October 2005 |
The conditions people have been living with in the Kashechewan community have brought the plight many native communities face into the public mind over the last week. It is unbelievable that we allow this to happen. And it is even worse than no one thought it was important enough to report widely before last week. It may be that some of the problems facing natives in Canada are more complex than a few lines in a blog can resolve. And it may be that some of the solutions to these problems will take more than money to resolve. But no one should be living in these kind of conditions. Period. Full stop. Nothing more to say. We ought to be appalled – and profoundly embarrassed – about this. But will we actually do anything, or simply protest with appropriate shock and settle back into our comfortable lives? Right. And that’s the real problem. |
|||
On the drive home from work, I listened to a story on CBC Radio about American recruiting efforts. According to the story, schools in the US are required to give access to military recruiters in exchange for Federal funds. Only in the US… |
|||
I’ve thought about faith on and off for a long time, and a conversation with a friend over the weekend has the concept taking up a lot of my mental real estate. By ‘faith’ I mean the concept invoked by religious people to explain the mechanism through which they come to accept the teachings of their religion as the only valid explanation for the nature of, and origin of, the world. Faith is a terrific notion. It seems to me to mean that absolutely anything at all can be explained – if there is no other (reasoned) basis for it, then it can be believed on faith. Wow. I may sound sarcastic, but I don’t mean to – used this way, faith is a powerful thing, and it is easy to understand it psychological appeal. But surely its appeal is only psychological. We can come to no real understanding of our world through faith. We can come to accept it, to be happy in it, and so on; but, we can’t really understand it. Faith just says it is like this because god (the existence of which is also accepted on faith) says so, it doesn’t tell us why god would want it that way. And isn’t it the why we really want to know? This is what science is about. That is, the reasoned explanation of things through testable hypotheses. And science is not incompatible with religion – you can believe in a god as the creator of all things, but that it created a world which could be understood through reason. And science is the mechanism for that understanding. I know that those who experience faith will retort that I just don’t get it – that you have to have faith to understand what it is about. That is isn’t just a blind belief in the teachings of a religion, but something that you somehow know to be true (perhaps as a result of some personal and wondrous connection to god). To be fair, they may be right, and if they are, I will never know. On the other hand, if they are wrong, and faith is really just a psychological phenomenon, then they will never know (at least, as long as they live). And about what happens after we die, none of us will know until we get there. Either it will just be the end – our consciencious will wink out, our bodies decomposing and returning to the earth in an endless cycle (thanks to the friend mentioned above for that point); or, we will move on to a new existence. I guess there is the part about the status of each of us in regard to that new existence, and the notion that we must do something (say accept god) in order to get the good stuff. But that is a topic for another time. Oh, and I used a small ‘g’ on ‘god’ because I’m trying to be generic, and not refer to any particular religion. |
|||
I’ve been watching the ‘illegal’ strike in British Columbia with interest, and some satisfaction. It isn’t often, in Canada, that we see unions willing to go to these lengths. In many ways, unions have become very conservative and unwilling to take significant risks. I hope the rest of us can learn from the B.C. example. For that matter, I think everyone can learn from this. We have all become, in every aspect of our lives, too willing to except what we think is wrong, thinking “What difference can I make?” We need to overcome that attitude, and become more activist in our daily lives. Speaking up for what you believe may not make you popular, and may not make your live easier. But it will certainly make you feel better about yourself, the world, and your place in it. |
|||
There is some discussion in Ottawa about removing the criminal code provisions which make prostitution illegal. On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea to me. In the simplest case, prostitution is a contractual arrangement between two people. The seller agrees to perform certain services, which services would otherwise be legal to perform, in exchange for an agreed amount of money. That sounds an awful lot like a lot of other business transactions which happen every day. Many will object that there is something different about prostitution – that sexual acts can’t morally be the subject of a business transaction. However, that seems to me to be a personal choice. I don’t happen to be terribly interested in buying or selling such services, but why should my choice bind everyone else? The moral questions surrounding issues like these are largely personal, and not well suited to legal prohibition. Those who think these things are immoral will, presumably, choose not to engage in them. Some will further object that prostitution hurts us all in some way. However, if true, the same argument would apply to a number of other things which are legal; pornography is the most ready example. It seems to me that things like pornography and prostitution do in fact have an impact on us collectively, and in such cases we must weight the impact on society against the freedom of individuals to do what they want. I haven’t seen any evidence that convinces me that prostitution sufficiently impacts society to warrant its prohibition - in particular, when one compares it to other legal activities. Another argument made is that prostitution can be very bad for the (mainly) women who engage in it. This is certainly true, but this is an argument for commercial regulation, not for prohibition. Mining coal can be very bad for those who work in mines, but we don’t prohibit mining coal, we enact regulations to protect workers. That is what we ought to do for prostitutes and other sex trade workers, and it seems likely to me that doing so would result in significant improvement in these people’s lives. Indeed, it seems to me that some of the miserable conditions facing prostitutes are created (or at least helped along) by our criminal pursuit of them. Two other, more practical, thoughts occur to me about this topic. First, we have had little success in stopping prostitution, and there is no reason our success rate will improve. Why, in that event, continue to allocate resources to its prohibition? Second, the income from prostitution is now part of the underground economy and is not taxed. Let’s get it out in the open and on tax returns! |
|||
There is a hilarious ‘Speed Bump’ cartoon in today’s Globe & Mail. It depicts a man standing in front of the door to the National Association of Telemarketers. A sign beside the door warns “No Solicitors”. Irony indeed. I try to be at least pleasant to telemarketers when they call. And they call a lot – hardly a day goes by without at least one call. Sometimes it’s a cold call (a horrible way to make a living), but often it is from an organization I support – a charity, political or social organization, or some such. Oddly, it annoys be more when it is from one of these organizations – it seems at least a bit like betrayal. But it is more than just the calls. Most of the mail I get goes directly to the recycling box because it aims to sell me something. And, interesting, I can detect changes in where they come from when I make a new donation. Donate to a nature organization, and you’ll be inundated with mail from dozens of them. And then there is SPAM email. I have 6 email addresses between home and work, and I get hundreds of such messages every day. And some of them would embarrass… well, you get the idea. On one hand, I understand that all of this activity happens because it works: Some people respond by buying what is offered. But the rest of us pay the price. There are ways you can limit some of this activity – you can have a service installed on your phone line to prevent telemarketing calls. But you have to pay for it. And we all pay more – for internet services, for example – because so much bandwidth is used to carry SPAM. Surely it is reasonable to expect not to be inundated with unwanted advertisements. I don’t pretend to know what can be done to stop all this – short of making these activities illegal, an untenable solution. But not responding to these calls, mails, and emails is a good start. |
|||
I recently visited the Pineridge Zoo, one of many small zoos in Canada. The conditions there are terrible. I’ve written an article, with photographs and a couple of video clips, here. It will surprise you - and, I hope, upset you. |
|||
The Ontario Science Centre (in Toronto) is currently exhibiting Body Worlds 2, which is a collection of corpses which have been subject to a process called ‘plastination’. The process results in specimens which show great detail. The exhibit has its detractors, who believe that it offends the dignity of the dead. Some of the detractors come from a religious perspective, but many base their arguments on secular premises. It doesn’t seem to me that the secular arguments get very far. Surely the only people whose opinions on the dignity of the bodies used are those of the donors – most of the specimens are donated by the previous owner. If it is acceptable to the person whose body winds up on display, who are any of us to question their choice? Some of the specimens used are taken from other anatomical collections. As long as they were also voluntarily donated, there is no problem. Obviously, if bodies were obtained by any illegal means, problems arise – though those problems would not be unique to this particular exhibit. The religious arguments will be more persuasive – but only to those who happen to be adherents to that particular religion. Presumably, those who donated their bodies either were not such adherents, or saw things differently than the official teachings of their religion. So, for those who object on whatever basis, the best advice is simple: Don’t go. However, their arguments have little impact on the rest of us. There is great value in the exhibit, in my opinion. The tremendous educational value of these specimens shouldn’t be ignored. It is true that drawing, or computer animation, or other methods might be used to create equally detailed constructions. But there is nothing quite like the real thing, especially for children. Science isn’t always easy to make exciting – but Body Worlds does just that. That can’t be a bad thing. |
|||
I’ve been away from home for 5 days, and am heading home this morning. Returning home is always an interesting thing. Whenever I travel, I begin to anxious to be home after about 4 days. It doesn’t seem to matter where I’ve been, or how much I’m enjoying myself, home just starts to draw me. The idea of ‘home’ is an interesting notion. Perhaps it means something a little different to each of us, and it may be more or less important in individual cases. For me, it is about being truly comfortable. Home is that place I always return to, the place where the things most important to me are, and where I can be completely relaxed. Do we need a ‘home’, though? It seems to me we do. There are people who live much of their lives without something I’d call a home. But perhaps they just find a different way to make a home. |
|||
There is a tentative agreement between the CBC and its locked out workers. It sounds like the agreement had been reached by the time I wrote my last entry. I might have known about it then – if I’d been able to get the news from the CBC. |
|||
I’ve just read, in this morning’s Globe & Mail, about the Bali Bombing. I am currently traveling around Ontario on holidays, so this is the first Globe I’ve seen since Friday. I would normally listen to CBC Radio One while I’m driving, but have replaced it with CDs because of the lockout. I’m feeling a little out of touch! Who knows what else I’ve missed! Is Dubya still President? Has cancer been cured? So, to the half-witted nincompoops running the CBC, I have this to say. Get Radio One back on the air (along with the rest). End the lockout, stop trying to obliterate permanent jobs (who know, the good kind you have), and get back to doing what you are supposed to do (you know, that pesky business about being a public broadcaster). Your Guild colleagues get it. Try really, really hard, and maybe you’ll figure it out too. Oh, and yes, the Bali business is bad. It would be terrific if we could figure out how to stop killing each other. “Why can’t we all just get along?” If you know where that quote comes from, you have good taste in movies. Hint: The character saying it is the President of the United States and dies soon after saying it. It is nice to have a Blog, and be able to rant. Ain’t technology grand! |
|||
Just read an excerpt from Ian Brown’s new book, “What I Meant to Say: The Private Lives of Men”. I’ve long found Brown’s writing insightful, as well as engaging. He is the editor of this one, though the piece in yesterday’s Globe and Mail is his own writing. The book, I take it, is about the complicated lives of men in 2005. The topics it covers are wide-ranging and no stone is left uncovered. From what I can see, the book aims to uncover us for what we are – positive and negative. It ought to be worth a read. |
|||
I’ve been extraordinarily busy the last couple of weeks, and posted nothing. I’ve just started two weeks of holidays, though. I’m attending a folk festival – Octoberfolk – today, and then heading to Peterborough (northeast of Toronto) tomorrow. I’ve purposely chosen to make few plans for this vacation. The plan is to escape the regulation of day to day life for a few days. Being able to wake up and not have to be anywhere in particular, is amazingly liberating. Work takes a great deal of one’s energy and time willingly, even purposely, in my case. However, driving out of London today has reminded me about the rest of life. Too many of us fail to find a good balance between work and play. I need to try harder. So should you. |
|||
