Social Studies - Published Monday August 25th, 2008
Fear sells. We all realize this.
I happened to live in the darkest circle of the Eastern Townships during the Quebec Ice Storm. Within weeks following the return to normalcy, everyone went out and bought a generator.
Since a storm like that happens only rarely, and no one could remember another one as bad, the need for a generator was probably not a "real" thing -- but rather a way to produce a sense of security to overcome an irrational fear.
What is funny, and was recently brought to mind by a radio program is that the media uses our fear to make stories more "exciting" and that this rarely pans out in the way we are expecting.
For a recent example, take the Olympics in China -- where the smog was going to kill the athletes, the food would be bad, there would be overcrowding and even terrorism.
Not only have athletes turned out some of the best performances ever, but everything has run smoothly, with the best facilities and smoothest overall "feel" of many recent Olympics. It will be hard to top this one.
It makes good news lead up though -- it gets you interested. Fear is a powerful motivator. Think about it. After 9/11 fear was what caused everyone to accept tighter security measures, less personal freedom, and even the multibillion dollar costs of wars against imaginary foes.
And before everyone gets upset, what I am reacting to is the original declaration of "War on Terrorism" which is about as vague as you can possibly get unless you declare war on random people whose name starts with the letter p.
Here is the thing; there was an attack on American soil, which somehow upped the ante so incredibly that right now, as of this moment, no one anywhere is safe anymore.
How ridiculous is that?
There have been terrorist attacks for as long as there have been political systems. Brutus and the lads killing Caesar was a terrorist attack.
However, we were meant to feel so afraid that the next bomb, the next poison gas, the next airplane falling from the sky was going to be in our own backyard that each of us was willing to do anything to make sure we felt safe.
In the meantime; we have destroyed the world's economy, drawn more battle lines in the sand than ever before and created constant unrest among anyone who thinks about the future.
Just like the Olympics; just like Y2K.
Do you remember that; the end of the world?
Nothing actually comes from these apocalyptic scenarios.
Well, the cynic in me has to say nothing except an incredible amount of money lining the pockets of the richest companies in the world -- arms suppliers. I love the conspiracy theorists that point out that Dick Cheney was VP of Halliburton -- the world's largest construction company with links to the U.S. military and perhaps the CIA; and stood to make billions on a war which is all about oil.
But I digress. My point is fear.
Specifically, the fact that our decisions are often based on fear, and that people like to play on our fears to get us to spend more, and perhaps do less.
It is just as true on the local level. If they take out the causeway the fish will die, the pollution will rise, the lake will disappear, those Dieppe people will get a marina, the tidal bore will wash away Assumption Boulevard, the sky will fall. . .
If they build a casino the crime rate will go up, the mafia will take over; the government will take all our money; people will never come downtown, we will all go broke from gambling, the wrong sort of tourist will come.
There is always a kernel of truth in any statement of doom.
It is possible that the sky will fall tomorrow. It is possible that we will die of a stroke while watching Jeopardy tonight.
But if we continue to live only out of fear, we are not living freely. Our choices are only our own when we make them because of informed, real data.
And there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who are counting on the fact that you will just go along with the fear mongering and therefore not hold anyone accountable.
Anyone who ever read 1984 by George Orwell will recognize that a lot of the science fiction about a paranoid future that he developed is actually true now. In the story the government controls, or tries to, all thought. It re-writes history and edits language to make the poor innocent bystanders toe the party line.
It, in fact, is engaged in a war (perhaps) that makes all of this loss of freedom necessary. There are hints throughout, however, that the war is only necessary to give the government a reason to be totally in control.
Far be it from me to think that there are thought police out there trying to control our very desires.
I just try to break myself away from the doomsayers every now and again because for the most part I never should have wasted time worrying about the warnings anyway.
We humans have an incredible ability to make the best out of any circumstance. And despite how it seems, there are billions of people out there, and mere hundreds that actually try and do anything to hurt others.
The world is just not that bad of a place, and we are far better off celebrating what we have.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
'Covert' evangelism is not the answer
RELIGION TODAY - Published Saturday August 23rd, 2008
I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about distributing Bibles in China; or rather, not being able to distribute Bibles.
An American Christian group was stopped at the airport when it tried to bring in more than 300 Bibles. The four Americans, led by Pat Klein of the Wyoming-based Vision Beyond Borders, have decided to camp out in the Kunming airport in southern China, hoping, I suppose, that the Bibles will be returned.
Klein said the Mandarin-language Bibles were printed in Indonesia, transferred to Thailand and flown to Kunming in duffel bags. They paid more than $350 in excess luggage fees in addition to the $200 per person for Chinese visas, plus their tickets.
First off, why are they trying to smuggle Bibles into China? The Chinese say they have printed 50 million Bibles in the last 32 years and are producing 800,000 a month for domestic consumption. The officially atheist Communist Party allows Bibles to be printed under its own supervision for use in state-sanctioned churches and some hotels.
There is a website called Bibles Unbound which allows users to actually give up their own hard earned cash to help "covertly" smuggle Bibles into China, Columbia, Egypt, and North Korea. I have also heard a lecture from the Gideon's that blew me away. It was about a "mission" to India where the parents did not want their kids to have Bibles, so the Gideon's went to the school where there were no parents and, viola. First off, evangelism by 'covert' means -- evangelism that purposefully ignores the wishes of parents and guardians -- evangelism that has to lie about the real purpose; is not the type of example that Jesus ever set for anyone. Secondly, it is arrogant beyond words. The concept that the only way people can have valid religious experience is through reading the Bible is just wrong. As is the concept that they have to give up their perfectly valid faith in order to convert to Christianity.
But just in case that doesn't convince you, how about this: Daniel Willis, who is the CEO of the New South Wales branch of the Bible Society, says that, "Organizations that appealed for funds to smuggle Bibles into China were wasting 90 per cent of their donor's money." You see, there is a company, called the Amity Printing Press in Nanjing that distributes most of the Mandarin translations of the Bible for China, and in fact, the world. These Bibles are then distributed through 55,000 churches and meeting points throughout the country.
Speaking in China, where he visited the press in Nanjing, Willis said, "If the western organizations that raised funds outside China for Bible smuggling used these same funds to buy Bibles from Amity, they would see a 90 per cent increase in the numbers of Bibles distributed. Whilst funding Bible smuggling trips might appeal to uninformed donors, if the funds spent on airfares and accommodation plus buying the Bibles were spent at Amity, where a complete Chinese language Bible costs around US$2, there would be tens of thousands more Bibles available in China."
What's worse, is that in most cases these organizations buy Bibles outside China that have been printed on the Amity Press -- 20 per cent of the press's production is exported -- and then spend more money on airfares to ship these same Bibles back to China.
But really, one of the reasons that Christian churches in North America are losing ground is that those who might be interested in what we have to say dismiss us out of hand because of the arrogant and underhanded way we treat the rest of the world.
Sure, we should shout the Good News from the rooftops -- but we should also be willing to listen to the Good News God gives to others to shout back at us.
It is time to let go of the "us" and "them" mentality and realize that if people of faith around the world worked together, we really could start changing things.
I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about distributing Bibles in China; or rather, not being able to distribute Bibles.
An American Christian group was stopped at the airport when it tried to bring in more than 300 Bibles. The four Americans, led by Pat Klein of the Wyoming-based Vision Beyond Borders, have decided to camp out in the Kunming airport in southern China, hoping, I suppose, that the Bibles will be returned.
Klein said the Mandarin-language Bibles were printed in Indonesia, transferred to Thailand and flown to Kunming in duffel bags. They paid more than $350 in excess luggage fees in addition to the $200 per person for Chinese visas, plus their tickets.
First off, why are they trying to smuggle Bibles into China? The Chinese say they have printed 50 million Bibles in the last 32 years and are producing 800,000 a month for domestic consumption. The officially atheist Communist Party allows Bibles to be printed under its own supervision for use in state-sanctioned churches and some hotels.
There is a website called Bibles Unbound which allows users to actually give up their own hard earned cash to help "covertly" smuggle Bibles into China, Columbia, Egypt, and North Korea. I have also heard a lecture from the Gideon's that blew me away. It was about a "mission" to India where the parents did not want their kids to have Bibles, so the Gideon's went to the school where there were no parents and, viola. First off, evangelism by 'covert' means -- evangelism that purposefully ignores the wishes of parents and guardians -- evangelism that has to lie about the real purpose; is not the type of example that Jesus ever set for anyone. Secondly, it is arrogant beyond words. The concept that the only way people can have valid religious experience is through reading the Bible is just wrong. As is the concept that they have to give up their perfectly valid faith in order to convert to Christianity.
But just in case that doesn't convince you, how about this: Daniel Willis, who is the CEO of the New South Wales branch of the Bible Society, says that, "Organizations that appealed for funds to smuggle Bibles into China were wasting 90 per cent of their donor's money." You see, there is a company, called the Amity Printing Press in Nanjing that distributes most of the Mandarin translations of the Bible for China, and in fact, the world. These Bibles are then distributed through 55,000 churches and meeting points throughout the country.
Speaking in China, where he visited the press in Nanjing, Willis said, "If the western organizations that raised funds outside China for Bible smuggling used these same funds to buy Bibles from Amity, they would see a 90 per cent increase in the numbers of Bibles distributed. Whilst funding Bible smuggling trips might appeal to uninformed donors, if the funds spent on airfares and accommodation plus buying the Bibles were spent at Amity, where a complete Chinese language Bible costs around US$2, there would be tens of thousands more Bibles available in China."
What's worse, is that in most cases these organizations buy Bibles outside China that have been printed on the Amity Press -- 20 per cent of the press's production is exported -- and then spend more money on airfares to ship these same Bibles back to China.
But really, one of the reasons that Christian churches in North America are losing ground is that those who might be interested in what we have to say dismiss us out of hand because of the arrogant and underhanded way we treat the rest of the world.
Sure, we should shout the Good News from the rooftops -- but we should also be willing to listen to the Good News God gives to others to shout back at us.
It is time to let go of the "us" and "them" mentality and realize that if people of faith around the world worked together, we really could start changing things.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
If we want medals, we must fund athletes
SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday August 18th, 2008
The Canadian government, through Heritage Canada, has spent $111 million on direct funding to sports within the country for the 2007-08 calendar year. Of course, that is spread out between 85 separate organizations, including provincial sports initiatives. Not a lot of this money goes towards Olympic athletes in particular.
If the television ads are to be believed, then Rona, HBC, Bombardier, Bell, Aliant and Chevrolet; and admittedly I may have missed some, put in money -- especially to the athletes that work for them in the off season. It amounts to something like $3-4 million. But there you go; our athletes tend to have to have jobs to get by. I guess that is what makes them amateur athletes.
But there is another problem with the system; some amateurs seem pretty darn professional.
Forbes reported that the top 10 wage earners in the Beijing Olympics are actually professional athletes; Kobe Bryant for example plays for the LA Lakers and gets about $9 million a year. Federer and Sharipova, tennis players, have net worth in the $27-40 million range. But . . . these are professional athletes who somehow manage contracts that are exceptional.
Someone running track and field is not getting much over $1,500. Neither are swimmers, fencers, runners, gymnasts; in fact, the majority of them.
So what of them?
If they are really lucky they might score it big with a medal win. The United States and Canada both provide financial incentives for medals. CNN Money reports that this year the United States Olympic Committee is giving out $25,000 to gold medal winners, $15,000 to those who take home a silver and $10,000 for a bronze. This is the same incentive system we use with our athletes; if any of them can manage to overcome all the obstacles in their path and actually win a medal.
Perhaps it is not so mysterious that the best remain the best year after year; they can afford to keep it up. If you get $25,000 extra you can afford a better treadmill, more coaching time, airfare to more training camps.
Speaking of which, did you hear the interview on radio with the men's rowing team who train in a boat shed on a public lake in B.C.? This is the type of facility the government helps to create; and I do not think this is the exception for our athletes. Most of them train in public facilities, often with poor equipment, and have to sacrifice most of their time and livelihood to fulfill their dreams. While at the same time, professional athletes who basically play for their own glory, make millions.
The media reported last February that when it comes down to the nitty gritty our athletes are paid a stipend of $1,500 per month to cover living expenses, training costs, coaching, equipment. . . Most of us could not make rent, food, car and heat with $1,500 let alone hire Olympic calibre coaches.
American Athletes, for comparison, get $2,000 per month, competition, camp and travel expenses, health insurance, performance incentives, and Nike apparel.
I heard that there was a time when Russia employed every single athlete in the army. They did not have to fight, but everything was paid for -- they were in fact state employees, with state funded training programs and facilities, fighting their own battles on the rink, track, or in the pool. Countries still do this -- Pakistan does. This seems like a really good idea to me.
But my problem is not so much that we underfund our athletes -- which we do.
My problem is more with expectations.
We put enormous pressure on these young people to represent us as a country, to make us proud, and then we fail to follow through with the actual support necessary to make them the best trained, best equipped, and simply the best people in their sport.
Why are the Montreal Canadiens worth so much more money than Team Canada?
Should they be?
Someone said that we should win 16 medals at these Olympics and as I write this near the end of the first week we do not have a single one.
I want it to be different; and yes, I want us to put more of our tax dollars towards this goal.
I am not sure what I want to give up -- perhaps one new helicopter in Afghanistan? How about taking a few statues down? Maybe reduce the pensions of elected members by one per cent? Or perhaps I would even support an increased "sin" tax on things that stop us from being competitive, alcohol and tobacco, for example.
Maybe we could even take 10 per cent of casino revenues and put it towards the Olympic program.
I don't know, I just said all that to push people's buttons. I am not an economist -- I am a proud Canadian who wishes that when the Olympics rolls around we could prove to the world that we are contenders.
Thank God for hockey.
The Canadian government, through Heritage Canada, has spent $111 million on direct funding to sports within the country for the 2007-08 calendar year. Of course, that is spread out between 85 separate organizations, including provincial sports initiatives. Not a lot of this money goes towards Olympic athletes in particular.
If the television ads are to be believed, then Rona, HBC, Bombardier, Bell, Aliant and Chevrolet; and admittedly I may have missed some, put in money -- especially to the athletes that work for them in the off season. It amounts to something like $3-4 million. But there you go; our athletes tend to have to have jobs to get by. I guess that is what makes them amateur athletes.
But there is another problem with the system; some amateurs seem pretty darn professional.
Forbes reported that the top 10 wage earners in the Beijing Olympics are actually professional athletes; Kobe Bryant for example plays for the LA Lakers and gets about $9 million a year. Federer and Sharipova, tennis players, have net worth in the $27-40 million range. But . . . these are professional athletes who somehow manage contracts that are exceptional.
Someone running track and field is not getting much over $1,500. Neither are swimmers, fencers, runners, gymnasts; in fact, the majority of them.
So what of them?
If they are really lucky they might score it big with a medal win. The United States and Canada both provide financial incentives for medals. CNN Money reports that this year the United States Olympic Committee is giving out $25,000 to gold medal winners, $15,000 to those who take home a silver and $10,000 for a bronze. This is the same incentive system we use with our athletes; if any of them can manage to overcome all the obstacles in their path and actually win a medal.
Perhaps it is not so mysterious that the best remain the best year after year; they can afford to keep it up. If you get $25,000 extra you can afford a better treadmill, more coaching time, airfare to more training camps.
Speaking of which, did you hear the interview on radio with the men's rowing team who train in a boat shed on a public lake in B.C.? This is the type of facility the government helps to create; and I do not think this is the exception for our athletes. Most of them train in public facilities, often with poor equipment, and have to sacrifice most of their time and livelihood to fulfill their dreams. While at the same time, professional athletes who basically play for their own glory, make millions.
The media reported last February that when it comes down to the nitty gritty our athletes are paid a stipend of $1,500 per month to cover living expenses, training costs, coaching, equipment. . . Most of us could not make rent, food, car and heat with $1,500 let alone hire Olympic calibre coaches.
American Athletes, for comparison, get $2,000 per month, competition, camp and travel expenses, health insurance, performance incentives, and Nike apparel.
I heard that there was a time when Russia employed every single athlete in the army. They did not have to fight, but everything was paid for -- they were in fact state employees, with state funded training programs and facilities, fighting their own battles on the rink, track, or in the pool. Countries still do this -- Pakistan does. This seems like a really good idea to me.
But my problem is not so much that we underfund our athletes -- which we do.
My problem is more with expectations.
We put enormous pressure on these young people to represent us as a country, to make us proud, and then we fail to follow through with the actual support necessary to make them the best trained, best equipped, and simply the best people in their sport.
Why are the Montreal Canadiens worth so much more money than Team Canada?
Should they be?
Someone said that we should win 16 medals at these Olympics and as I write this near the end of the first week we do not have a single one.
I want it to be different; and yes, I want us to put more of our tax dollars towards this goal.
I am not sure what I want to give up -- perhaps one new helicopter in Afghanistan? How about taking a few statues down? Maybe reduce the pensions of elected members by one per cent? Or perhaps I would even support an increased "sin" tax on things that stop us from being competitive, alcohol and tobacco, for example.
Maybe we could even take 10 per cent of casino revenues and put it towards the Olympic program.
I don't know, I just said all that to push people's buttons. I am not an economist -- I am a proud Canadian who wishes that when the Olympics rolls around we could prove to the world that we are contenders.
Thank God for hockey.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Does anybody still read science fiction?
SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday August 11th, 2008
Whenever I get any news from the energy sector I start to wonder.
Whether we are talking about plans for the future, or dire warnings from the present; it would seem that no one who works with non-renewable resources has ever been exposed to the science fiction genre. Otherwise they would recognize that there are lots of possibilities, and also some things you just should not do.
There are already a number of alternatives to our unnecessary addiction to fossil fuels.
What about bringing back airships and train travel?
A train is far more energy efficient than an airplane, can hold more people, takes less maintenance . . . and yet, for some reason it is prohibitively expensive. Who is going to ride Via Rail from Moncton to Toronto for $300 when you can fly for $100?
Instead of taking risks and being inventive, what seems to be happening is that everyone hopes we find more oil. In fact, it is becoming so lucrative to drill that we are destroying watersheds and arctic ice caps to find minerals and combustibles. There is even deep core drilling now. This involves ever increasing technological breakthroughs that allow drill rigs to burrow almost to the magma holding back the flames in the centre of the Earth.
Chevron for example has spent billions looking for and obtaining oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The record-setting Chevron well, called Jack 2, which is 175 miles off the Louisiana coast, is more than five miles deep, including more than a mile of ocean depth. And the computer industry helps them out with 3-D imaging software to find deposits previously hidden by rock.
Advanced deep-sea rigs like Transocean Incorporated's Cajun Express, the one they used there, are capable of drilling to depths of 35,000 feet, about double what the previous generation could do.
But, and this is a serious interjection based on a lifetime of science fiction. Should we do that?
First off, as Spiderman, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, Tarzan and even Dante's Inferno tried to warn us; there are whole cultures of beast and creature living below that we should not alert to our presence. . . the Mole Men might get angry.
But seriously, dismissing fantasy from fact within my fiction -- there is a pretty thin crust that separates superheated liquid rock, from fire spewing magma. . . and if those drills so much as crack that barrier. . . we will create at the very best, a new volcano; and at the worst, a super-heated spiral of ocean that funnels the atmosphere back down into the sea and causes a new ice age. This last bit could be made up, but it is the premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow and probably worth paying attention to just so we can say "I told you so."
Why should we risk any number of catastrophes, including the wrath of ever more frequent hurricanes blowing across the Gulf, for a resource whose days are already numbered and which has, frankly, long over-stayed its welcome?
There are so many other solutions out there. . .
Scientific American has published data that shows that a hydrogen fuel cell power plant for a car can run at up to 55 per cent efficiency, where a combustion engine hovers around 30 per cent. There is also no waste product; and the energy does not run down or need recharging.
Speaking of energy, what about wind turbines and tidal power? An Ontario company has even found a way to get around the annoying noise of a modern windmill; placing the turbine within a helium filled balloon lifted out of earshot. It is called the "Magenn Power Air Rotor System", or MARS.
There is even old fashioned solar electricity, collected in photovoltaic cells and stored in batteries. Or to take it a step further, Alternative Energy News reports that a Utah based solar company (IAUS) has begun construction on the first phase of a project they claim could produce electricity for Californians for a cheaper price than either coal or gas.
The first solar lenses are being installed near the Great Basin Desert in Eastern California. The unique thin-film lens focuses the sun's energy, producing super-heated steam for power generation at an efficiency rate of 92 per cent.
But it is all too prohibitively expensive, right? Well, sorry, vegetables are becoming prohibitively expensive because of the breakdown of our oil based economy.
Down in Indiana, where I have spent some time, there are Amish and Mennonite living the way that everyone seems worried we have to return to. They travel by horse and buggy, they farm the land and create most of what they use, own, or sell with their own two hands. Some of the reasons behind their choices have always seemed exceptional to me. For example a horse and buggy means you have to think long and hard about travelling far enough away that you won't be home for dinner with the family. There is also the very real fact that it is very hard to kill another living thing with a buggy.
I know I might be over romanticizing, but does that really sound so bad?
Let's scrap it all and start over.
There is no oil. There is no internal combustion. There is pottery and glass; the sun wind and rain . . . now what are we going to do to make it all work in harmony?
Whenever I get any news from the energy sector I start to wonder.
Whether we are talking about plans for the future, or dire warnings from the present; it would seem that no one who works with non-renewable resources has ever been exposed to the science fiction genre. Otherwise they would recognize that there are lots of possibilities, and also some things you just should not do.
There are already a number of alternatives to our unnecessary addiction to fossil fuels.
What about bringing back airships and train travel?
A train is far more energy efficient than an airplane, can hold more people, takes less maintenance . . . and yet, for some reason it is prohibitively expensive. Who is going to ride Via Rail from Moncton to Toronto for $300 when you can fly for $100?
Instead of taking risks and being inventive, what seems to be happening is that everyone hopes we find more oil. In fact, it is becoming so lucrative to drill that we are destroying watersheds and arctic ice caps to find minerals and combustibles. There is even deep core drilling now. This involves ever increasing technological breakthroughs that allow drill rigs to burrow almost to the magma holding back the flames in the centre of the Earth.
Chevron for example has spent billions looking for and obtaining oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The record-setting Chevron well, called Jack 2, which is 175 miles off the Louisiana coast, is more than five miles deep, including more than a mile of ocean depth. And the computer industry helps them out with 3-D imaging software to find deposits previously hidden by rock.
Advanced deep-sea rigs like Transocean Incorporated's Cajun Express, the one they used there, are capable of drilling to depths of 35,000 feet, about double what the previous generation could do.
But, and this is a serious interjection based on a lifetime of science fiction. Should we do that?
First off, as Spiderman, Journey to the Centre of the Earth, Tarzan and even Dante's Inferno tried to warn us; there are whole cultures of beast and creature living below that we should not alert to our presence. . . the Mole Men might get angry.
But seriously, dismissing fantasy from fact within my fiction -- there is a pretty thin crust that separates superheated liquid rock, from fire spewing magma. . . and if those drills so much as crack that barrier. . . we will create at the very best, a new volcano; and at the worst, a super-heated spiral of ocean that funnels the atmosphere back down into the sea and causes a new ice age. This last bit could be made up, but it is the premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow and probably worth paying attention to just so we can say "I told you so."
Why should we risk any number of catastrophes, including the wrath of ever more frequent hurricanes blowing across the Gulf, for a resource whose days are already numbered and which has, frankly, long over-stayed its welcome?
There are so many other solutions out there. . .
Scientific American has published data that shows that a hydrogen fuel cell power plant for a car can run at up to 55 per cent efficiency, where a combustion engine hovers around 30 per cent. There is also no waste product; and the energy does not run down or need recharging.
Speaking of energy, what about wind turbines and tidal power? An Ontario company has even found a way to get around the annoying noise of a modern windmill; placing the turbine within a helium filled balloon lifted out of earshot. It is called the "Magenn Power Air Rotor System", or MARS.
There is even old fashioned solar electricity, collected in photovoltaic cells and stored in batteries. Or to take it a step further, Alternative Energy News reports that a Utah based solar company (IAUS) has begun construction on the first phase of a project they claim could produce electricity for Californians for a cheaper price than either coal or gas.
The first solar lenses are being installed near the Great Basin Desert in Eastern California. The unique thin-film lens focuses the sun's energy, producing super-heated steam for power generation at an efficiency rate of 92 per cent.
But it is all too prohibitively expensive, right? Well, sorry, vegetables are becoming prohibitively expensive because of the breakdown of our oil based economy.
Down in Indiana, where I have spent some time, there are Amish and Mennonite living the way that everyone seems worried we have to return to. They travel by horse and buggy, they farm the land and create most of what they use, own, or sell with their own two hands. Some of the reasons behind their choices have always seemed exceptional to me. For example a horse and buggy means you have to think long and hard about travelling far enough away that you won't be home for dinner with the family. There is also the very real fact that it is very hard to kill another living thing with a buggy.
I know I might be over romanticizing, but does that really sound so bad?
Let's scrap it all and start over.
There is no oil. There is no internal combustion. There is pottery and glass; the sun wind and rain . . . now what are we going to do to make it all work in harmony?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Freedom of speech exists, sort of. . .
SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday August 4th, 2008
Clearly you cannot just yell "Fire!" while watching a movie over at Empire Theatres just for fun. For one thing, it will get you arrested. There are costs involved to rolling out the fire trucks, and there is the possibility of people getting hurt in the stampede towards the exits -- so most of us would argue that this is a really good law. It protects the public interest, makes sure the fire trucks are available for the actual blaze; and besides, is based on a children's book we all read, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
That being said, can anyone define for me the limits of free speech?
By that I mean to ask, what is it permissible to say in public and what shouldn't one say?
Does that change depending on where you are?
For example, can I say one thing in a restaurant where I can be overheard; follow different rules while speaking to a group of people in a lecture; and have to do things completely differently in print?
What I am asking is not so much do I have to, as it is could I if I wanted to?
See, here is the thing. Those of us who are columnists in print are writing down our ideas for the world to read. Although I firmly believe everything I write to be true, I know that someone else may prove some of it wrong. I think this is true for everyone who writes; we are not trying to say that our opinion is the only ones that actually matter; instead, we are trying to put something out there with the hope that it will cause debate in the public forum.
In 1729 Jonathan Swift wrote an essay called "A Modest Proposal" with the subtitle "For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from being a burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public."
Essentially his plan was that the Irish, who were experiencing famine but were still staunchly Roman Catholic and therefore against birth control had the solution to their problems in their own hands. All that was needed was to accept that babies make good eating.
Of course, he was kidding . . . sort of . . . he offered a viable, if distasteful solution because he believed there were other, better, solutions available. Perhaps if you are experiencing a famine, for example, you should stop producing more mouths to feed.
Was Swift writing hate literature against the Irish?
Certainly by the standards we find ourselves trying to follow in our politically correct world his essay denigrates just about everyone imaginable -- from Jew to Laplander, landlord to beggar.
But his point was to make you think. To make you change your mind, to change the world.
That is why anyone ever dares to speak their ideas out loud -- to change things. Brian Cormier does it with humour, Brent Mazerolle with his life experiences, Norbert Cunningham through the use of language and Alec Bruce with politics, even Charles Moore with his right wing rants wants you to listen to what he has to say in order that you think for yourself.
So what if none of us ever got to say what we thought was important?
What if when I tried to write about vegetarianism the meat lobby had me shut down. What if the coffee federation silenced me when I said we should pay more for a cup of coffee because the labourers don't make enough? What if the government brought me up on charges when I suggest that detainees are being treated unfairly in military prisons?
If you have been reading Maclean's magazine this year you will realize that Canada has such a thing as a Human Rights Court, which is not really a court in a standard legal system, but a court where any individual whatsoever can bring charges that you have somehow written or published hate literature against some group.
Mark Steyn, one of the more colourful and interesting writers to grace the pages of said magazine seems to no longer be able to publish with them after a months long battle over a quote he published in an article from his own book, America Alone. In short form the quote said that Britain would have to become subject to Islamic law because the Muslims living there would not give it up without bloodshed.
A group of Muslim law students in Canada brought charges and in an amazing travesty of justice tried to ruin his career because of perceived bias.
Well . . . Steyn has a bias, but again, he writes to make you think.
Closer to home there was a cartoon, published April 18 in the Chronicle Herald newspaper in Halifax, which depicts a woman in a burka holding a sign that reads, "I want millions," and she says, "I can put it towards my husband's next training camp."
The cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon is a reference to Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a woman from Nova Scotia whose husband was arrested in 2006 in an anti-terrorism raid. It was not meant, say the publishers to target an entire people. Not that the intent matters once the charges are laid.
Steyn pointed out that this is the only court in the civilized world which has a 100 per cent conviction rate. Which should tell us something; there is not a single element of life where no one ever makes a mistake; unless they don't really care about following the rules.
In fact, you don't actually have to prove that anyone has caused any harm, simply that it might have the potential to cause misunderstanding, maybe, sometime, possibly . . .
Ezra Levant was the publisher of the Western Standard who decided to publish some of the infamous cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed and was subsequently brought upon charges by the Human Rights Commission of Canada.
At the end of his testimony, in which he is mostly outraged at being brought before such a "kangaroo court," the commissioner says, "You're entitled to your opinions."
To which Levant immediately responds, "I wish that were the fact."
Clearly you cannot just yell "Fire!" while watching a movie over at Empire Theatres just for fun. For one thing, it will get you arrested. There are costs involved to rolling out the fire trucks, and there is the possibility of people getting hurt in the stampede towards the exits -- so most of us would argue that this is a really good law. It protects the public interest, makes sure the fire trucks are available for the actual blaze; and besides, is based on a children's book we all read, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
That being said, can anyone define for me the limits of free speech?
By that I mean to ask, what is it permissible to say in public and what shouldn't one say?
Does that change depending on where you are?
For example, can I say one thing in a restaurant where I can be overheard; follow different rules while speaking to a group of people in a lecture; and have to do things completely differently in print?
What I am asking is not so much do I have to, as it is could I if I wanted to?
See, here is the thing. Those of us who are columnists in print are writing down our ideas for the world to read. Although I firmly believe everything I write to be true, I know that someone else may prove some of it wrong. I think this is true for everyone who writes; we are not trying to say that our opinion is the only ones that actually matter; instead, we are trying to put something out there with the hope that it will cause debate in the public forum.
In 1729 Jonathan Swift wrote an essay called "A Modest Proposal" with the subtitle "For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from being a burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public."
Essentially his plan was that the Irish, who were experiencing famine but were still staunchly Roman Catholic and therefore against birth control had the solution to their problems in their own hands. All that was needed was to accept that babies make good eating.
Of course, he was kidding . . . sort of . . . he offered a viable, if distasteful solution because he believed there were other, better, solutions available. Perhaps if you are experiencing a famine, for example, you should stop producing more mouths to feed.
Was Swift writing hate literature against the Irish?
Certainly by the standards we find ourselves trying to follow in our politically correct world his essay denigrates just about everyone imaginable -- from Jew to Laplander, landlord to beggar.
But his point was to make you think. To make you change your mind, to change the world.
That is why anyone ever dares to speak their ideas out loud -- to change things. Brian Cormier does it with humour, Brent Mazerolle with his life experiences, Norbert Cunningham through the use of language and Alec Bruce with politics, even Charles Moore with his right wing rants wants you to listen to what he has to say in order that you think for yourself.
So what if none of us ever got to say what we thought was important?
What if when I tried to write about vegetarianism the meat lobby had me shut down. What if the coffee federation silenced me when I said we should pay more for a cup of coffee because the labourers don't make enough? What if the government brought me up on charges when I suggest that detainees are being treated unfairly in military prisons?
If you have been reading Maclean's magazine this year you will realize that Canada has such a thing as a Human Rights Court, which is not really a court in a standard legal system, but a court where any individual whatsoever can bring charges that you have somehow written or published hate literature against some group.
Mark Steyn, one of the more colourful and interesting writers to grace the pages of said magazine seems to no longer be able to publish with them after a months long battle over a quote he published in an article from his own book, America Alone. In short form the quote said that Britain would have to become subject to Islamic law because the Muslims living there would not give it up without bloodshed.
A group of Muslim law students in Canada brought charges and in an amazing travesty of justice tried to ruin his career because of perceived bias.
Well . . . Steyn has a bias, but again, he writes to make you think.
Closer to home there was a cartoon, published April 18 in the Chronicle Herald newspaper in Halifax, which depicts a woman in a burka holding a sign that reads, "I want millions," and she says, "I can put it towards my husband's next training camp."
The cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon is a reference to Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal, a woman from Nova Scotia whose husband was arrested in 2006 in an anti-terrorism raid. It was not meant, say the publishers to target an entire people. Not that the intent matters once the charges are laid.
Steyn pointed out that this is the only court in the civilized world which has a 100 per cent conviction rate. Which should tell us something; there is not a single element of life where no one ever makes a mistake; unless they don't really care about following the rules.
In fact, you don't actually have to prove that anyone has caused any harm, simply that it might have the potential to cause misunderstanding, maybe, sometime, possibly . . .
Ezra Levant was the publisher of the Western Standard who decided to publish some of the infamous cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed and was subsequently brought upon charges by the Human Rights Commission of Canada.
At the end of his testimony, in which he is mostly outraged at being brought before such a "kangaroo court," the commissioner says, "You're entitled to your opinions."
To which Levant immediately responds, "I wish that were the fact."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
