in polite conversation at the dinner table; they all have to do with women's bodies, and yet none of them are controlled (completely) by us. We've never been in charge when it comes to prostitution or pornography, but it wouldn't exist without our bodies. What would they do without us?

And even though we think we've won the abortion debate, they keep wanting to open it up again. I know that not all men want to control women. And I know that not all women are pro-choice. However, for those of us who are in Canada and are now being governed by Stephen Harper and his former Alliance cronies (sorry Owen), this is just a little reminder that this debate is not closed. There is a Minister in this Cabinet who has very publicly stated that he does not believe in evolution. Yes, there are former Progressive Conservative members governing us as well, but there is nothing stopping any of them from introducing a private members' bill.

This debate is not over. Unfortunately.

The one bright light is that pharmacology is getting better. Soon, we may be better able to provide women with the means to terminate unwanted pregancies that will not risk their lives in botched back alley-style abortions. Because the bottom line is: just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's going to stop.

I'm thinking that there will be more to this particular train of thought, but not at the moment. I gotta book.

Ciao for now,
Lesle

ps - Happy Birthday to my nephew John! He's 14 today!