Classic Hillier Quote
General Rick Hillier certainly has some exciting opinions on the purpose of the Canadian military. Here I was, foolishly believing that the purpose of the Department of National Defence was to defend Canadians.
Not so, apparently.
"We're not the public service of Canada," he said. "We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."
Really? First of all, the military actually is part of the public service of Canada. We the people tell you what you can and can't do. At least that's how it should work.
Second, your job is to defend Canada from military attack. Your job is not "to be able to kill people". Yes, protecting us may involve killing people. We don't like it and we really wish you wouldn't be so gleeful about it, but we all understand that it may be necessary.
Maybe it's time to circulate a petition. Let's rename the Defence department the "Department of National Killing People". I guess that makes Peter McKay the Minister of Killing People.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
DTK: Flaherty and McGuinty
It’s getting difficult to see any value in our federal government these days.
They’re in Afghanistan and don’t want to leave. They throw up a veneer of “patriotism” to cover the mayhem and misery they’re using our military to create. They certainly appear to have committed war crimes in the handing over of prisoners to Afghan authorities who are – quite clearly – not signatories to the Geneva conventions.
They walk in lock step with the Bush administration: denouncing elected governments that we don’t like (and damn democracy to hell when it gives the “wrong” results).
Now they want to follow American-style super-destructive Bush economics. Namely this: reduce corporate taxes. The goal of reducing corporate taxes is to starve the government of cash so that it can’t provide services for the people. A government high in debt is at the mercy of the banks. A government high in debt can’t take care of its people. The people gradually learn to expect less and less and eventually the rich people can encourage more and more tax breaks until our entire social system falls apart. Once they make your schools and hospitals suck, they can shrug and say, “See, we might as well privatize them!”
Of course, that’s not how they sell it. They sell corporate tax breaks as a way to improve things. Don’t worry, they’ll say, we’re just lowering services like health care and education *temporarily*. After a little austerity, these corporate tax breaks will stimulate the economy like crazy and there will be so much money going around that even the reduced tax rates will yield oodles of money for everything!
This is a lie. It is a lie for which there is no evidence, not even circumstantial. It is a lie which they repeat, and the media echoes, until everyone sighs and believes it.
Well, not quite everyone.
The federal finance minister, in what I have to imagine is a very unique and rude kind of meddling, “challenged” the province of Ontario to lower its corporate tax rate, lest Ontario become a “have not” province. And, yea, we were quaking in our boots.
The Liberals didn’t budge. Yes, they said, we’re in a slowdown and we’re losing manufacturing jobs. So what we’ll do is increase spending on education, “re-skill” the laid off workers with grant money, and get things started again. The only problem with this sort of plan – educating people – is that it actually works. It will form a good example for other provinces to emulate.
And let me tell you something about the neo-conservatives in the White House and in the Canadian Conservative Party – they absolutely *hate* people setting good examples. That’s why they went so hard after Venezuela. That’s why we (with the French and Americans) invaded Haiti and overthrew its democratic government. That’s why the socialist government in Nicaragua was declared a terrorist regime and then terrorized by the Reagan Administration in to destruction.
These people *hate* good examples. Look for them to bring the hammer down on Ontario in any way they can.
They’re in Afghanistan and don’t want to leave. They throw up a veneer of “patriotism” to cover the mayhem and misery they’re using our military to create. They certainly appear to have committed war crimes in the handing over of prisoners to Afghan authorities who are – quite clearly – not signatories to the Geneva conventions.
They walk in lock step with the Bush administration: denouncing elected governments that we don’t like (and damn democracy to hell when it gives the “wrong” results).
Now they want to follow American-style super-destructive Bush economics. Namely this: reduce corporate taxes. The goal of reducing corporate taxes is to starve the government of cash so that it can’t provide services for the people. A government high in debt is at the mercy of the banks. A government high in debt can’t take care of its people. The people gradually learn to expect less and less and eventually the rich people can encourage more and more tax breaks until our entire social system falls apart. Once they make your schools and hospitals suck, they can shrug and say, “See, we might as well privatize them!”
Of course, that’s not how they sell it. They sell corporate tax breaks as a way to improve things. Don’t worry, they’ll say, we’re just lowering services like health care and education *temporarily*. After a little austerity, these corporate tax breaks will stimulate the economy like crazy and there will be so much money going around that even the reduced tax rates will yield oodles of money for everything!
This is a lie. It is a lie for which there is no evidence, not even circumstantial. It is a lie which they repeat, and the media echoes, until everyone sighs and believes it.
Well, not quite everyone.
The federal finance minister, in what I have to imagine is a very unique and rude kind of meddling, “challenged” the province of Ontario to lower its corporate tax rate, lest Ontario become a “have not” province. And, yea, we were quaking in our boots.
The Liberals didn’t budge. Yes, they said, we’re in a slowdown and we’re losing manufacturing jobs. So what we’ll do is increase spending on education, “re-skill” the laid off workers with grant money, and get things started again. The only problem with this sort of plan – educating people – is that it actually works. It will form a good example for other provinces to emulate.
And let me tell you something about the neo-conservatives in the White House and in the Canadian Conservative Party – they absolutely *hate* people setting good examples. That’s why they went so hard after Venezuela. That’s why we (with the French and Americans) invaded Haiti and overthrew its democratic government. That’s why the socialist government in Nicaragua was declared a terrorist regime and then terrorized by the Reagan Administration in to destruction.
These people *hate* good examples. Look for them to bring the hammer down on Ontario in any way they can.
DTK: Original Sin
Once upon a time, I was a Christian. At least I think I was. It’s a very difficult thing to prove one way or the other. Someone’s bound to argue that, because I eventually turned atheist, I can’t have been a real Christian. I don’t see the point in arguing. I went to church, I sang the songs, said the words. I prayed when I was alone. I think I believed, but it’s hard to remember, and impossible to prove.
Later, I started looking at the religion frankly and discovered things I didn’t care for; things I found pretty nasty actually. I found things that, even if the bible were true and accurate, would cause me to avoid worshiping this deity.
One of those things is the idea of original sin.
The next time a Christian knocks on your door, ask him about original sin. Ask him if he thinks it is fair or just. The concept is thus:
“God, in the garden of Eden, places the tree of knowledge. God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat its fruit, warning that they shall die on the day they do. Along comes the snake, telling Eve that the fruit won’t kill them, but make them wise. Wanting to be wise, she eats the fruit and gives it to her mate as well. This is a sin and the sin of disobediently desiring wisdom is genetically passed down to all human beings.”
It should be noted, perhaps on the side, that Adam and Eve did not die on the day they ate the fruit, so score one for the snake and zero for God on the truth-o-meter.
In the end, God becomes very angry (and somewhat fearful) and casts them out of the garden of Eden. Their sin, you see, was in wanting to be wise and learn things. This is apparently bad. They were supposed to be obedient, submissive and – most of all – ignorant. Now not only was their desire for wisdom evil, it was so evil that their actions placed what the Catholic Church calls a “hereditary stain” (go ahead, look it up) on the rest of the human race. This hereditary stain declares all of us, regardless of our own actions, to be sinful from birth and deserving of eternal torment in hell.
So, in summary: your goal as a human being is to be ignorant and submissive; anyone who wants knowledge is automatically evil. Also, you are *already* automatically evil because you carry the stain of Adam and Eve’s curiosity anyway.
It should be obvious, then, that the various Christian churches are an impediment to both our enjoyment of life and the advancement of scientific knowledge.
If I wanted a short lifespan, with much of it spent killing cats, I suppose I could accept the Christian doctrine of original sin. Since I like the products of scientific experimentation; since I like learning things; since I don’t care for mindless obedience to tyranny or killing cats … well, I think I’ll just stick with atheism, thanks.
Later, I started looking at the religion frankly and discovered things I didn’t care for; things I found pretty nasty actually. I found things that, even if the bible were true and accurate, would cause me to avoid worshiping this deity.
One of those things is the idea of original sin.
The next time a Christian knocks on your door, ask him about original sin. Ask him if he thinks it is fair or just. The concept is thus:
“God, in the garden of Eden, places the tree of knowledge. God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat its fruit, warning that they shall die on the day they do. Along comes the snake, telling Eve that the fruit won’t kill them, but make them wise. Wanting to be wise, she eats the fruit and gives it to her mate as well. This is a sin and the sin of disobediently desiring wisdom is genetically passed down to all human beings.”
It should be noted, perhaps on the side, that Adam and Eve did not die on the day they ate the fruit, so score one for the snake and zero for God on the truth-o-meter.
In the end, God becomes very angry (and somewhat fearful) and casts them out of the garden of Eden. Their sin, you see, was in wanting to be wise and learn things. This is apparently bad. They were supposed to be obedient, submissive and – most of all – ignorant. Now not only was their desire for wisdom evil, it was so evil that their actions placed what the Catholic Church calls a “hereditary stain” (go ahead, look it up) on the rest of the human race. This hereditary stain declares all of us, regardless of our own actions, to be sinful from birth and deserving of eternal torment in hell.
So, in summary: your goal as a human being is to be ignorant and submissive; anyone who wants knowledge is automatically evil. Also, you are *already* automatically evil because you carry the stain of Adam and Eve’s curiosity anyway.
It should be obvious, then, that the various Christian churches are an impediment to both our enjoyment of life and the advancement of scientific knowledge.
If I wanted a short lifespan, with much of it spent killing cats, I suppose I could accept the Christian doctrine of original sin. Since I like the products of scientific experimentation; since I like learning things; since I don’t care for mindless obedience to tyranny or killing cats … well, I think I’ll just stick with atheism, thanks.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
This Week in Trains
This week, a rant of personal greed and selfishness.
Passenger train service needs to cheaper. Think about it. Trains are, by far, the most efficient way to move large numbers of people. Less fuel is consumed. Less pollution is produced. Yes, it will take longer than using an airplane for cross-country hops, but for most short hops it's actually shorter after you factor in all of the nonsense that goes with getting to an airport, checking your baggage, yada yada yada.
Still, train fare for two people is generally more expensive than taking a car, even if you account for wear and tear on the car, insurance, gas and everything.
If the train is such an efficient method of transportation, why is this so?
It's because you don't, up front, pay the true cost of driving your car.
You see, in order to drive a car, you need a series of smooth surfaces over which to drive it. These are often referred to as "roads" or "highways". Highways have overpasses, true marvels of engineering, and cloverleafs, on-ramps, off-ramps, girders, embankments, ditches, lights, digital signs, traffic cops, accidents, ambulances. In fact, a whole lot of the cost of driving your car is hidden away from you and kept quite indirect.
Your taxes dollars are subsidizing the driving of your car.
Imagine if your tax dollars equally subsidized efficient public transportation. How many billions of dollars would be involved there? Some astronomical figure, for certain. Now buses still need roads, but they wouldn't have nearly as many accidents, nor put as much mass on the road. Trains have tracks that need maintenance and have their own digital signs, but those they use quite efficiently and are easier to maintain than a giant network of highways. People would also have to spend at least some their days walking around, which would likely save us some health care dollars.
So, in summary, we ought to be subsidizing public transportation a lot more than we do. As well, we should stop complaining that VIA Rail and other outfits like it "aren't profitable". Neither is the highway system, so what's your point?
Passenger train service needs to cheaper. Think about it. Trains are, by far, the most efficient way to move large numbers of people. Less fuel is consumed. Less pollution is produced. Yes, it will take longer than using an airplane for cross-country hops, but for most short hops it's actually shorter after you factor in all of the nonsense that goes with getting to an airport, checking your baggage, yada yada yada.
Still, train fare for two people is generally more expensive than taking a car, even if you account for wear and tear on the car, insurance, gas and everything.
If the train is such an efficient method of transportation, why is this so?
It's because you don't, up front, pay the true cost of driving your car.
You see, in order to drive a car, you need a series of smooth surfaces over which to drive it. These are often referred to as "roads" or "highways". Highways have overpasses, true marvels of engineering, and cloverleafs, on-ramps, off-ramps, girders, embankments, ditches, lights, digital signs, traffic cops, accidents, ambulances. In fact, a whole lot of the cost of driving your car is hidden away from you and kept quite indirect.
Your taxes dollars are subsidizing the driving of your car.
Imagine if your tax dollars equally subsidized efficient public transportation. How many billions of dollars would be involved there? Some astronomical figure, for certain. Now buses still need roads, but they wouldn't have nearly as many accidents, nor put as much mass on the road. Trains have tracks that need maintenance and have their own digital signs, but those they use quite efficiently and are easier to maintain than a giant network of highways. People would also have to spend at least some their days walking around, which would likely save us some health care dollars.
So, in summary, we ought to be subsidizing public transportation a lot more than we do. As well, we should stop complaining that VIA Rail and other outfits like it "aren't profitable". Neither is the highway system, so what's your point?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
God vs. Religion
I recently watched a debate between the Reverend Al Sharpton and the journalist Christopher Hitchens. They were (quite politely, actually) discussing the issue of the existence of god and religion.
It's important, in a way, to separate those two issues. It is possible for a non-religious person to believe that the universe was created by some intelligence. This begs the question of where this intelligence came from, but that is beside the point. It is one thing to argue against a religion, to point out the contradictions of a system of belief, or to showcase its benefits or cruelties.
But god? Can you argue against the existence of god? Not really. Nor can you argue for it. It's not really an arguing sort of thing. The non-believer asks, "Why would you believe that?" and the believer responds simply that he does. Either you have this vague feeling that such an entity exists, or you don't. A lot of this has to do with what you've been taught, especially in your childhood. Muslims tend to have Muslim children. Christians have Christian children. Hindus have Hindu children.
You may have been frightened in to your belief. You may have been bribed. You may have had a miraculous or mind-numbing experience that you simply couldn't chalk up to coincidence or explain logically. Maybe you get that tingling feeling like I get when the Millennium Falcon shows up at then end of Episode IV. Maybe you've just heard the same thing over and over again so many times that you just started believing it.
If you believe in a god, then there's no logical argument that can change your mind. I've seen many religious people turn non-religious. It's very rarely logic that does it, because religion is not a logical binding. Religion is an emotional, social binding created in a community (go ahead, look up the etymology). We can talk about the infeasibility of Noah's Ark all we want. That won't convince anyone of anything they didn't already believe. Religion is left behind when it no longer satisfies one's emotions. Some change religions, others leave it altogether. Our society, we can plainly see from statistics, is generally trending toward the latter.
This doesn't stop atheists, especially the recently dereligionized, from making long lists of logical problems with their former systems of belief. They seek reassurance and demonstrate shock at their former states just like anyone else going through a sudden change of emotional balance. How could I have stayed with that girl/guy so long? How could I have believed in astrology? Why was I smoking cigarettes all my life? Look how foolish I was!
So religions can be argued, point by point. But god? You can't really argue about it. You won't be able to prove it one way or another. You either feel it or you don't.
It's important, in a way, to separate those two issues. It is possible for a non-religious person to believe that the universe was created by some intelligence. This begs the question of where this intelligence came from, but that is beside the point. It is one thing to argue against a religion, to point out the contradictions of a system of belief, or to showcase its benefits or cruelties.
But god? Can you argue against the existence of god? Not really. Nor can you argue for it. It's not really an arguing sort of thing. The non-believer asks, "Why would you believe that?" and the believer responds simply that he does. Either you have this vague feeling that such an entity exists, or you don't. A lot of this has to do with what you've been taught, especially in your childhood. Muslims tend to have Muslim children. Christians have Christian children. Hindus have Hindu children.
You may have been frightened in to your belief. You may have been bribed. You may have had a miraculous or mind-numbing experience that you simply couldn't chalk up to coincidence or explain logically. Maybe you get that tingling feeling like I get when the Millennium Falcon shows up at then end of Episode IV. Maybe you've just heard the same thing over and over again so many times that you just started believing it.
If you believe in a god, then there's no logical argument that can change your mind. I've seen many religious people turn non-religious. It's very rarely logic that does it, because religion is not a logical binding. Religion is an emotional, social binding created in a community (go ahead, look up the etymology). We can talk about the infeasibility of Noah's Ark all we want. That won't convince anyone of anything they didn't already believe. Religion is left behind when it no longer satisfies one's emotions. Some change religions, others leave it altogether. Our society, we can plainly see from statistics, is generally trending toward the latter.
This doesn't stop atheists, especially the recently dereligionized, from making long lists of logical problems with their former systems of belief. They seek reassurance and demonstrate shock at their former states just like anyone else going through a sudden change of emotional balance. How could I have stayed with that girl/guy so long? How could I have believed in astrology? Why was I smoking cigarettes all my life? Look how foolish I was!
So religions can be argued, point by point. But god? You can't really argue about it. You won't be able to prove it one way or another. You either feel it or you don't.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Stalled Feminism
I feel like writing about feminism today.
When I was growing up, I remember hating the feminist movement. There was a counteracting movement which said that feminism had gone so far that men were being victimized. It was helped along by the few ridiculous women who would scold men for holding doors open (there was a teacher in my high school who did that) or write articles in newspapers which opened with "Hey, men! Rape is wrong!".
If you were to look around now, you would be hard pressed to find any sign of any feminist movement at all. If you don't believe me, take a walk around Bayshore and look in the "La Senza girl" store (but don't look too long, you perv). Yeah. Part of the feminist ideal was that women would not have to turn themselves in to objects. That clearly isn't working as our society is now encouraging twelve year old girls to
tart themselves up like 19 year olds in bars.
Women still aren't paid as much as men. They still get laid off more easily. And if they're of child bearing age, they still have difficulty finding jobs.
With all that in mind, one might argue that the feminist movement has failed.
Stalled, perhaps, but I don't think it has really failed.
To demonstrate this, you only have to look at the differences in the way that we will raise our children relative to how we were raised. How many of us are going to be telling our sons and daughters that women don't have mathematical and spatial skills? A lot fewer, I think. Fewer of us are taking religion seriously, so we may soon see the end of that "man is the head of woman" nonsense that the church has been spewing for centuries. We've pretty much stopped telling our sons that "only girls cry" when they're hurt.
If I wanted to go on, I'm sure I could. There are probably dozens, or hundreds, of tiny little changes that have been brought in to our society by the feminist movement. It was unfortunate that so many women went overboard, providing such excellent fodder for the guns of the established boys club that runs the conservative media. Regardless of all that, however, our awareness of our own biases has increased, and the feminist movement has changed all of our perceptions.
This isn't to say that more can't be done. As mentioned above, the workplace is still not the equal opportunity place it could be. Nor, I'm sure, is the classroom. But today there is no vocal feminist movement. There are no protests, no one leading the struggle. The girls who ought to be at the forefront are too busy being told that the most important thing they can do is dress like Britney Spears. And
they're listening.
When I was growing up, I remember hating the feminist movement. There was a counteracting movement which said that feminism had gone so far that men were being victimized. It was helped along by the few ridiculous women who would scold men for holding doors open (there was a teacher in my high school who did that) or write articles in newspapers which opened with "Hey, men! Rape is wrong!".
If you were to look around now, you would be hard pressed to find any sign of any feminist movement at all. If you don't believe me, take a walk around Bayshore and look in the "La Senza girl" store (but don't look too long, you perv). Yeah. Part of the feminist ideal was that women would not have to turn themselves in to objects. That clearly isn't working as our society is now encouraging twelve year old girls to
tart themselves up like 19 year olds in bars.
Women still aren't paid as much as men. They still get laid off more easily. And if they're of child bearing age, they still have difficulty finding jobs.
With all that in mind, one might argue that the feminist movement has failed.
Stalled, perhaps, but I don't think it has really failed.
To demonstrate this, you only have to look at the differences in the way that we will raise our children relative to how we were raised. How many of us are going to be telling our sons and daughters that women don't have mathematical and spatial skills? A lot fewer, I think. Fewer of us are taking religion seriously, so we may soon see the end of that "man is the head of woman" nonsense that the church has been spewing for centuries. We've pretty much stopped telling our sons that "only girls cry" when they're hurt.
If I wanted to go on, I'm sure I could. There are probably dozens, or hundreds, of tiny little changes that have been brought in to our society by the feminist movement. It was unfortunate that so many women went overboard, providing such excellent fodder for the guns of the established boys club that runs the conservative media. Regardless of all that, however, our awareness of our own biases has increased, and the feminist movement has changed all of our perceptions.
This isn't to say that more can't be done. As mentioned above, the workplace is still not the equal opportunity place it could be. Nor, I'm sure, is the classroom. But today there is no vocal feminist movement. There are no protests, no one leading the struggle. The girls who ought to be at the forefront are too busy being told that the most important thing they can do is dress like Britney Spears. And
they're listening.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Sexual Correlations
I have always enjoyed finding studies that demonstrate the fallacy of assuming causality from correlation.
A correlation is simply a mathematical dependency between two trends or tendencies. For example: young males tend to get in more car accidents; people who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer.
Causality is always harder to prove. Not only should there be a correlation, but it must then be demonstrated that one of the factors is actually responsible for the other. What is it about young males that causes them to get in more car accidents? Is it bad driving habits or just that they do more driving? What is the biological underpinning that connects smoking and cancer?
To which I add the following, a study showing that intelligent people tend to lose their virginities later in life:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Besides the amusing bar graph which indicates that the Studio Art Department at Wellesley apparently includes an Orgy class, the author's first conclusion in explaining this causality is the following:
"One reason we might guess that smarter people in high school, or in more challenging colleges or majors, delay their sexual debuts is because they are delaying gratification in expectation of future reward. Sexual behaviour (or at least the investment needed to procure a partner or sustain one) may compete with time/resources required for other goals, and intelligent people may have more demanding goals."
He goes on to say:
"Another idea is that smarter people are more risk averse, and delaying these activities is a byproduct of enhanced concerns about unwanted pregnancy and disease."
That's cute, really, and it's very sweet of him to think that. Either he wasn't very intelligent in high school and university, or he's very embarrassed about the lateness of his own "sexual debut".
But seriously. Is this guy nuts? Is he actually suggesting that all of the smart virgins in the world are doing it on purpose?
No. No, that wasn't it. Trust me.
A correlation is simply a mathematical dependency between two trends or tendencies. For example: young males tend to get in more car accidents; people who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer.
Causality is always harder to prove. Not only should there be a correlation, but it must then be demonstrated that one of the factors is actually responsible for the other. What is it about young males that causes them to get in more car accidents? Is it bad driving habits or just that they do more driving? What is the biological underpinning that connects smoking and cancer?
To which I add the following, a study showing that intelligent people tend to lose their virginities later in life:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Besides the amusing bar graph which indicates that the Studio Art Department at Wellesley apparently includes an Orgy class, the author's first conclusion in explaining this causality is the following:
"One reason we might guess that smarter people in high school, or in more challenging colleges or majors, delay their sexual debuts is because they are delaying gratification in expectation of future reward. Sexual behaviour (or at least the investment needed to procure a partner or sustain one) may compete with time/resources required for other goals, and intelligent people may have more demanding goals."
He goes on to say:
"Another idea is that smarter people are more risk averse, and delaying these activities is a byproduct of enhanced concerns about unwanted pregnancy and disease."
That's cute, really, and it's very sweet of him to think that. Either he wasn't very intelligent in high school and university, or he's very embarrassed about the lateness of his own "sexual debut".
But seriously. Is this guy nuts? Is he actually suggesting that all of the smart virgins in the world are doing it on purpose?
No. No, that wasn't it. Trust me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)