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!
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Saturday, March 05, 2016
Thursday, February 12, 2015
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':
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
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
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Acceptance
Hello my friends,
I know, it's been a long time. I've been busy; sort of. Anyhoo, I hope all is well in your worlds.
So I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news regarding the new 'anti-gay law' which has been enacted in Russia. If you have any questions about the specifics, you could read this AP story which spells things out in a little more detail. If you don't want to bother reading these, the essentials are that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993; however this new law criminalizes public expression of support for 'non-traditional' relationships. Basically, it allows the authorities to fine anyone found to be promoting 'non-traditional' sexual relations to children (people under 18). It uses the word propaganda, and a couple of the articles I read defined 'non-traditional' as 'those not related to procreation'.
I could not find any mention of incarceration, however, it seems that the government has the right to throw you out of the country if you're not a citizen and you're found propagandizing. This is not surprising: any country has the right to throw you out if you're not a citizen and they don't want you there.
The fact that this law was enacted is offensive enough despite not actually criminalizing homosexuality. If you do a looser search you'll find many stories/articles which claim that 'anti-gay' sentiment in Russia runs very high: last August Moscow banned gay pride parades for 100 years despite being fined in 2010 by the European court for not allowing them earlier (2006). You'll also find stories that claim that non-traditional relationships are an affront to 'traditional' Russian values and the Russian Orthodox Church (they never say how, just that they are). They can wrap it up however they like, it's still discrimination: it always has been and it is now legal in Russia.
When you hear about this law in the news you also hear about the potential impact it will have on the athletes participating in the 2014 winter Olympics that are being hosted by Russia. There has been much ado over this. A couple of well-known celebrities have called for boycotts, and some have even suggested that the games be moved to a different city and country altogether (George Takei suggested Vancouver). The reasons behind this movement is not just the law itself though: apparently, the anti-gay sentiment has led to a lot of violence against LGBT people in Russia. From the Advocate:
Sexism still exists because we accept it. Racism still exists because we allow it to. Obviously I don't mean on an individual level: I don't accept discrimination and it's gotten me into hot water more than once. But I'm okay with that. Most of my friends don't accept discrimination either. What I mean about accepting it is on a societal level. As a society, we allow discrimination by letting it happen; by not stopping it if it's not happening to us. All sorts of bad things happen in the world and we shake our heads and say out loud how horrible and unjust life can be, and privately thank whatever powers may be that these things didn't happen to us and we go about our business.
We accept that bad things happen to good people. We accept that people are going to be mean to other people and hurt other people. We accept things like rape and murder. People possessing illicit drugs, and bank robbers get longer sentences in most American states than rapists and people convicted of manslaughter (that's a generalization obviously and it doesn't apply to the one percent). And we accept discrimination because it's not happening to the majority of us. Obviously. When the brave young woman in Stuebenville went to the police after being raped by members of the local high school football team the state attorney general said that, unfortunately, this was just another Friday night and that the culture had to change (don't quote me on that, I can't find a reference but that was the gist). Without getting too far into one type of discrimination over another, the essence is that these things happen because we let them. And they're systemic.
So people are going to complain about the human rights violations in Russia, but the countries are still going to go because the people who make the decisions (the people who count the money) are okay with human rights violations (as long as they aren't affected individually). And if your team is going and you've been training for at least the past four years, you don't want to miss the games if everyone else in your field will be there and the games are still on. Everyone went to Beijing despite the protests about human rights violations there.
Discrimination is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels. What is happening in Russia is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels. Is any other country going to actually do anything about it? No. Nobody wants to stand up and be counted. No one is going to make those unpopular decisions: at least not at that level. Not where and when it counts.
I can't imagine this will make anyone feel any better, but I'll boycott watching the Olympics on principal. It's a small thing, but it's what I can do. If anyone else has an idea, please let me know.
Until next time peeps, drive safe!
I know, it's been a long time. I've been busy; sort of. Anyhoo, I hope all is well in your worlds.
So I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news regarding the new 'anti-gay law' which has been enacted in Russia. If you have any questions about the specifics, you could read this AP story which spells things out in a little more detail. If you don't want to bother reading these, the essentials are that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993; however this new law criminalizes public expression of support for 'non-traditional' relationships. Basically, it allows the authorities to fine anyone found to be promoting 'non-traditional' sexual relations to children (people under 18). It uses the word propaganda, and a couple of the articles I read defined 'non-traditional' as 'those not related to procreation'.
I could not find any mention of incarceration, however, it seems that the government has the right to throw you out of the country if you're not a citizen and you're found propagandizing. This is not surprising: any country has the right to throw you out if you're not a citizen and they don't want you there.
The fact that this law was enacted is offensive enough despite not actually criminalizing homosexuality. If you do a looser search you'll find many stories/articles which claim that 'anti-gay' sentiment in Russia runs very high: last August Moscow banned gay pride parades for 100 years despite being fined in 2010 by the European court for not allowing them earlier (2006). You'll also find stories that claim that non-traditional relationships are an affront to 'traditional' Russian values and the Russian Orthodox Church (they never say how, just that they are). They can wrap it up however they like, it's still discrimination: it always has been and it is now legal in Russia.
When you hear about this law in the news you also hear about the potential impact it will have on the athletes participating in the 2014 winter Olympics that are being hosted by Russia. There has been much ado over this. A couple of well-known celebrities have called for boycotts, and some have even suggested that the games be moved to a different city and country altogether (George Takei suggested Vancouver). The reasons behind this movement is not just the law itself though: apparently, the anti-gay sentiment has led to a lot of violence against LGBT people in Russia. From the Advocate:
"Additionally, a well-known group of Russian neo-Nazis has been luring gay teens in the country with personal ads on gay dating websites, then beating them, humiliating them, and forcing them to come out on video.
So is boycotting the right thing to do? Of course it is. Will it happen? Unfortunately not. Why not? For the same reasons that any type of discrimination still exists: because we accept it.
Russian authorities have either ignored or condoned the antigay violence."
Sexism still exists because we accept it. Racism still exists because we allow it to. Obviously I don't mean on an individual level: I don't accept discrimination and it's gotten me into hot water more than once. But I'm okay with that. Most of my friends don't accept discrimination either. What I mean about accepting it is on a societal level. As a society, we allow discrimination by letting it happen; by not stopping it if it's not happening to us. All sorts of bad things happen in the world and we shake our heads and say out loud how horrible and unjust life can be, and privately thank whatever powers may be that these things didn't happen to us and we go about our business.
We accept that bad things happen to good people. We accept that people are going to be mean to other people and hurt other people. We accept things like rape and murder. People possessing illicit drugs, and bank robbers get longer sentences in most American states than rapists and people convicted of manslaughter (that's a generalization obviously and it doesn't apply to the one percent). And we accept discrimination because it's not happening to the majority of us. Obviously. When the brave young woman in Stuebenville went to the police after being raped by members of the local high school football team the state attorney general said that, unfortunately, this was just another Friday night and that the culture had to change (don't quote me on that, I can't find a reference but that was the gist). Without getting too far into one type of discrimination over another, the essence is that these things happen because we let them. And they're systemic.
So people are going to complain about the human rights violations in Russia, but the countries are still going to go because the people who make the decisions (the people who count the money) are okay with human rights violations (as long as they aren't affected individually). And if your team is going and you've been training for at least the past four years, you don't want to miss the games if everyone else in your field will be there and the games are still on. Everyone went to Beijing despite the protests about human rights violations there.
Discrimination is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels. What is happening in Russia is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels. Is any other country going to actually do anything about it? No. Nobody wants to stand up and be counted. No one is going to make those unpopular decisions: at least not at that level. Not where and when it counts.
I can't imagine this will make anyone feel any better, but I'll boycott watching the Olympics on principal. It's a small thing, but it's what I can do. If anyone else has an idea, please let me know.
Until next time peeps, drive safe!
Friday, April 22, 2011
Mobbing the Vote
Happy Easter Everybody!
I guess it's about time that I posted a little bit about our current election. I just haven't been inspired to this time; until now.
There really hasn't been much of a campaign in my opinion. It seems to me to be mostly a scare campaign with each major party trying to scare you out of voting for the other. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but all the ads and all the headlines seem to be more about the same old stuff: Harper's evil (which of course we know is true, you can see it in his eyes) and wants to kill healthcare, Ignatieff is not really Canadian because he spent too long away from Canada (in the States and England) and only came back to be Prime Minister, and Layton is all about the 'ordinary' Canadians ('cuz anyone who has a post secondary education or is middle-class doesn't really count).
If you actually go to the Liberal and NDP sites and read their platforms they have some interesting stuff that isn't negative about the other guys (not a casual use of the word). Iggy wants to help us with childcare and education. They both want to help with job creation and healthcare. I'm not going to reprint their entire platforms for you, but you can follow the links if you're interested. If you go to the Conservative site, the first thing you see is a negative blurb about one of the other leaders. Nice.
Regardless, I'm pretty tired of hearing negative advertising myself. They all do it and they're all acting like children in my opinion. If they can't get elected on their own merits, then they're clearly not worthy of election. However I know that politics is all about the negative advertising now because that's what we respond to apparently. What does that say about us, the electorate? I don't think it says anything good.
It's a shame that the only candidates we have to choose from are name-calling, power-hungry adolescents who don't seem to have our best interests in mind. If they really did, they wouldn't behave the way they do. They would actually accomplish things when they got elected. They would try to work together despite their differences for the benefit of the people (you know, the people for whom they work). It's clear that our system has broken down to the point where those who have either been elected to or who work for the government in the bureaucracy have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people. It should be viewed as a privilege to serve in public office, but instead it seems from the actions of those who are currently elected officials that the prevailing attitude is rather one of entitlement to rule and behave badly - and not be held accountable.
Our elected officials in Ottawa do not believe that their spending of public money should be subject to audit. They expect to have their cake and eat it too. And we let them.
So the original point of this post was about a relatively new phenomenon: vote mobs. In case you don't know what one is here's a link to an article about the first ever. Ah, to be young again! These are happening all over the country and I say good on 'em! They're good clean fun and they get the message out: go vote!
Today's particular post was inspired by a different kind of article though. Not surprisingly it was a negative article by a former Stephen Harper lackey who thinks that vote mobs are bad. Why? Because it would be just awful to have a bunch of uninformed kids running around exercising their rights and making decisions regarding who should run our country. Umm, okay (that's sarcasm just in case it didn't translate well).
I guess we should start giving every person who votes a test before they do so to ensure that they know why they're voting for the candidates they're choosing. Perhaps we should start verifying education documents as well. We wouldn't want people of any age really who are uninformed making decisions about important things. Maybe we should just take the decision-making out of the hands of the people altogether because really, they can't be trusted to make the right decisions: they don't have all the relevant facts. (Again with the sarcasm, sorry, I just can't help myself.)
Obviously I think vote mobs are a good thing. They look fun, they seem harmless and they're inspiring. If even half of those people vote, then that's fabulous as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if my little rant was a little meander-y, but that's just how I'm rolling today.
Have a good long weekend and drive safe! Peace out!
I guess it's about time that I posted a little bit about our current election. I just haven't been inspired to this time; until now.
There really hasn't been much of a campaign in my opinion. It seems to me to be mostly a scare campaign with each major party trying to scare you out of voting for the other. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but all the ads and all the headlines seem to be more about the same old stuff: Harper's evil (which of course we know is true, you can see it in his eyes) and wants to kill healthcare, Ignatieff is not really Canadian because he spent too long away from Canada (in the States and England) and only came back to be Prime Minister, and Layton is all about the 'ordinary' Canadians ('cuz anyone who has a post secondary education or is middle-class doesn't really count).
If you actually go to the Liberal and NDP sites and read their platforms they have some interesting stuff that isn't negative about the other guys (not a casual use of the word). Iggy wants to help us with childcare and education. They both want to help with job creation and healthcare. I'm not going to reprint their entire platforms for you, but you can follow the links if you're interested. If you go to the Conservative site, the first thing you see is a negative blurb about one of the other leaders. Nice.
Regardless, I'm pretty tired of hearing negative advertising myself. They all do it and they're all acting like children in my opinion. If they can't get elected on their own merits, then they're clearly not worthy of election. However I know that politics is all about the negative advertising now because that's what we respond to apparently. What does that say about us, the electorate? I don't think it says anything good.
It's a shame that the only candidates we have to choose from are name-calling, power-hungry adolescents who don't seem to have our best interests in mind. If they really did, they wouldn't behave the way they do. They would actually accomplish things when they got elected. They would try to work together despite their differences for the benefit of the people (you know, the people for whom they work). It's clear that our system has broken down to the point where those who have either been elected to or who work for the government in the bureaucracy have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people. It should be viewed as a privilege to serve in public office, but instead it seems from the actions of those who are currently elected officials that the prevailing attitude is rather one of entitlement to rule and behave badly - and not be held accountable.
Our elected officials in Ottawa do not believe that their spending of public money should be subject to audit. They expect to have their cake and eat it too. And we let them.
So the original point of this post was about a relatively new phenomenon: vote mobs. In case you don't know what one is here's a link to an article about the first ever. Ah, to be young again! These are happening all over the country and I say good on 'em! They're good clean fun and they get the message out: go vote!
Today's particular post was inspired by a different kind of article though. Not surprisingly it was a negative article by a former Stephen Harper lackey who thinks that vote mobs are bad. Why? Because it would be just awful to have a bunch of uninformed kids running around exercising their rights and making decisions regarding who should run our country. Umm, okay (that's sarcasm just in case it didn't translate well).
I guess we should start giving every person who votes a test before they do so to ensure that they know why they're voting for the candidates they're choosing. Perhaps we should start verifying education documents as well. We wouldn't want people of any age really who are uninformed making decisions about important things. Maybe we should just take the decision-making out of the hands of the people altogether because really, they can't be trusted to make the right decisions: they don't have all the relevant facts. (Again with the sarcasm, sorry, I just can't help myself.)
Obviously I think vote mobs are a good thing. They look fun, they seem harmless and they're inspiring. If even half of those people vote, then that's fabulous as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if my little rant was a little meander-y, but that's just how I'm rolling today.
Have a good long weekend and drive safe! Peace out!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Catholic Schools Ban GSAs? That's a Shocker!
Greetings my Friends,
I hope all is well with you on this sunny (in the GTA anyway) Sunday.
Today's little story came to me through an email from a friend of mine who is, understandably, alarmed at this news. His email didn't contain the actual story but I have great faith in him. Most of you don't know him so I'm including a link the The Globe's story.
If you don't want to jump to the Globe, I'll sum up: St Joseph's Catholic Secondary in Mississauga has decided not to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. This is not terribly surprising to me. It is a Catholic school.
PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM CONDONING OR AGREEING WITH THE DECISION. I am simply not surprised. I was raised as a Catholic and anyone who follows the goings-on in the Vatican should know that the Papacy officially frowns on homosexual behaviour. (I'm not even going to start on priests.) The Catholic Church frowns on any type of sexual behaviour outside of marriage too (marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman), and even within a marriage it really should only be for the sake of procreation. Seriously.
So, having said that, let's look at what institution is making this decision. An aging, fearful, corrupt one. I'm not suggesting that each and every Catholic is old, scared and corrupt/evil. I'm talking high-level.
I am not and have never been a Church-basher. The Catholic Church has been responsible for a lot of good in the course of modern history. They educated and nursed the poor (in droves); they provided light where there was only dark for many. They helped untold numbers of people. They gave me a good education and I never once was abused (neither were my brothers). However, they have also been responsible for their share of bad. I'm sure I don't need to go into it, but I think the biggest mistake the Church is making is not evolving.
Things which don't change die. The Church refuses to accept that the world and the people in it are not the same as we were 2,000 years ago. We are not afraid of the dark anymore. A growing number of us do not even believe in their God and thus we cannot be cowed into obediance with threats of everlasting hell.
There have been gay people as long as there have been people: that hasn't changed. What has changed is society's acceptance of difference. I'm not gay, but my friend who sent me the email offers this:
Perhaps I'm a little too jaded sometimes, but part of me thinks, is anyone really surprised by this school's decision? It's the second recently. The Halton District Catholic School Board had it's similar decision overturned (and I assume the same will happen here). Perhaps we shouldn't be sending our kids to Catholic schools if we don't want them to be excluded.
Perhaps most important to remember: the Catholic schools in Ontario are no longer separate. They are entirely funded by public money now. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. These are not Catholic schools any more, these are public schools that teach the Catholic religion. Of course, either way, individuals should not have to feel invisible or excluded. Either way, all kids should feel that they have a voice and a safe place at school.
That's all I've got for now peeps!
Peace out,
I hope all is well with you on this sunny (in the GTA anyway) Sunday.
Today's little story came to me through an email from a friend of mine who is, understandably, alarmed at this news. His email didn't contain the actual story but I have great faith in him. Most of you don't know him so I'm including a link the The Globe's story.
If you don't want to jump to the Globe, I'll sum up: St Joseph's Catholic Secondary in Mississauga has decided not to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. This is not terribly surprising to me. It is a Catholic school.
PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM CONDONING OR AGREEING WITH THE DECISION. I am simply not surprised. I was raised as a Catholic and anyone who follows the goings-on in the Vatican should know that the Papacy officially frowns on homosexual behaviour. (I'm not even going to start on priests.) The Catholic Church frowns on any type of sexual behaviour outside of marriage too (marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman), and even within a marriage it really should only be for the sake of procreation. Seriously.
So, having said that, let's look at what institution is making this decision. An aging, fearful, corrupt one. I'm not suggesting that each and every Catholic is old, scared and corrupt/evil. I'm talking high-level.
I am not and have never been a Church-basher. The Catholic Church has been responsible for a lot of good in the course of modern history. They educated and nursed the poor (in droves); they provided light where there was only dark for many. They helped untold numbers of people. They gave me a good education and I never once was abused (neither were my brothers). However, they have also been responsible for their share of bad. I'm sure I don't need to go into it, but I think the biggest mistake the Church is making is not evolving.
Things which don't change die. The Church refuses to accept that the world and the people in it are not the same as we were 2,000 years ago. We are not afraid of the dark anymore. A growing number of us do not even believe in their God and thus we cannot be cowed into obediance with threats of everlasting hell.
There have been gay people as long as there have been people: that hasn't changed. What has changed is society's acceptance of difference. I'm not gay, but my friend who sent me the email offers this:
Growing up gay in suburban Toronto during the nineties was not easy. Feeling different from a young age, and hitting puberty with an attraction to the same-sex, I realized very quickly my environment was not friendly towards such feelings.
My attempts to suppress my attraction, and fit in, led to a major depression in my early teens, with self-destructive behaviours that were all-consuming.
The only support groups for gay teens were in downtown Toronto at the time, and accessing these supports was difficult for a north of Steeles Avenue teenager on a school-night. It involved making up stories about where I disappeared to every Tuesday night, and feeling there was no space for gay teenagers in the suburbs.
I was lucky enough to meet other gay, lesbian and bisexual students in my Thornhill public high school, and together we started York Region’s first LGBTQ support group in Richmond Hill , open to all youth living in York Region. With the support of the York Region Public Health Department, we secured a space, and were happy to see large numbers of youth attend these meetings, finding a place to grow their self-esteem and realize they were not alone. This group became very meaningful for me, and for many other youth who were struggling with isolation.
Perhaps I'm a little too jaded sometimes, but part of me thinks, is anyone really surprised by this school's decision? It's the second recently. The Halton District Catholic School Board had it's similar decision overturned (and I assume the same will happen here). Perhaps we shouldn't be sending our kids to Catholic schools if we don't want them to be excluded.
Perhaps most important to remember: the Catholic schools in Ontario are no longer separate. They are entirely funded by public money now. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. These are not Catholic schools any more, these are public schools that teach the Catholic religion. Of course, either way, individuals should not have to feel invisible or excluded. Either way, all kids should feel that they have a voice and a safe place at school.
That's all I've got for now peeps!
Peace out,
Thursday, February 24, 2011
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,
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,
Saturday, September 27, 2008
To Vote or Not to Vote
Hello friends,
A friend of mine forwarded this to me recently and I felt impelled to post it. The original author of the message is from the US, but the message is pretty universal.
Please remember to vote on October 14th friends! I don't feel that we're entitled to complain unless we are willing to participate in our social contract. Like the author of this piece, I won't presume to tell you how to vote (your conscience should guide you in that regard), I just want you to vote.
Thanks for reading & drive safe peeps,
A friend of mine forwarded this to me recently and I felt impelled to post it. The original author of the message is from the US, but the message is pretty universal.
Women friends and family please read this to the end as it is important and a part of our struggle for equality!
Let's honour these brave and daring women by voting and acknowledging them for our freedoms. Thank you for taking the time.
Remember, the vote for women was a massive struggle. See the movie, Iron Jawed Angels. It will inspire you to vote!
WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE
This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.
Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.
(In Canada full enfranchisement was not to come until 1918, when the Dominion (federal) parliament passed an act giving women the vote. The remaining provinces quickly followed suit, except for Quebec, which did not do so until 1940. Agnes Macphail became the first woman elected to the Dominion Parliament in 1921.)
These women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'
(Lucy Burns)
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.
(Dora Lewis)
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.
Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.
(Alice Paul)
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.
So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?
Last week, there was a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. We need the reminder.
Voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.
My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use, or don't use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The
right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'
HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco [sic] night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.
It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.
The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'
Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know.
We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote liberal, conservative, green, new democratic, democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.
Please remember to vote on October 14th friends! I don't feel that we're entitled to complain unless we are willing to participate in our social contract. Like the author of this piece, I won't presume to tell you how to vote (your conscience should guide you in that regard), I just want you to vote.
Thanks for reading & drive safe peeps,
Friday, September 12, 2008
Highway of Heroes
Good evening my friends,
I hope you are all well and ready for another exciting election season! ;)
Before I start in on our wonderful political landscape, I wanted to write about our 'Highway of Heroes'. I'm not sure how familiar anyone is with that name so I'll explain: sometime last year it was decided that a stretch of the 401 (or, more formally, the Macdonald-Cartier freeway) should be sub-named in honour of our deceased soldiers returning from Afghanistan. The stretch from Trenton to Toronto was chosen because the soldiers' bodies are flown to Trenton then transported via the freeway to Toronto.
I'm not writing this post about war, or about whether or not our soldiers should be there. It's not up to them where they go; they are brave enough to join our military and they are heroes regardless of what happens. This post is about us. The people who stay here. The people for whom the soldiers fight. The people who do not even think about those soldiers most of the time. I have a tendency to be somewhat cynical about us. Sometimes it seems as though we are heading quickly into hell in a hand-basket without any signs of slowing down. However, every now and then something happens and I feel as though there may be hope.
The highway of heroes gives me hope. If you haven't been on it or around it when soldiers have been coming home then you're missing something. Sorry. Twice in the past week I've been on the 401 when soldiers were coming home (which is probably why I'm writing this now). It makes me sad to think that twice in the past week we've lost Canadian soldiers, but it gives me hope to see all of the people who turn up to show their respect just by standing on an overpass and waving a flag. The first time I experienced it I didn't know what was going on because there were only police vehicles and personnel, firetrucks and fighters and other emergency personnel. The vehicles' lights were all flashing. We only found out later (from a firefighter) that they were showing their solidarity and respect in the best way they could think of.
The emergency personnel still come and flash their lights, but the overpasses are all crowded with ordinary citizens now from end to end. They hang the maple leaf flags overhead and they stand in silent vigil. It reminded me this past week that society is not wholly lost. There are still good citizens who care about what happens to others and about the good deeds done by those who have given their lives to protect ours (however remote that may seem).
I may not drink beer or play hockey, but I am Canadian and I am proud to be so.
Thanks for coming out, and drive safe peeps,
I hope you are all well and ready for another exciting election season! ;)
Before I start in on our wonderful political landscape, I wanted to write about our 'Highway of Heroes'. I'm not sure how familiar anyone is with that name so I'll explain: sometime last year it was decided that a stretch of the 401 (or, more formally, the Macdonald-Cartier freeway) should be sub-named in honour of our deceased soldiers returning from Afghanistan. The stretch from Trenton to Toronto was chosen because the soldiers' bodies are flown to Trenton then transported via the freeway to Toronto.
I'm not writing this post about war, or about whether or not our soldiers should be there. It's not up to them where they go; they are brave enough to join our military and they are heroes regardless of what happens. This post is about us. The people who stay here. The people for whom the soldiers fight. The people who do not even think about those soldiers most of the time. I have a tendency to be somewhat cynical about us. Sometimes it seems as though we are heading quickly into hell in a hand-basket without any signs of slowing down. However, every now and then something happens and I feel as though there may be hope.
The highway of heroes gives me hope. If you haven't been on it or around it when soldiers have been coming home then you're missing something. Sorry. Twice in the past week I've been on the 401 when soldiers were coming home (which is probably why I'm writing this now). It makes me sad to think that twice in the past week we've lost Canadian soldiers, but it gives me hope to see all of the people who turn up to show their respect just by standing on an overpass and waving a flag. The first time I experienced it I didn't know what was going on because there were only police vehicles and personnel, firetrucks and fighters and other emergency personnel. The vehicles' lights were all flashing. We only found out later (from a firefighter) that they were showing their solidarity and respect in the best way they could think of.
The emergency personnel still come and flash their lights, but the overpasses are all crowded with ordinary citizens now from end to end. They hang the maple leaf flags overhead and they stand in silent vigil. It reminded me this past week that society is not wholly lost. There are still good citizens who care about what happens to others and about the good deeds done by those who have given their lives to protect ours (however remote that may seem).
I may not drink beer or play hockey, but I am Canadian and I am proud to be so.
Thanks for coming out, and drive safe peeps,
Friday, August 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)