We were told that the war in Afghanistan was being fought to end religious tyranny. We're fighting the Taliban. It's a worthwhile endeavour, all that bloodshed, because we're removing crazy religious dogmatists from power and supporting a moderate government that will protect innocent people from the Taliban.
So we put up with Karzai. So we sent our boys and girls. So we dropped bombs and shot people. So over a hundred of our people have died in this endeavour. So we spent money we can ill afford to spend.
And now?
And now the sham of democracy that is the "loya jirga" in Afghanistan is passing laws that enforce the same religious tyranny that we were supposedly there to prevent.
The whole facade is crumbling. We've never been fighting for democracy or freedom. We've spent decades supporting right wing dictators in foreign countries, calling it democracy and lying to the people.
This is only the latest lie: that we are in Afghanistan for anything other than self interest.
It's time to bring our soldiers home. Not one more person should have to spend one more minute in theatre, never mind be wounded or die, for this sham.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Regarding Class Warfare: Eating the Poor
The next time some bunch of rich economist types start complaining that we can't tax rich people because it would "ruin the economy" and "de-incentivize wealth" and that it constitutes "class warfare", show them this.
Homeless woman jailed for being poor.
Her son was arrested and convicted, sentenced to juvenile hall. She was ordered to pay for his detention (?) out of her own pocket. Being unable to do this, she was held in contempt and sent to prison. When she got out, she was then fined for her own jail time.
Basically, we're one step closer to what the wealthy in America really want to do: feed the poor in to meat grinders and serve them with a side of foie gras.
But, oh, don't raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest people by 1%, because that would be class warfare.
Homeless woman jailed for being poor.
Her son was arrested and convicted, sentenced to juvenile hall. She was ordered to pay for his detention (?) out of her own pocket. Being unable to do this, she was held in contempt and sent to prison. When she got out, she was then fined for her own jail time.
Basically, we're one step closer to what the wealthy in America really want to do: feed the poor in to meat grinders and serve them with a side of foie gras.
But, oh, don't raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest people by 1%, because that would be class warfare.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Combating Defamation of Religions
Once you know the name of the U.N. Resolution, it's easy to find online.
The question is, now, how bad is it?
If we adopt this resolution in to Canadian Law, what will become illegal? Will I still be allowed to say that I find Christianity ridiculous because it depends upon the debauchery of a teenage virgin and the eating of a cracker that adherents pretend is her son's flesh? Will I be jailed if I say that Judaism is based on the false premise of an Exodus from Egypt? Will I suffer punishment if I say that Islam is an unjust religion because it places such a large share of the responsibility for preventing lust upon women?
The problem comes with the word "defamation". At dictionary.com, it says, "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another".
False or unjustified? How do you hope to prove that? If there a billion followers of Religion X, then there are a billion different versions of X. One Christian will tell you that abortion isn't all that bad an idea in some cases. I know Muslims who drink alcohol.
And yes, I know, the devout will say these aren't Real Christians (TM) or Real Muslims (TM). They could probably argue, at that point, that I have "defamed" their religions just by attributing such opinions and actions to fake members of their respective religions.
What does the text of the resolution say, regarding defamation of religions? Most of it is actually pretty good, boilerplate, tolerance-based stuff. Most of it simply implores member States to prevent craziness. Some of it, however, goes over the line.
Here, we note that they never defined "Defamation" in regards to religion. Defamation of a religion, if you wanted to be technical, could happen when an Anglican attributes something to Catholicism that a Catholic says is false. Now what? Do our courts become crammed with every case of doctrinal schism that anyone feels like litigating?
I most certainly will do no such thing. Did religion bring us some good things? Probably. Here and there. It also brought us Crusades and Jihads and almost everything that's wrong in the Middle East. It brought intentional ignorance, manipulation of the populace and people who want to wipe out scientific education and research.
This is a smooth move. Saying bad things about a religion - such as citing contradictions in its holy book or pointing out dangerous side effects of its teachings - could be considered defamation. For example, I might argue that "The Holocaust was a direct result of centuries of Catholic anti-Semitism". A Christian who doesn't feel this is fair could accuse me of this new crime "defamation of religion".
What this part of the resolution is saying is that pointing out this flaw in Catholic history is a subset of "incitement to religious hatred".
Do we understand what this means? Pointing out the violence caused by a religion will now fall under the column of a hate crime.
That's dangerous. It gives the religious people the authority to do whatever they want and be exempt from criticism on the grounds that any such criticism will be "defamation of religion" to any follower who can say that he or she did not support that action.
You can't criticize the dangers of Christianity (abortion clinic bombing, creationism in schools, the Crusades, the Holocaust) because some Christians will call that defamation. You can't criticize the dangers of Judaism (circumcision, the Promised Land) because some Jews don't support all of those effects. You can't criticize Islam for promoting suicide bombings or covering women in potato sacks because not all Muslims support that.
This is a dangerous, dangerous road they're walking with this resolution. I understand that the Muslim states are tired and angry at the fact that their citizens are the victims of such discrimination. But this is not the solution.
The question is, now, how bad is it?
If we adopt this resolution in to Canadian Law, what will become illegal? Will I still be allowed to say that I find Christianity ridiculous because it depends upon the debauchery of a teenage virgin and the eating of a cracker that adherents pretend is her son's flesh? Will I be jailed if I say that Judaism is based on the false premise of an Exodus from Egypt? Will I suffer punishment if I say that Islam is an unjust religion because it places such a large share of the responsibility for preventing lust upon women?
The problem comes with the word "defamation". At dictionary.com, it says, "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another".
False or unjustified? How do you hope to prove that? If there a billion followers of Religion X, then there are a billion different versions of X. One Christian will tell you that abortion isn't all that bad an idea in some cases. I know Muslims who drink alcohol.
And yes, I know, the devout will say these aren't Real Christians (TM) or Real Muslims (TM). They could probably argue, at that point, that I have "defamed" their religions just by attributing such opinions and actions to fake members of their respective religions.
What does the text of the resolution say, regarding defamation of religions? Most of it is actually pretty good, boilerplate, tolerance-based stuff. Most of it simply implores member States to prevent craziness. Some of it, however, goes over the line.
“Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,
Here, we note that they never defined "Defamation" in regards to religion. Defamation of a religion, if you wanted to be technical, could happen when an Anglican attributes something to Catholicism that a Catholic says is false. Now what? Do our courts become crammed with every case of doctrinal schism that anyone feels like litigating?
“Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions and beliefs to modern civilization
I most certainly will do no such thing. Did religion bring us some good things? Probably. Here and there. It also brought us Crusades and Jihads and almost everything that's wrong in the Middle East. It brought intentional ignorance, manipulation of the populace and people who want to wipe out scientific education and research.
“16. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,
This is a smooth move. Saying bad things about a religion - such as citing contradictions in its holy book or pointing out dangerous side effects of its teachings - could be considered defamation. For example, I might argue that "The Holocaust was a direct result of centuries of Catholic anti-Semitism". A Christian who doesn't feel this is fair could accuse me of this new crime "defamation of religion".
What this part of the resolution is saying is that pointing out this flaw in Catholic history is a subset of "incitement to religious hatred".
Do we understand what this means? Pointing out the violence caused by a religion will now fall under the column of a hate crime.
That's dangerous. It gives the religious people the authority to do whatever they want and be exempt from criticism on the grounds that any such criticism will be "defamation of religion" to any follower who can say that he or she did not support that action.
You can't criticize the dangers of Christianity (abortion clinic bombing, creationism in schools, the Crusades, the Holocaust) because some Christians will call that defamation. You can't criticize the dangers of Judaism (circumcision, the Promised Land) because some Jews don't support all of those effects. You can't criticize Islam for promoting suicide bombings or covering women in potato sacks because not all Muslims support that.
This is a dangerous, dangerous road they're walking with this resolution. I understand that the Muslim states are tired and angry at the fact that their citizens are the victims of such discrimination. But this is not the solution.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
KIPP: Margaret Wente and Education
Down in the states, they've created an educational program called "KIPP" (Knowledge is Power Program) and Margaret Wente wants you to know how wonderful it is.
She tells us that "Nearly 80 per cent of KIPP alumni - who are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic - go to college." Now I'll grant that getting 80% of a minority population in the United States in to post secondary education would be a wonderful achievement.
Unfortunately, KIPP does not come close to achieving this. What KIPP does is first weed out 40% of its population, preventing them from being "alumni" of KIPP. Of the 60% that remain, 80% go on to college or university. 80% of 60% is actually 48%. So it would be more accurate to say that "slightly less than half of KIPP students go to college or university".
On the good side, students are scoring well on standardizes tests. Margaret dedicates a large chunk of text to a set of claims in this regard. "Almost every KIPP school decisively outperforms its district", she says, failing to add the phrase "on standardized tests". Believe it or not, it's easy to have your school get good marks on standardized tests. You just drop the rest of the curriculum and do nothing but focus on the standardized tests. It's a very typical technique and it's ironically destroying education everywhere.
Now you might wonder why 40% of students drop out and a lot of the teachers "move on, too". That might have something to do with burnout. Students go to school for over 8 hours a day, are given homework every night, classes on alternating Saturdays and 3 weeks of school in the summer. Teachers are on call at all times of day, accessible to students by cellphone.
Of course you're going to do well on standardized tests. But you're also going to burn students out and make them hate learning. No wonder only half of them make it to college or university.
What is good about KIPP? Apparently the KIPP administrators have convinced the parents of their students that discipline is very important. They have created a culture of pro-educational behaviour that has been removed from a lot of other places in North America. If you can actually force students to pay attention, discipline those who don't and have parents who agree to that discipline, you can get a lot further in education. That cultural shift, more than the sweatshop mentality, is undoubtedly what is propelling KIPP students forward.
Yes, KIPP sounds like a wonderful, equalizing education system. But it isn't. It's just a sweatshop that makes children do well on standardized tests.
She tells us that "Nearly 80 per cent of KIPP alumni - who are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic - go to college." Now I'll grant that getting 80% of a minority population in the United States in to post secondary education would be a wonderful achievement.
Unfortunately, KIPP does not come close to achieving this. What KIPP does is first weed out 40% of its population, preventing them from being "alumni" of KIPP. Of the 60% that remain, 80% go on to college or university. 80% of 60% is actually 48%. So it would be more accurate to say that "slightly less than half of KIPP students go to college or university".
On the good side, students are scoring well on standardizes tests. Margaret dedicates a large chunk of text to a set of claims in this regard. "Almost every KIPP school decisively outperforms its district", she says, failing to add the phrase "on standardized tests". Believe it or not, it's easy to have your school get good marks on standardized tests. You just drop the rest of the curriculum and do nothing but focus on the standardized tests. It's a very typical technique and it's ironically destroying education everywhere.
Now you might wonder why 40% of students drop out and a lot of the teachers "move on, too". That might have something to do with burnout. Students go to school for over 8 hours a day, are given homework every night, classes on alternating Saturdays and 3 weeks of school in the summer. Teachers are on call at all times of day, accessible to students by cellphone.
Of course you're going to do well on standardized tests. But you're also going to burn students out and make them hate learning. No wonder only half of them make it to college or university.
What is good about KIPP? Apparently the KIPP administrators have convinced the parents of their students that discipline is very important. They have created a culture of pro-educational behaviour that has been removed from a lot of other places in North America. If you can actually force students to pay attention, discipline those who don't and have parents who agree to that discipline, you can get a lot further in education. That cultural shift, more than the sweatshop mentality, is undoubtedly what is propelling KIPP students forward.
Yes, KIPP sounds like a wonderful, equalizing education system. But it isn't. It's just a sweatshop that makes children do well on standardized tests.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Nortel Execs vs Their Severed Employees
With all due apologies to Lyra and Pan.
The former employees of Nortel, robbed by the swindlers who held off their severance pay until the company filed for bankruptcy, are suing the company to prevent it from awarding 29 million dollars worth of "retention bonuses" to members of the executive.
That money, apparently, is needed to retain top talent during the restructuring.
The same top talent that led the company in to the ground? Hard to say, as they aren't saying who exactly is getting how much.
What the executives don't seem to understand is the same thing that the AIG people don't seem to understand. People are angry. People are so angry they're willing to accept pain themselves in order to punish those they believe have hurt them.
These executives, flush with privilege, don't quite understand the situation they're in. People are mad. People are absolutely, raging mad. Their lives have been ruined. Their pensions have been stolen. And the executives want bonuses.
They don't seem to understand that it's not a choice between bonuses withheld or bonuses given. It's a choice between bonuses withheld and eventually, if you follow the mounting anger, pitchforks. It's only a matter of time if they keep this up.
The former employees of Nortel, robbed by the swindlers who held off their severance pay until the company filed for bankruptcy, are suing the company to prevent it from awarding 29 million dollars worth of "retention bonuses" to members of the executive.
That money, apparently, is needed to retain top talent during the restructuring.
The same top talent that led the company in to the ground? Hard to say, as they aren't saying who exactly is getting how much.
What the executives don't seem to understand is the same thing that the AIG people don't seem to understand. People are angry. People are so angry they're willing to accept pain themselves in order to punish those they believe have hurt them.
These executives, flush with privilege, don't quite understand the situation they're in. People are mad. People are absolutely, raging mad. Their lives have been ruined. Their pensions have been stolen. And the executives want bonuses.
They don't seem to understand that it's not a choice between bonuses withheld or bonuses given. It's a choice between bonuses withheld and eventually, if you follow the mounting anger, pitchforks. It's only a matter of time if they keep this up.
Calgary and the Pro-God Ads
This is the one objection I had to the atheist bus campaign. Religion is on the wane. Belief is down in polls. Church attendance is dropping. Religion, ignored, quietly goes away, quietly becomes less dogmatic. Children don't go to church as often as their parents did. People find the old beliefs quirky and silly. The godless slowly win the long race.
Unless you agitate the believers.
So, fine, they have their own ads now.
I'm not sure what religion they're speaking for when they say this. The ads were apparently purchased using the money of a number of people from a number of different faiths ("Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims", the purchaser claims). But I don't believe the statement is accurate.
A cursory reading of the christian bible, for example, states pretty clearly that god doesn't much care for atheists:
Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
Romans 1:32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
If this god of theirs "abandoned" us, I have a hard time believing the claim that said entity also "cares for us".
But that's just me, and they'll automatically declare that I'm "interpreting" their bible incorrectly then I point out that it says exactly the opposite of what they want it to say.
What's more to the point is that there will now be a brief agitation of the believers. We can hope that this will leave the fence sitters with more information on the issue so that, the next time a pollster asks, they can say, "No, I don't believe there's a god" and we can start doing away with this notion and god-belief is somehow necessary for moral behaviour.
Unless you agitate the believers.
So, fine, they have their own ads now.
God cares for everyone ... even for those who say He doesn't exist!
I'm not sure what religion they're speaking for when they say this. The ads were apparently purchased using the money of a number of people from a number of different faiths ("Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims", the purchaser claims). But I don't believe the statement is accurate.
A cursory reading of the christian bible, for example, states pretty clearly that god doesn't much care for atheists:
Psalm 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!
Romans 1:32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done.
If this god of theirs "abandoned" us, I have a hard time believing the claim that said entity also "cares for us".
But that's just me, and they'll automatically declare that I'm "interpreting" their bible incorrectly then I point out that it says exactly the opposite of what they want it to say.
What's more to the point is that there will now be a brief agitation of the believers. We can hope that this will leave the fence sitters with more information on the issue so that, the next time a pollster asks, they can say, "No, I don't believe there's a god" and we can start doing away with this notion and god-belief is somehow necessary for moral behaviour.
Did Wall St. Throw AIG under the Bus?
Think about it.
Wall Street owns most of Congress and most of the Senate. Those investment bankers and brokers, by far, spend the most cash supporting political campaigns. And yet we're seeing Congress running through a bill trashing AIG's bonuses.
It's hard to believe that all of those Congresspeople have forgotten who butters their bread. Is this really a populist, class warfare move? Or is more likely that the people on Wall Street, seeing the seething anger in the population, have decided to direct it, as much as possible, in the direction of someone expendable.
Clearly, if you're in the financial industry and you weren't pulling off various shenanigans, you'd be angry at the AIG types who destroyed and brought in to disrepute your profession. So maybe you tell those Congressional types you own to target AIG. You're happy, because it gets the population off your back. The Congressional types are happy because they're carrying out the vindictiveness of their constituents.
But I can't help but wonder if it's wise. A populist beast, once awakened, doesn't always go back to sleep after a single ravenously eaten meal. The AIG bonuses may just be snack to whet the beast's appetite. Awake now, and aware of its power, the beast can be turned anywhere there's money.
Wall Street owns most of Congress and most of the Senate. Those investment bankers and brokers, by far, spend the most cash supporting political campaigns. And yet we're seeing Congress running through a bill trashing AIG's bonuses.
It's hard to believe that all of those Congresspeople have forgotten who butters their bread. Is this really a populist, class warfare move? Or is more likely that the people on Wall Street, seeing the seething anger in the population, have decided to direct it, as much as possible, in the direction of someone expendable.
Clearly, if you're in the financial industry and you weren't pulling off various shenanigans, you'd be angry at the AIG types who destroyed and brought in to disrepute your profession. So maybe you tell those Congressional types you own to target AIG. You're happy, because it gets the population off your back. The Congressional types are happy because they're carrying out the vindictiveness of their constituents.
But I can't help but wonder if it's wise. A populist beast, once awakened, doesn't always go back to sleep after a single ravenously eaten meal. The AIG bonuses may just be snack to whet the beast's appetite. Awake now, and aware of its power, the beast can be turned anywhere there's money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)