It came up on youtube.com, a purveyor of .... well ... whatever the hell video you upload, that a video called "Atheist" became immensely popular and then suddenly disappeared from the most-viewed list. Conspiracy was presumed but unproven. The video made a couple of simple, but apparently very upsetting statements, regarding atheism. The first was that an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any gods. There were quotes from the bible, where it is stated that atheists are, by their nature, "fools" and "evil". This was followed by a list with images of nice, smart atheists.
The reply videos were entertaining, if nothing else can be said of them. The best contained the most common of flawed premises: the redefinition of atheism. For some reason, among those who are not atheists, it is more convenient to label an atheist as "one who denies the existence of God".
While these definitions seem similar, there's a glaring gap in the logic between them.
If you flip a coin and hide the result from me, you might ask "Do you believe I flipped heads?". I can answer to this question, "No". You might then state, "Ah, then you believe I flipped tails." I would then say, "No, I don't believe that either."
That is the key difference between the two. The definition that atheists use for atheism is, "I do not believe your proposition that god exists". The believer then says, "Ha, you therefore believe that there is no god. Now prove it!" This always leads to a hearty laugh from the atheist who invites the believer to prove unicorns don't exist. The believer gets offended, because the atheist is being a bit of a prick, and goes off in a huff. The point, however, is that the atheist never claimed to know that god doesn't exist, only that he didn't see any reason to think so.
I'm not sure how this definition problem happens, but I can make some educated guesses.
The first guess is that "the dictionary says so". Various dictionaries have various definitions and the writers of said dictionaries have their own biases. Some have one definition. Some have the other. Mind you, a definition of atheism that says, "denial of god's existence" is rather like an unheard of definition of christianity as, "belief in mythology". It assumes the person being defined to be wrong. Presumably we only do this to atheists on account of atheism being quite in the minority.
The second guess is a matter of logical consistency. When confronted with a demand for evidence of what is gathered from faith, the believer prefers to put the non-believer on the same ground. If an atheist can be defined as a person who says, "there is no god", it can then be demanded of the atheist that he produce evidence. Then we get the prickish bit about the unicorns.
(And no, that's not an agnostic. "Agnostic" means something else entirely and every dictionary I've ever checked agrees at least on that point.)
So, there you go. Atheism just means "not believing", not "believing in the opposite". Come on over. We have lower divorce and incarceration rates, no holy days to get you out of bed on the weekend, and you get a 10% discount on drinks at all casinos and strip joints (when you show your card).
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Milk, Honey and Oil
First off, a little public service announcement:
If the milk is in any way questionable, just throw it out. It's not worth the buck and a half.
Moving on.
So the Hezbollah guerrillas, hiding in their bunkers, managed to push back the Israeli army. This served as notice that Iranian weapons, given sufficiently well-built bunkers to hide in during aerial bombardment, can indeed stop an army equipped with the latest American weaponry. This, in turn, implies that the United States will not soon be attacking Iran, in spite of the whole WMD-script they've been following.
And the price of oil drops. And the price of gas drops. The world is that cynical.
We all breathe a sigh of relief because we're happier when we don't have to think about foreign policy and whom we're antagonizing this week.
I spent a lot of time thinking about it last weekend. It was just after the Brits arrested those potential terrorists in London. These were the ones who, though they had no equipment for doing so, apparently had plans to mix explosives while on board planes and blow them up from there. I was flying back from the Maritimes shortly after those arrests, wondering what level of importance terrorists might attach to blowing up Canadian planes. How do we rate?
Canada was the first country to cut off aid and diplomatic contact with the new Palestinian government. Stephen Harper didn't like the democratic choices that the Palestinian people had made. When Palestinian militias captured an Israeli soldier and the Israeli government responded by laying waste to the Gaza strip, putting over a million under threat of starvation without food, clean water or fuel, Stephen Harper called it "measured and justified." We're also in Afghanistan, perpetuating a war for unknown purposes. We're dancing to the tune of the Bush Administration.
Does that merit, in the eyes of a bomb-mixing terrorist, a one-way ticket on Canjet? Probably not. Not from the East Coast to Ottawa at any rate. Perhaps the commuter flights between Ottawa and Toronto (most foreigners can't figure out which is the capital anyway) might merit more attention. Still, we can't pretend -- no matter the price of gas -- that the things done in our name around the world won't affect our lives here at home.
If the milk is in any way questionable, just throw it out. It's not worth the buck and a half.
Moving on.
So the Hezbollah guerrillas, hiding in their bunkers, managed to push back the Israeli army. This served as notice that Iranian weapons, given sufficiently well-built bunkers to hide in during aerial bombardment, can indeed stop an army equipped with the latest American weaponry. This, in turn, implies that the United States will not soon be attacking Iran, in spite of the whole WMD-script they've been following.
And the price of oil drops. And the price of gas drops. The world is that cynical.
We all breathe a sigh of relief because we're happier when we don't have to think about foreign policy and whom we're antagonizing this week.
I spent a lot of time thinking about it last weekend. It was just after the Brits arrested those potential terrorists in London. These were the ones who, though they had no equipment for doing so, apparently had plans to mix explosives while on board planes and blow them up from there. I was flying back from the Maritimes shortly after those arrests, wondering what level of importance terrorists might attach to blowing up Canadian planes. How do we rate?
Canada was the first country to cut off aid and diplomatic contact with the new Palestinian government. Stephen Harper didn't like the democratic choices that the Palestinian people had made. When Palestinian militias captured an Israeli soldier and the Israeli government responded by laying waste to the Gaza strip, putting over a million under threat of starvation without food, clean water or fuel, Stephen Harper called it "measured and justified." We're also in Afghanistan, perpetuating a war for unknown purposes. We're dancing to the tune of the Bush Administration.
Does that merit, in the eyes of a bomb-mixing terrorist, a one-way ticket on Canjet? Probably not. Not from the East Coast to Ottawa at any rate. Perhaps the commuter flights between Ottawa and Toronto (most foreigners can't figure out which is the capital anyway) might merit more attention. Still, we can't pretend -- no matter the price of gas -- that the things done in our name around the world won't affect our lives here at home.
Beasts Know When To Quit
In the realm of the beasts -- which is to say "mammals, other than humans" -- there is a common way of settling disputes over territory, food and mates. The two enemies will stand over the disputed property and screech at each other in attempts at intimidation. They will flex muscles, display plumage and attempt to frighten their opponents in to surrender. It's understood, in that sort of way that evolution programs us all without our knowledge, that a fight would cost both parties much more than the value of the contested goods. So if we can figure out in advance who will win, it's best to just let the likely victor take the spoils and avoid the damage. It's rather a lot like bribing a man to give up his lunch peacefully by offering not to kill him in return.
Humans aren't always so smart, but in general follow the same principles. Wars only happen when both sides think they can win. When that belief doesn't exist, you'll get a Chamberlain who lets a Hitler take a couple pieces of land here and there while the Allies build up a force that would have a chance against the Germany army.
In Lebanon, over the last month or so, there's been a war. Israel, backed by all of the technology and arms of the United States, selected a grievance involving a pair of captured soldiers and invaded Lebanon. Since the Lebanese guerrillas, a group called Hizbollah (or Hezbollah, depending on who's doing the spelling), had only munitions supplied by the technologically inferior nation of Iran, it was supposed to be an easy victory for Israel.
First came the aerial bombardment. The idea was to eliminate as much of Hizbollah's stash of arms and munitions as possible before the ground attack. Next came the ground attack. The ground attack, so says every source on the ground, failed rather miserably. While the aerial bombardment killed a lot of civilians, it apparently left a lot of Hizbollah alive in their caves and bunkers. Out of the ground they came, defended their cities, and apparently knocked out some thirty or forty invading tanks with Iranian anti-tank weaponry.
On the heels of this comes a leak from the U.S. Administration, via no more trustworthy a source than Seymour Hersh of Deep Throat fame. It turns out, according to this anonymous source, that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was meant (among other things) as a test of American weapons against Iranian defences. No one should be surprised, with the talk of Iranian "Weapons of Mass Destruction," that Iran is shortlisted for invasion. The fact that Hizbollah repelled the Israeli Defence Force -- the fourth most powerful army in the world -- is going to alter the plans of the hawks in the Bush Administration. It's going to put a bit of a crimp in the "birth pangs of the New Middle East" that Condoleeza Rice was going on about.
The thing you have to understand is that the evolutionary rule of the beasts, of surrendering when defeat is likely, simply doesn't apply to everyone. If you are a better fighter than I and you come for my lunch money, I might as well give it to you. But if you come in to my home to kill me, and I am trapped there, then I will fight you regardless of your size. You can't bribe me with my own life if that's what you've come to take.
That is the crucial difference that keeps the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine from giving up when the fight is so asymmetrical and the death toll so unbalanced. They're fighting to defend their homes from people come to take them away. You can't pay someone enough to let that happen.
Greg.
Humans aren't always so smart, but in general follow the same principles. Wars only happen when both sides think they can win. When that belief doesn't exist, you'll get a Chamberlain who lets a Hitler take a couple pieces of land here and there while the Allies build up a force that would have a chance against the Germany army.
In Lebanon, over the last month or so, there's been a war. Israel, backed by all of the technology and arms of the United States, selected a grievance involving a pair of captured soldiers and invaded Lebanon. Since the Lebanese guerrillas, a group called Hizbollah (or Hezbollah, depending on who's doing the spelling), had only munitions supplied by the technologically inferior nation of Iran, it was supposed to be an easy victory for Israel.
First came the aerial bombardment. The idea was to eliminate as much of Hizbollah's stash of arms and munitions as possible before the ground attack. Next came the ground attack. The ground attack, so says every source on the ground, failed rather miserably. While the aerial bombardment killed a lot of civilians, it apparently left a lot of Hizbollah alive in their caves and bunkers. Out of the ground they came, defended their cities, and apparently knocked out some thirty or forty invading tanks with Iranian anti-tank weaponry.
On the heels of this comes a leak from the U.S. Administration, via no more trustworthy a source than Seymour Hersh of Deep Throat fame. It turns out, according to this anonymous source, that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was meant (among other things) as a test of American weapons against Iranian defences. No one should be surprised, with the talk of Iranian "Weapons of Mass Destruction," that Iran is shortlisted for invasion. The fact that Hizbollah repelled the Israeli Defence Force -- the fourth most powerful army in the world -- is going to alter the plans of the hawks in the Bush Administration. It's going to put a bit of a crimp in the "birth pangs of the New Middle East" that Condoleeza Rice was going on about.
The thing you have to understand is that the evolutionary rule of the beasts, of surrendering when defeat is likely, simply doesn't apply to everyone. If you are a better fighter than I and you come for my lunch money, I might as well give it to you. But if you come in to my home to kill me, and I am trapped there, then I will fight you regardless of your size. You can't bribe me with my own life if that's what you've come to take.
That is the crucial difference that keeps the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine from giving up when the fight is so asymmetrical and the death toll so unbalanced. They're fighting to defend their homes from people come to take them away. You can't pay someone enough to let that happen.
Greg.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Harper Brays in on Middle East
I am well aware of the fact the previous federal Liberal government had huge corruption and entitlement problems. They'd been in power for twelve years and while they had managed to balance the budget -- even pay off some of the massive PC deficit from the Mulroney years -- they were getting a little generous with blowing our tax dollars.
So I fully realize that it was time to slap them down and ship them out, at least for a little while, so they could clean themselves up.
No question.
But did we have to pick such an illiterate, belligerent jackass as our new Prime Minister?
Without a doubt, the man has finally proved how ignorant he truly is in his comments about the current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon situation.
Harper speaks about Middle East
First, let us examine some straightforward historical facts. There is a group of militants in Palestine called Hamas. There is another called Fatah. Fatah used to be in power in the Palestinian Parliament. Hamas used to call for the destruction of Israel, but grew up and now only demands that Palestine be allowed to exist without the Israeli occupation that has gone on for two generations.
In January 2006, mostly due to the corruption in the Fatah party, the Palestinian people voted Fatah out and Hamas in. Hamas was considered an exclusively terrorist group and the major powers of the world immediately moved to cut aid to the entire country of Palestine based on the Palestinian people's democratic choice. (Democracy only works when you choose the leaders we want you to choose.)
Onward.
In January 2006, one Israeli died in a terrorist bombing in a marketplace. In February, one more died when a guy went nuts and stabbed several people in a market. Meanwhile in Palestine, at checkpoints and through bombings, 18 Palestinians were killed. In February, it was 29. Does this appear somewhat asymmetrical?
In early June, Hamas and Fatah came together and made a statement that they recognized Israel's right to exist and it appeared that everything was working toward peace. Regardless, Palestinians -- even civilians -- continued to die in numbers much greater numbers than Israelis. Later in June, Palestinian militants used a tunnel they had secretly constructed from Gaza to a place just inside Israel, at a military base. They raided this base, killed two soldiers and captured a third.
This brings us roughly up to date (July 17, at least). We have about 300 Palestinians having been killed, about 20 Israelis having been killed, and one soldier being captured. What is the response from Israel? They bomb and blockade Gaza. The generating plant is knocked out. Fuel oil for portable generators is blockaded. Jets fly over day and night creating sonic booms, indistinguishable from actual bombs. Water is cut. Food is blockaded.
Stephen Harper, taking the hard right line that is so popular in the world these days, refers to Israel's response to the capture of its soldier as "measured and justified." He says that Israel "has a right to defend itself."
Really? So if you occupy a foreign country and members of that foreign country attack your military, then you, the occupying power, have the right to starve the entire occupied country? You have the right to collectively punish the entire civilian population because of one captured soldier?
If this is true, Mr. Harper, then what is the "measured and justified" response of the Palestinians? They've been occupied for 40 years. Their orchards -- their livelihood -- are bulldozed every day. A giant wall prevents many of them from going to their own farms from their houses. Their houses are knocked down for the production of settlements for the exclusive use of their foreign occupiers. Their dead children are considered "collateral damage" when an apartment complex is bombed in an attempt to assassinate their leaders. Their parliamentary representatives are kidnapped. If it's justifiable to starve, bomb and blockade almost a million and a half people because of one captured soldier, what is then justifiable for the Palestinians?
The rest of us agree that killing civilians is unjustified, whether Israel or Palestine is doing it.
Mr. Harper supports violence against civilians, but only when our allies do it. If we are to believe that these are "measured and justified" reactions, then how can wars ever end?
I won't pretend I didn't expect this. There is, everyone must realize, a serious danger in putting religious conservatives in government. In Saudi Arabia, they lock little girls inside a burning school because they aren't wearing clothing appropriate for being outside. In Israel, the right wing wants to turn all of Palestine in to Israel. In Palestine, the right wing wants to "push the Jews in to the sea." In North America, the right wing Christians (that being Bush, Harper, Stockwell Day and God only knows who else) want Israel to succeed so that the second coming of Christ can occur. (Again, I kid you not. This is a view held by far, far too many people in our own country.) And that doesn't even begin to address the power brokers who want to manipulate the price and control of oil.
But we let this buffoon in to our government, and pretty soon we're going to have to kick him out. If, as the right wing is gleefully shouting all over U.S. television, there is going to be a "World War Three", it's pretty damned important that we not have Stephen Harper in charge when it comes down.
So I fully realize that it was time to slap them down and ship them out, at least for a little while, so they could clean themselves up.
No question.
But did we have to pick such an illiterate, belligerent jackass as our new Prime Minister?
Without a doubt, the man has finally proved how ignorant he truly is in his comments about the current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon situation.
Harper speaks about Middle East
First, let us examine some straightforward historical facts. There is a group of militants in Palestine called Hamas. There is another called Fatah. Fatah used to be in power in the Palestinian Parliament. Hamas used to call for the destruction of Israel, but grew up and now only demands that Palestine be allowed to exist without the Israeli occupation that has gone on for two generations.
In January 2006, mostly due to the corruption in the Fatah party, the Palestinian people voted Fatah out and Hamas in. Hamas was considered an exclusively terrorist group and the major powers of the world immediately moved to cut aid to the entire country of Palestine based on the Palestinian people's democratic choice. (Democracy only works when you choose the leaders we want you to choose.)
Onward.
In January 2006, one Israeli died in a terrorist bombing in a marketplace. In February, one more died when a guy went nuts and stabbed several people in a market. Meanwhile in Palestine, at checkpoints and through bombings, 18 Palestinians were killed. In February, it was 29. Does this appear somewhat asymmetrical?
In early June, Hamas and Fatah came together and made a statement that they recognized Israel's right to exist and it appeared that everything was working toward peace. Regardless, Palestinians -- even civilians -- continued to die in numbers much greater numbers than Israelis. Later in June, Palestinian militants used a tunnel they had secretly constructed from Gaza to a place just inside Israel, at a military base. They raided this base, killed two soldiers and captured a third.
This brings us roughly up to date (July 17, at least). We have about 300 Palestinians having been killed, about 20 Israelis having been killed, and one soldier being captured. What is the response from Israel? They bomb and blockade Gaza. The generating plant is knocked out. Fuel oil for portable generators is blockaded. Jets fly over day and night creating sonic booms, indistinguishable from actual bombs. Water is cut. Food is blockaded.
Stephen Harper, taking the hard right line that is so popular in the world these days, refers to Israel's response to the capture of its soldier as "measured and justified." He says that Israel "has a right to defend itself."
Really? So if you occupy a foreign country and members of that foreign country attack your military, then you, the occupying power, have the right to starve the entire occupied country? You have the right to collectively punish the entire civilian population because of one captured soldier?
If this is true, Mr. Harper, then what is the "measured and justified" response of the Palestinians? They've been occupied for 40 years. Their orchards -- their livelihood -- are bulldozed every day. A giant wall prevents many of them from going to their own farms from their houses. Their houses are knocked down for the production of settlements for the exclusive use of their foreign occupiers. Their dead children are considered "collateral damage" when an apartment complex is bombed in an attempt to assassinate their leaders. Their parliamentary representatives are kidnapped. If it's justifiable to starve, bomb and blockade almost a million and a half people because of one captured soldier, what is then justifiable for the Palestinians?
The rest of us agree that killing civilians is unjustified, whether Israel or Palestine is doing it.
Mr. Harper supports violence against civilians, but only when our allies do it. If we are to believe that these are "measured and justified" reactions, then how can wars ever end?
I won't pretend I didn't expect this. There is, everyone must realize, a serious danger in putting religious conservatives in government. In Saudi Arabia, they lock little girls inside a burning school because they aren't wearing clothing appropriate for being outside. In Israel, the right wing wants to turn all of Palestine in to Israel. In Palestine, the right wing wants to "push the Jews in to the sea." In North America, the right wing Christians (that being Bush, Harper, Stockwell Day and God only knows who else) want Israel to succeed so that the second coming of Christ can occur. (Again, I kid you not. This is a view held by far, far too many people in our own country.) And that doesn't even begin to address the power brokers who want to manipulate the price and control of oil.
But we let this buffoon in to our government, and pretty soon we're going to have to kick him out. If, as the right wing is gleefully shouting all over U.S. television, there is going to be a "World War Three", it's pretty damned important that we not have Stephen Harper in charge when it comes down.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Taking Terrorism Head On
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)