I wanted to entitle this one, "The Media Sucks Cock", but I've never used the word "cock" derogatorily (or even in the sense of fowl) on this blog, and I don't want to start now.
The York Faculty Strike has been going on for weeks now and what does the globe and mail bring us? There's a strike. No one wants to negotiate. The NDP is stalling. The workers aren't happy. The mediator never really tried to mediate.
And ... the issues are? No, seriously. Why are they striking? I've heard vaguely, from non-mainstream sources, that there's something going on that has to do not with salary but from the fact that the lecturers have to re-apply for their jobs every year regardless of how many years they've been there. Is that true?
How about the OC transpo strike? Ottawa has been without bus services for almost 50 days now. What are the issues there.
Nothing. Just a bland, vapid coverage that allows the right wing blowhards to scream bloody murder about unions.
The media sucks.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Vatican Always Good for a Laugh
Even a dark, ironic, laughing-at-your-hypocrisy kind of laugh.
Accusations of arrogance?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who think that only the Pope can talk to god and everyone else just has to take cues from him?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you birth control is a sin while the world overpopulates?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who protect paedophiles?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you that the Catholic way is the only way to god and everyone else is going to hell?
Yeah, right. We'll get right on that. Meanwhile, in our considered opinion, we'll just say that moral decisions should stay in the hands of people making them. Abortion's not a nice thing, but a necessary thing. It's also not the sort of thing a bunch of celibate priests should be dictating to the world.
Stick to your holy wafers and stay out of our bedrooms.
It's not arrogance, you idiots, it's a willingness to believe that women are smart enough to make their own decisions. That's the opposite of arrogance. That's liberating. Arrogance would be either forbidding abortion or making it mandatory. Giving women the freedom to choose is humility.
I know we haven't seen humility from a president in a while, but there it is.
A senior Vatican official on Saturday attacked US President Barack Obama for "arrogance" for overturning a ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions overseas. It is "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right"
Accusations of arrogance?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who think that only the Pope can talk to god and everyone else just has to take cues from him?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you birth control is a sin while the world overpopulates?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who protect paedophiles?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you that the Catholic way is the only way to god and everyone else is going to hell?
Yeah, right. We'll get right on that. Meanwhile, in our considered opinion, we'll just say that moral decisions should stay in the hands of people making them. Abortion's not a nice thing, but a necessary thing. It's also not the sort of thing a bunch of celibate priests should be dictating to the world.
Stick to your holy wafers and stay out of our bedrooms.
It's not arrogance, you idiots, it's a willingness to believe that women are smart enough to make their own decisions. That's the opposite of arrogance. That's liberating. Arrogance would be either forbidding abortion or making it mandatory. Giving women the freedom to choose is humility.
I know we haven't seen humility from a president in a while, but there it is.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Agnosticism is not a Fence
Words are our servants, not our masters. I fully understand and appreciate this.
On the other hand we can not allow the misuse of words to guide people to faulty conclusions. If you want a good example of logical failure through the abuse of language, Anselm's "Ontological Argument" is always fun to read.
And so it is with a heavy heart that I hear people often "refusing to take sides" on religious issues by declaring themselves "agnostic". The misuse of the term "agnostic" even reaches in to technical fields where devices which can use many interfaces or protocols are referred to as "agnostic".
"Agnostic" is used to mean ambivalent or unsure. It is taken to mean that there are believers in god on one side and those who declare that there are no gods on other side. To avoid taking a side, one calls oneself "agnostic".
That's not what agnostic means and, furthermore, it shades atheism with meanings it doesn't have either. So let us turn to the dictionaries, every one of which agrees on the meaning of agnostic.
Agnosticism is statement that it is impossible to achieve certainty on the issue of god's existence. It is not a position relative to belief in god. That's not how most people use it, though, is it?
The idea that agnosticism is a fence between theism and atheism, and that you can sit on this fence, is clearly false.
But, if we grant that both a theist and an atheist may simultaneously be agnostics (in that they acknowledge that there is no certainty) then we can't use "agnostic" to refer to the fence-sitters. What then do we call the people who sit on the fence between the two positions?
The answer is that we don't call them anything at all because - and this is the tricky part, so I'll put it in italics and bold - there is no fence between theism and atheism. There is no place for such people to sit.
A believer in god, a "theist", is a person who would agree with the statement, "I believe that at least one god exists". Atheists are those without this belief by which I mean to include every person who is not in the first group. An atheist is a person without belief in god. That person may additionally firmly believe that there are no gods, but that is a stronger statement than what is required to win the title of "atheist".
Simply put: Do you believe in god?
If your answer is "yes", you are a theist.
Everyone else, from "I haven't decided" and "I'm not sure" all the way to "no way, gods are for the weak-minded", is an atheist.
Welcome to the club. You probably weren't aware that you were a member but that's our fault for basically never having any meetings.
On the other hand we can not allow the misuse of words to guide people to faulty conclusions. If you want a good example of logical failure through the abuse of language, Anselm's "Ontological Argument" is always fun to read.
And so it is with a heavy heart that I hear people often "refusing to take sides" on religious issues by declaring themselves "agnostic". The misuse of the term "agnostic" even reaches in to technical fields where devices which can use many interfaces or protocols are referred to as "agnostic".
"Agnostic" is used to mean ambivalent or unsure. It is taken to mean that there are believers in god on one side and those who declare that there are no gods on other side. To avoid taking a side, one calls oneself "agnostic".
That's not what agnostic means and, furthermore, it shades atheism with meanings it doesn't have either. So let us turn to the dictionaries, every one of which agrees on the meaning of agnostic.
ag⋅nos⋅tic –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Agnosticism is statement that it is impossible to achieve certainty on the issue of god's existence. It is not a position relative to belief in god. That's not how most people use it, though, is it?
The idea that agnosticism is a fence between theism and atheism, and that you can sit on this fence, is clearly false.
But, if we grant that both a theist and an atheist may simultaneously be agnostics (in that they acknowledge that there is no certainty) then we can't use "agnostic" to refer to the fence-sitters. What then do we call the people who sit on the fence between the two positions?
The answer is that we don't call them anything at all because - and this is the tricky part, so I'll put it in italics and bold - there is no fence between theism and atheism. There is no place for such people to sit.
A believer in god, a "theist", is a person who would agree with the statement, "I believe that at least one god exists". Atheists are those without this belief by which I mean to include every person who is not in the first group. An atheist is a person without belief in god. That person may additionally firmly believe that there are no gods, but that is a stronger statement than what is required to win the title of "atheist".
Simply put: Do you believe in god?
If your answer is "yes", you are a theist.
Everyone else, from "I haven't decided" and "I'm not sure" all the way to "no way, gods are for the weak-minded", is an atheist.
Welcome to the club. You probably weren't aware that you were a member but that's our fault for basically never having any meetings.
Friday, January 16, 2009
What Atheists Believe In
So the Atheist Bus Campaign is coming to Canada, or at least Toronto, which is a lot like the Centre of the Universe anyway.
Of the many misconceptions that atheists face about immorality, there's always this tendency to demand things of atheists.
The first thing to be demanded is that we prove that god doesn't exist. That's what I like about this campaign. It is clearly labelled the atheist bus campaign, and yet the statement is, "There's probably no god". This accurately describes the atheist position which is that we see no reason to believe in any gods. It's not that we positively declare "There are no gods". It's that we disbelieve the declarations of religious people that there is a god.
Then comes this bit from a minister. Sadly, the writer of the article paraphrased it rather than quoting, but I think the general gist of it is quite common.
The whole point of atheism is the not-believing, not the believing.
But if you really want to know what atheism means to most of us, I can take a vague guess with which most of us would probably agree.
It means freedom. Freedom from dogma and guilt and everything else religion brings us. But a youtube video already says it better than I could, so here ya go.
Of the many misconceptions that atheists face about immorality, there's always this tendency to demand things of atheists.
The first thing to be demanded is that we prove that god doesn't exist. That's what I like about this campaign. It is clearly labelled the atheist bus campaign, and yet the statement is, "There's probably no god". This accurately describes the atheist position which is that we see no reason to believe in any gods. It's not that we positively declare "There are no gods". It's that we disbelieve the declarations of religious people that there is a god.
Then comes this bit from a minister. Sadly, the writer of the article paraphrased it rather than quoting, but I think the general gist of it is quite common.
The moderator of the United Church of Canada, Right Rev. David Giuliano, said he would rather see atheists say what they believe in, rather than what they are against.
The whole point of atheism is the not-believing, not the believing.
But if you really want to know what atheism means to most of us, I can take a vague guess with which most of us would probably agree.
It means freedom. Freedom from dogma and guilt and everything else religion brings us. But a youtube video already says it better than I could, so here ya go.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Dude, That Sucks
A man who isn't the biological father of his ex-wife's twins is still required to pay child support.
The story is that Pasqualino Cornelio married a woman named Anciolina. Sometime in to their marriage she had twins through an act of infidelity that Pasqualino perhaps suspected. The two of them raised these children until they were six years old at which point the parents separated.
As part of the separation and divorce, he was permitted visitation rights and was required to pay alimony and child support which he has done, apparently faithfully and consistently, for ten years.
For whatever reason Anciolina decided that she wanted to reduce her ex-husband's visiting privileges while increasing his child support payments. Apparently this was too much for Pasqualino who, long harbouring his suspicions, had a paternity test performed to prove that the children were not biologically his.
The judge ruled that, regardless of literal genetic paternity, he was still the "father" to these girls and had to continue to pay child support. Nothing in the article indicates whether or not the judge also reduced his visitation privileges or increased the payments to his unfaithful ex-wife.
All I can say is, "Dude, that sucks." With the payments he's been making, he's probably had to forego any natural children of his own. He's been nursing this suspicion for probably a decade, maybe more. But, out of his sense of responsibility and love for the children who he suspected weren't his, he made the payments and kept them fed and sheltered.
And now, after all that, the woman who can't seem to remember being unfaithful to him wants to reduce his visitation rights to the children whom he faithfully supported? Awful.
The problem though is that the judge has a point. First that, under Family Law, he is the father. Second, there's no one else who can support those children.
The following hypothetical scenario will demonstrate the point:
Suppose the mother suddenly discovered that she was not the mother. Suppose there had been a mix up at the hospital 16 years ago and a DNA test suddenly revealed the fact. Would the mother be permitted to dump the twins off on the curb? Of course not. Is Pasqualino's case different because his wife's infidelity was more malicious than a hospital mix up? No. What if a nurse at the hospital had intentionally mixed up Anciolina's children out of some bitterness at Anciolina? Would that permit Anciolina to dump her kids? No.
And consequently, Pasqualino can not dump his kids either.
Mind you, once the kids are out of the way, he should probably be allowed to sue her in civil court for some form of damages. But as long as the kids are around, he's stuck supporting them. For what's it worth, I don't think he actually wants to abandon them. My guess is that he's using the DNA test to prove how good a father he's been in spite of his ex-wife's unfaithfulness and that he's earned - through his forgiveness of her actions - the visitation rights he has. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I think he deserves it in this case and that his ex-wife does not.
But still, "Dude, that sucks."
The story is that Pasqualino Cornelio married a woman named Anciolina. Sometime in to their marriage she had twins through an act of infidelity that Pasqualino perhaps suspected. The two of them raised these children until they were six years old at which point the parents separated.
As part of the separation and divorce, he was permitted visitation rights and was required to pay alimony and child support which he has done, apparently faithfully and consistently, for ten years.
For whatever reason Anciolina decided that she wanted to reduce her ex-husband's visiting privileges while increasing his child support payments. Apparently this was too much for Pasqualino who, long harbouring his suspicions, had a paternity test performed to prove that the children were not biologically his.
The judge ruled that, regardless of literal genetic paternity, he was still the "father" to these girls and had to continue to pay child support. Nothing in the article indicates whether or not the judge also reduced his visitation privileges or increased the payments to his unfaithful ex-wife.
All I can say is, "Dude, that sucks." With the payments he's been making, he's probably had to forego any natural children of his own. He's been nursing this suspicion for probably a decade, maybe more. But, out of his sense of responsibility and love for the children who he suspected weren't his, he made the payments and kept them fed and sheltered.
And now, after all that, the woman who can't seem to remember being unfaithful to him wants to reduce his visitation rights to the children whom he faithfully supported? Awful.
The problem though is that the judge has a point. First that, under Family Law, he is the father. Second, there's no one else who can support those children.
The following hypothetical scenario will demonstrate the point:
Suppose the mother suddenly discovered that she was not the mother. Suppose there had been a mix up at the hospital 16 years ago and a DNA test suddenly revealed the fact. Would the mother be permitted to dump the twins off on the curb? Of course not. Is Pasqualino's case different because his wife's infidelity was more malicious than a hospital mix up? No. What if a nurse at the hospital had intentionally mixed up Anciolina's children out of some bitterness at Anciolina? Would that permit Anciolina to dump her kids? No.
And consequently, Pasqualino can not dump his kids either.
Mind you, once the kids are out of the way, he should probably be allowed to sue her in civil court for some form of damages. But as long as the kids are around, he's stuck supporting them. For what's it worth, I don't think he actually wants to abandon them. My guess is that he's using the DNA test to prove how good a father he's been in spite of his ex-wife's unfaithfulness and that he's earned - through his forgiveness of her actions - the visitation rights he has. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I think he deserves it in this case and that his ex-wife does not.
But still, "Dude, that sucks."
Friday, January 09, 2009
Middle East Needs An Adult
I'm getting sick and tired of all of the petulant, childish whining. Most of the stuff I hear is pro-Israel but the pro-Hamas crap is annoying too.
Look, I'm sure you're all confident that your god told you to go and kill the other guys.
I mean, hell, if you're a Jewish fundamentalist you might think that he promised you the whole country as long as you remember to cut off the ends of your sons' penises. I'd find it annoying if someone traded me my foreskin for a promise and never kept it, but that's something you should be taking up with your Rabbi, not with the poor olive farmer living on the land that you think your god said is yours. Bulldozing the guy's olive farm and taking over his land? That's not going to make anything better, I don't care what you think god told you.
If you're a fundamentalist Muslim living in the Middle East, I'm sure you're pissed off at the misery the Palestinians have been through. I'm sure you think that your god wants you to go off and kill people and drive Israel off the map. But you know what? Running in to a crowded mall and blowing up random Jewish people is not helping. It's not bringing peace. It's not going to change the minds of the Israeli government. In fact, it just gives them an excuse to treat your family and your people even more harshly and it makes it ever more difficult to demonstrate any proper claim you might have.
Yes, it's very colourful and exciting I'm sure. I remember feeling that way about things when I was a teenager. Oooh, look! Here's a chance to get angry and get my testosterone flowing! Fight, fight! We're programmed for that. Evolution can't help but make us want to strut our stuff to attract mates.
But I grew up. I'm an adult now. Part of being an adult is looking back at the stupid things you were taught or incidentally learnt while growing up and realizing that some of them were wrong.
Here. I'll start by making a list of some of the things I was taught that I later realized were wrong:
a) Santa Claus exists
b) women can't do math
c) men are victims of reverse discrimination
d) god hates masturbation
e) the wine really turns in to blood
f) god exists
There, now you go make a list. Start with all of the unevidenced, unsupported claims made by your Imam or Rabbi. Especially examine the ones that make Jews or Muslims sound like mindless animals bent on eating your babies or raping your daughters.
It's time for all of you to grow up. The world doesn't need any more cheerleaders for ignorance.
Look, I'm sure you're all confident that your god told you to go and kill the other guys.
I mean, hell, if you're a Jewish fundamentalist you might think that he promised you the whole country as long as you remember to cut off the ends of your sons' penises. I'd find it annoying if someone traded me my foreskin for a promise and never kept it, but that's something you should be taking up with your Rabbi, not with the poor olive farmer living on the land that you think your god said is yours. Bulldozing the guy's olive farm and taking over his land? That's not going to make anything better, I don't care what you think god told you.
If you're a fundamentalist Muslim living in the Middle East, I'm sure you're pissed off at the misery the Palestinians have been through. I'm sure you think that your god wants you to go off and kill people and drive Israel off the map. But you know what? Running in to a crowded mall and blowing up random Jewish people is not helping. It's not bringing peace. It's not going to change the minds of the Israeli government. In fact, it just gives them an excuse to treat your family and your people even more harshly and it makes it ever more difficult to demonstrate any proper claim you might have.
Yes, it's very colourful and exciting I'm sure. I remember feeling that way about things when I was a teenager. Oooh, look! Here's a chance to get angry and get my testosterone flowing! Fight, fight! We're programmed for that. Evolution can't help but make us want to strut our stuff to attract mates.
But I grew up. I'm an adult now. Part of being an adult is looking back at the stupid things you were taught or incidentally learnt while growing up and realizing that some of them were wrong.
Here. I'll start by making a list of some of the things I was taught that I later realized were wrong:
a) Santa Claus exists
b) women can't do math
c) men are victims of reverse discrimination
d) god hates masturbation
e) the wine really turns in to blood
f) god exists
There, now you go make a list. Start with all of the unevidenced, unsupported claims made by your Imam or Rabbi. Especially examine the ones that make Jews or Muslims sound like mindless animals bent on eating your babies or raping your daughters.
It's time for all of you to grow up. The world doesn't need any more cheerleaders for ignorance.
Ignatieff on Israel: Now we know
And knowing, as every G.I. Joe P.S.A. ever told us, is half the battle.
Ignatieff on Israel:
Good job, Iggy. Now we know who you are. You're the same guy who supported the invasion of Iraq and recanted only because of the "inexcusable cost". Not the immorality, not the lack of W.M.D or Al Qaeda connections, not the torture. No, it was just that the invasion was incompetently fought.
We had hoped that you had learnt your lesson. But no.
Israel, while not physically occupying Gaza, completely surrounded it and has systematically starved its occupants since they decided to change away from their corrupt Fatah government. The starvation became so bad that, inevitably, the fundamentalists and terrorists found enough anger to begin firing rockets in to Israel.
But Iggy says that there's no occupation. How clever of him.
That makes sense. 1.5 million people crammed in to that tiny space. It would make more sense to say that Israel has pushed Hamas in to the human shields and then fired at random in to the mob.
Yep, that makes sense. Let all of the civilians in the area die because of a small fraction of them.
At least now we know who you are. You're the same Iraq-war supporting, American hard liner we thought you were when we first met you. You're the wrong leader for the Liberal party and the wrong leader for Canada. You and your part will never have my vote.
He ends, stupidly enough, with this quote:
What a fool. The only way we'll ever have a lasting solution is by forcing both sides to admit that they've been a pack of violent, childish jerks to each other.
Ignatieff on Israel:
"Canada has to support the right of a democratic country to defend itself."
"Israel has been attacked from Gaza, not just last year, but for almost 10 years"
"They [Israel] evacuated from Gaza so there is no occupation in Gaza."
Good job, Iggy. Now we know who you are. You're the same guy who supported the invasion of Iraq and recanted only because of the "inexcusable cost". Not the immorality, not the lack of W.M.D or Al Qaeda connections, not the torture. No, it was just that the invasion was incompetently fought.
We had hoped that you had learnt your lesson. But no.
Israel, while not physically occupying Gaza, completely surrounded it and has systematically starved its occupants since they decided to change away from their corrupt Fatah government. The starvation became so bad that, inevitably, the fundamentalists and terrorists found enough anger to begin firing rockets in to Israel.
But Iggy says that there's no occupation. How clever of him.
"Hamas is to blame for organizing and instigating these rocket attacks and then for sheltering among civilian populations."
That makes sense. 1.5 million people crammed in to that tiny space. It would make more sense to say that Israel has pushed Hamas in to the human shields and then fired at random in to the mob.
Ignatieff said Canada must do whatever it can to get humanitarian and medical relief into Gaza when there is a ceasefire, but rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas must stop first.
Yep, that makes sense. Let all of the civilians in the area die because of a small fraction of them.
At least now we know who you are. You're the same Iraq-war supporting, American hard liner we thought you were when we first met you. You're the wrong leader for the Liberal party and the wrong leader for Canada. You and your part will never have my vote.
He ends, stupidly enough, with this quote:
"Canada should also continue to work towards a lasting solution to the conflict, he said."
What a fool. The only way we'll ever have a lasting solution is by forcing both sides to admit that they've been a pack of violent, childish jerks to each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)