So I finally saw the World Cup Head-butt. I don't see what the big deal is. Italian guy pinches French guy's nipple (an action which, even for those Euro men who occasionally kiss each other, is a bit much), swears at him, gets head butted by the French guy. If it were hockey and you head butted a guy in the face, or while still wearing a helmet, it would be pretty bad. But since it was just a head butt to the chest, in response to some obvious provocation... hmph... five minutes, or maybe a double minor. But I don't see a game misconduct over that.
Now, seriously, the rights to retaliation and self defence are very, very important. When attacked, you have the right to defend yourself. When attacked repeatedly, you have the right to take further action, especially when authority is utterly failing you. I take this as an axiom. Hell ... even Gandhi took it as an axiom that there could be just wars. He'd just never seen one.
And so I turn, with all hopes that I can avoid being called an anti-Semite, to the situation in Israel and Palestine. Israel has been occupying Palestine for almost forty years. Israel has been placing Israeli-only settlements inside those occupied territories, pushing out Palestinians, pretty much ceaselessly for those forty years. Most Israelis realize the settlements are a foolish, provocative idea that does nothing to improve the prospects for peace with any of their neighbours. Most realize the settlements will eventually have to be dismantled, but the government goes on building and expanding them anyway.
Israel and Palestine have been killing each other's people for those forty years. When the Israel military kills a civilian, our media calls it "regrettable collateral damage". When the Palestinian militias kill a civilian, or sometimes even a soldier, it is called "terrorism". The difference is a matter of point of view. One stands assured that it plays differently in Syria and Iran.
To get this straightened out and truly understand what's going on, an easy check is to count dead people. In 2006, the Palestinian dead number almost 300. The Israeli number, much more accurately, at 20 (at the time of this writing). Yet our media go on pretending that the sole guilt and blame lies with the Palestinians because they "support terrorism" and "refuse to recognize Israel", when in actuality "terrorism" is being committed on both sides, though Palestinians are dying in greater numbers and both of the major organizations in Palestine (Hamas and Fatah) have already agreed to recognize Israel.
Terrorism is the killing of civilians for political purposes. It doesn't matter which side you agree with. Right now, the term "terrorism" is being used to mean "violence of which we disapprove" or maybe "violence done by people we don't like."
And so we come back to Zidane and the infamous Head Butt. The question is this: how much is a guy supposed to accept before he fights back? How many nipple pinches and ethnic slurs before we declare the Head Butt appropriate?
On the other side, how many years of occupation should the Palestinians have to endure before we graciously permit them the right to fight back without being called terrorists? What is the expected reaction of the Palestinians? What would you do if all you knew for your entire life was an occupation by an authority that blockaded your roads, blew up your power sources and cut your water at will? If you had a tiny fraction of the military power of your occupier? The original justification for the occupation was that the Palestinians were dangerous terrorists, but all that the occupation has done is to create more danger, more fear and more terror.
Yes, it would be wonderful if one hundred percent of the Palestinians chose utterly peaceful methods of protest, but it's simply not a realistic expectation of large numbers of human beings. As unjustifiable as it is, it is just as predictable as a World Cup Head Butt, when you get right down to it.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Why won't they tell us?
I've been doing politics for a while now, and I haven't said anything truly offensive about personal topics in a long time.
Remember when I did that thing where I compared the idea of "paying women less because they might get pregnant and quit" with "men paying higher auto insurance"? Remember all those inflammatory emails I got? Then, right after that, I talked about the stats that showed that, back in 1994, someone did a study of accidents-per-mile-driven and found that women were just as bad, if not worse, than men?
Ah, those were the days. Biggest response to a DTK ever. I think seven people wrote in.
So I started thinking that if that's what you all get excited about, maybe I should toss a little more of that music out there.
Why don't we like to carry your purses? Because it makes us feel gay. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay. But since we aren't, we don't like feeling gay. I'll carry the diaper bag. It's very utilitarian looking: no pink; no baby-blue; lots of square-shaped pockets.
Onward: Why won't women tell us what they want?
I hate to make sweeping generalizations, but a good sweeping generalization is more likely to upset someone and, let's be honest, we all enjoy getting angry about something now and then. I think Plato asked Socrates the self same question: "Forsooth - " (that's how they spoke back then) "- wherefore dost my wife expect things of me but is unwilling to name the things she expecteth?"
(Disclaimer: let's not pretend that I understand women. I understand one of them, whose behaviour makes sense, in hindsight, a little more than half the time. And that's good enough to be getting on with.)
It may come down to conditioning. Unavoidably, we are the products of our environments. If your environment involves gushy romance novels, 90210 and Hollywood fare, you're going to have some pretty unrealistic influences. We men, of course, have our influences as well, but ours are so obviously unrealistic that we never transpose them over real life. You're not getting laid when you deliver a pizza and you won't meet the woman of your dreams by saving her life during an alien invasion, sudden ice age or recovery of the Ark of the Covenant.
The influences that women are hit with on a daily basis, however, seem much more firmly grounded in reality, even while they involve complex scripts. We, as men, have no clue about these scripts because we consciously avoid Cosmopolitan magazine, soap operas and chick flicks (same reason we won't carry your purse).
So, for example, she says something mysterious to him and expects a specific response. Clueless, he says something like, "Did you punch her in the nose?" or "Quit that job already" or, perhaps realizing the love of his life has said something out of character, he uses the old "Hmph" with a concerned grimace, hoping to pull off "strong and silent". None of these fits the bill, and the whole thing collapses.
I knew a girl once who told me, as we walked through a flea market full of used books, that every man should read at least one Harlequin romance novel so he can understand what it is that women are expecting. Passing by a newstand with a wide array of glossy magazines, I felt wise when I didn't offer the obvious corollary.
Seven Habits guy wrote that we all come loaded with scripts. Our parents, our siblings and society at large give us these scripts, slipping them quietly in to our brains. We must not allow ourselves to expect other people to fall in to our scripts so neatly. And really, would it be satisfying to have a conversation full of such artificial dialogue? Why not simply state the things that are desired? It might seem less magical, perhaps, but boy wouldn't everybody be happy if they got what they wanted?
Remember when I did that thing where I compared the idea of "paying women less because they might get pregnant and quit" with "men paying higher auto insurance"? Remember all those inflammatory emails I got? Then, right after that, I talked about the stats that showed that, back in 1994, someone did a study of accidents-per-mile-driven and found that women were just as bad, if not worse, than men?
Ah, those were the days. Biggest response to a DTK ever. I think seven people wrote in.
So I started thinking that if that's what you all get excited about, maybe I should toss a little more of that music out there.
Why don't we like to carry your purses? Because it makes us feel gay. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay. But since we aren't, we don't like feeling gay. I'll carry the diaper bag. It's very utilitarian looking: no pink; no baby-blue; lots of square-shaped pockets.
Onward: Why won't women tell us what they want?
I hate to make sweeping generalizations, but a good sweeping generalization is more likely to upset someone and, let's be honest, we all enjoy getting angry about something now and then. I think Plato asked Socrates the self same question: "Forsooth - " (that's how they spoke back then) "- wherefore dost my wife expect things of me but is unwilling to name the things she expecteth?"
(Disclaimer: let's not pretend that I understand women. I understand one of them, whose behaviour makes sense, in hindsight, a little more than half the time. And that's good enough to be getting on with.)
It may come down to conditioning. Unavoidably, we are the products of our environments. If your environment involves gushy romance novels, 90210 and Hollywood fare, you're going to have some pretty unrealistic influences. We men, of course, have our influences as well, but ours are so obviously unrealistic that we never transpose them over real life. You're not getting laid when you deliver a pizza and you won't meet the woman of your dreams by saving her life during an alien invasion, sudden ice age or recovery of the Ark of the Covenant.
The influences that women are hit with on a daily basis, however, seem much more firmly grounded in reality, even while they involve complex scripts. We, as men, have no clue about these scripts because we consciously avoid Cosmopolitan magazine, soap operas and chick flicks (same reason we won't carry your purse).
So, for example, she says something mysterious to him and expects a specific response. Clueless, he says something like, "Did you punch her in the nose?" or "Quit that job already" or, perhaps realizing the love of his life has said something out of character, he uses the old "Hmph" with a concerned grimace, hoping to pull off "strong and silent". None of these fits the bill, and the whole thing collapses.
I knew a girl once who told me, as we walked through a flea market full of used books, that every man should read at least one Harlequin romance novel so he can understand what it is that women are expecting. Passing by a newstand with a wide array of glossy magazines, I felt wise when I didn't offer the obvious corollary.
Seven Habits guy wrote that we all come loaded with scripts. Our parents, our siblings and society at large give us these scripts, slipping them quietly in to our brains. We must not allow ourselves to expect other people to fall in to our scripts so neatly. And really, would it be satisfying to have a conversation full of such artificial dialogue? Why not simply state the things that are desired? It might seem less magical, perhaps, but boy wouldn't everybody be happy if they got what they wanted?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
OECD Advises Canada
The OECD.
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
It gets a lot of publicity whenever it tries to get governments to do anything. Presumably it's made up a bunch of business-types who are either running corporations right now, or have in the past. Regardless of this bias, however, you can always find the OECD's pronouncements somewhere near the front page of your local newspaper.
We have to allow banks to merge in order to increase productivity!
We have to lower business taxes, raise sales taxes, sell our telecomms to international corporations, let the free market regulate our farms etc. etc.
The funniest part about that last article is that it mentions that, among the nations surveyed by the OECD, Canada has the strongest economy in the world. That's right, even with our "high business taxes", regulated industries and apparently low sales taxes, we have the strongest economy. And yet the OECD says that we have to change ourselves to be more like the other OECD nations.
Other OECD nations? You mean the ones with weaker economies?
This, to me, reeks of dogmatism. They know, beyond any logic or fact reaching them, that the correct thing to do is drop business taxes, raise sales taxes and let the free market run everything. Regardless of how many times this has failed, nor how well things work when nations don't do this, the OECD knows it's the right answer and they'll push it on you whether you have a problem or not.
But there's another more crucial factor here. Certain industries such as banking, agriculture, news agencies, even telcos, have more important obligations than merely being as "productive" as possible. The agricultural industry is responsible for providing us with food, regardless of fluctuations in international markets. The news agencies are supposed to be providing us with accurate information and analysis. The banks safeguard our money. I could go on.
If the banks, as the OECD insists, are to become more "productive", they must be allowed to merge. But is it in the best interest of account holders and mortgagees that the choices are limited to a small number of very large, very powerful banks? What if we allow foreign ownership of our news media? What sort of news does one get from a single, giant news corporation over the whole world? What if we stop regulating the price of food and suddenly our farmers can't compete? The farmers go out of business and we're completely hosed the next time there's a drought in Haiti. Not acceptable.
These industries all have higher obligations than merely "productivity" and "efficiency". Much like setting the minimum wage, the lowest price is not necessarily the best price. That's why we have a government: to regulate that which needs regulating. What this government will do is not clear. It never has been, but if they hold true to form we're going to see lots of deregulation and tax cutting and screw the consequences.
Greg.
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
It gets a lot of publicity whenever it tries to get governments to do anything. Presumably it's made up a bunch of business-types who are either running corporations right now, or have in the past. Regardless of this bias, however, you can always find the OECD's pronouncements somewhere near the front page of your local newspaper.
We have to allow banks to merge in order to increase productivity!
We have to lower business taxes, raise sales taxes, sell our telecomms to international corporations, let the free market regulate our farms etc. etc.
The funniest part about that last article is that it mentions that, among the nations surveyed by the OECD, Canada has the strongest economy in the world. That's right, even with our "high business taxes", regulated industries and apparently low sales taxes, we have the strongest economy. And yet the OECD says that we have to change ourselves to be more like the other OECD nations.
Other OECD nations? You mean the ones with weaker economies?
This, to me, reeks of dogmatism. They know, beyond any logic or fact reaching them, that the correct thing to do is drop business taxes, raise sales taxes and let the free market run everything. Regardless of how many times this has failed, nor how well things work when nations don't do this, the OECD knows it's the right answer and they'll push it on you whether you have a problem or not.
But there's another more crucial factor here. Certain industries such as banking, agriculture, news agencies, even telcos, have more important obligations than merely being as "productive" as possible. The agricultural industry is responsible for providing us with food, regardless of fluctuations in international markets. The news agencies are supposed to be providing us with accurate information and analysis. The banks safeguard our money. I could go on.
If the banks, as the OECD insists, are to become more "productive", they must be allowed to merge. But is it in the best interest of account holders and mortgagees that the choices are limited to a small number of very large, very powerful banks? What if we allow foreign ownership of our news media? What sort of news does one get from a single, giant news corporation over the whole world? What if we stop regulating the price of food and suddenly our farmers can't compete? The farmers go out of business and we're completely hosed the next time there's a drought in Haiti. Not acceptable.
These industries all have higher obligations than merely "productivity" and "efficiency". Much like setting the minimum wage, the lowest price is not necessarily the best price. That's why we have a government: to regulate that which needs regulating. What this government will do is not clear. It never has been, but if they hold true to form we're going to see lots of deregulation and tax cutting and screw the consequences.
Greg.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
"Occupation" Caledonia
So the "Occupation" in Caledonia has ended.
By "Occupation", of course, we're referring to the bit where the natives were blocking off bits of the land that we took from them. Their argument was that, though they ceded many of their lands to the Canadian government via treaty, this particular piece of land was still theirs and the city had no business building a subdivision on it.
Acrimony and enmity followed. A bit of miscellaneous violence (how did a U.S. Border Patrol vehicle get hijacked?) ensued. Eventually, with no help from the federal government - which should be handling Indian Affairs, after all - the province bought off the developer while the land dispute issue is being settled. It's an eminently sensible thing to do, given the amount of economic damage the whole blockade was causing. No one has to get shot, or run over, or beaten up. We just handle it like civilized human beings.
Almost.
I'm usually impressed by the civility of the general Canadian populace when it comes to issues like these. We can accept gay marriage. We'd rather pay for education with taxes than with cash. We're against capital punishment etc. etc. I was pretty shocked, though, when I started reading online commentary about the standoff.
Native Indians are apparently a bunch of lazy welfare bums leeching off our tax dollars. That's not very intelligent. Let's move on to the next post. "There go those liberals again, throwing money at the problem". I see, moving on. "Indians are just a burden on our government. Make them work for our money." Right. "Send in the military and kick these 'warriors' (louts) out of there".
I went along looking for some intelligent response. Something about "land claims" and "treaty violations" or maybe "apartheid", "racism" or "assimilation". I had to wade through 30 ignorant posts before I hit on a guy who pointed out that, perhaps, the Indians had a legitimate claim and were pressing it through the time-honoured democratic tradition of public protest. That poster had, if I may stereotype, a very foreign sounding name. Perhaps he came from a place where people are more aware of their political surroundings. Perhaps he had experienced some form of discrimination.
But ignorance can only be cured with education. So here's some education for all those who wag the "lazy Indian welfare bum" finger. Indians aren't allowed to work. They're allowed to farm. That's it. They could conceivably run 1-900 phone sex lines, IT consultancy and legal firms, and a few other types of businesses. But they're not allowed to manufacture anything on their reserves. The industries that provide the soul of most cities are forbidden. That's part of the Indian Act. If you're going to accuse them of "not working", you'll have to remember that it was us, Canadians, who decided to tell them what type of work we wanted from them and then confine them to lands that wouldn't necessarily support such work.
Agriculture or nothing. That was deal for our Indians. It's 1840. Here's a cow, here's a plough. If you want to do anything else, you'll have to leave the reserve (which was our real goal). Once you've all left the reserve, we can have your land. Meanwhile, we'll let the water get poisoned, move you around at will, and slowly take the land away from you anyway.
This system is broken. Generation after generation of natives are being punished but have committed no crime. They teach their children to treasure the land they still have and so those children cling to it, but we give them no way to maintain that land and have employment, opportunity and dignity. The rules and regulations which we have historically used to deny them their status on the reserve only make the situation worse.
As for the rest of you: if you're going to start levelling accusations at our native population for their laziness and dependency, you'd best start reading the history of the Indian Act. Dependency is a two-way street, and we've done more than just "enable" this situation. Our governments have historically encouraged this misery in order to seize even more of their land.
Greg.
By "Occupation", of course, we're referring to the bit where the natives were blocking off bits of the land that we took from them. Their argument was that, though they ceded many of their lands to the Canadian government via treaty, this particular piece of land was still theirs and the city had no business building a subdivision on it.
Acrimony and enmity followed. A bit of miscellaneous violence (how did a U.S. Border Patrol vehicle get hijacked?) ensued. Eventually, with no help from the federal government - which should be handling Indian Affairs, after all - the province bought off the developer while the land dispute issue is being settled. It's an eminently sensible thing to do, given the amount of economic damage the whole blockade was causing. No one has to get shot, or run over, or beaten up. We just handle it like civilized human beings.
Almost.
I'm usually impressed by the civility of the general Canadian populace when it comes to issues like these. We can accept gay marriage. We'd rather pay for education with taxes than with cash. We're against capital punishment etc. etc. I was pretty shocked, though, when I started reading online commentary about the standoff.
Native Indians are apparently a bunch of lazy welfare bums leeching off our tax dollars. That's not very intelligent. Let's move on to the next post. "There go those liberals again, throwing money at the problem". I see, moving on. "Indians are just a burden on our government. Make them work for our money." Right. "Send in the military and kick these 'warriors' (louts) out of there".
I went along looking for some intelligent response. Something about "land claims" and "treaty violations" or maybe "apartheid", "racism" or "assimilation". I had to wade through 30 ignorant posts before I hit on a guy who pointed out that, perhaps, the Indians had a legitimate claim and were pressing it through the time-honoured democratic tradition of public protest. That poster had, if I may stereotype, a very foreign sounding name. Perhaps he came from a place where people are more aware of their political surroundings. Perhaps he had experienced some form of discrimination.
But ignorance can only be cured with education. So here's some education for all those who wag the "lazy Indian welfare bum" finger. Indians aren't allowed to work. They're allowed to farm. That's it. They could conceivably run 1-900 phone sex lines, IT consultancy and legal firms, and a few other types of businesses. But they're not allowed to manufacture anything on their reserves. The industries that provide the soul of most cities are forbidden. That's part of the Indian Act. If you're going to accuse them of "not working", you'll have to remember that it was us, Canadians, who decided to tell them what type of work we wanted from them and then confine them to lands that wouldn't necessarily support such work.
Agriculture or nothing. That was deal for our Indians. It's 1840. Here's a cow, here's a plough. If you want to do anything else, you'll have to leave the reserve (which was our real goal). Once you've all left the reserve, we can have your land. Meanwhile, we'll let the water get poisoned, move you around at will, and slowly take the land away from you anyway.
This system is broken. Generation after generation of natives are being punished but have committed no crime. They teach their children to treasure the land they still have and so those children cling to it, but we give them no way to maintain that land and have employment, opportunity and dignity. The rules and regulations which we have historically used to deny them their status on the reserve only make the situation worse.
As for the rest of you: if you're going to start levelling accusations at our native population for their laziness and dependency, you'd best start reading the history of the Indian Act. Dependency is a two-way street, and we've done more than just "enable" this situation. Our governments have historically encouraged this misery in order to seize even more of their land.
Greg.
Opening Deep Thought Korner
For the many, many fans of the Deep Thought Korner, I've decided to put them in an easy to reach blog. This should also allow people to vent their spleens when they disagree with me (Rare, I know, but it does happen).
The first DTK should be posted this week.
The first DTK should be posted this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)