Well,here it is,just before Labor Day.In a few short days kids will be back in school,if they are not already.So will this be the year that children are instructed in how to think,rather than just what to think? I'm talking about older children for the most part.Obviously a great deal more of the answers in the younger grades are of the simple right or wrong variety.There is only one right way to spell cat or to add two and two.But it's not really too early to begin instruction in basic logic.
To the best of my knowledge,this is the first time in my blogging career that I've ever recommended a book.But Normand Baillargeon's book A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense is a must read for any learner.When I first encountered the book,about eight years ago I wondered why I'd ever gotten out of Junior high school without encountering something similar too it.Certainly by the time I reached college I had professors who expected that I would have already acquired the skills that are so well laid out in this book.In short,it teaches readers how to think.How to recognize and avoid errors in logic and how statistics can be manipulated.It's aimed at those seeking a means of not falling for everything being presented by today's media or politicians and,as such has a pronounced political angle.But you need not be a savvy political observer to put this book to good use.It's well presented and simple enough for the average grade eight reader to understand and apply,and is not long and drawn out,so it does not demand a long attention span.Yet it outlines skills every learner needs.
Here in the province of Ontario,the sex education curriculum is back in the news.Last school year saw some parents,particularly Muslim parents opt out of having this subject taught to their children.Sex is,and most likely always will be a controversial,but necessary area of instruction.And,unless things have drastically changed since my school days,it's hardly the only source of controversy in school.My school days may be somewhat unique in that I had a gentleman named Malcom Ross for eighth grade history.That name will be familiar,if not notorious to many Canadians,as someone who denies or at least downplays the Holocaust.That was a bit after my time,but I was nonetheless presented by views in his class that generated a lot of disagreement.I truly wish I'd had a book to assist me in staying ahead of him,and others in terms of defending my own thoughts intellectually.
So,when you send your teen aged children off to school next week,take the time to slip a copy of A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense into their new back packs.And discuss it with them.This book will serve them as well ten years from now as it does today.Until there is a real commitment to teach them how to think...
Wednesday 31 August 2016
Monday 29 August 2016
I won't stand for it.
It's almost Labor Day and that means summer is nearly gone.Time to get back to school.Time for football season to start.Time to write about-what else,education and football.
Say what you will about Colin Kaepernick,he has a conscience.He uses his position to speak his mind,on behalf of people who lack that ability.Colin Kaepernick is the backup quarterback for the San Francisco Forty Niners and,this season he has been sitting as the National Anthem was being played prior to team games.He says it's in protest of living in a country that discriminates on the basis of race,that oppresses black people.Let's be clear,Colin Kaepernick has the right,as do all Americans to express opinions others may find offensive.He is not insulting the Military,or the powers that be,or the establishment,or people of any identifiable race.He is stating a strongly held,which may cost him,as conscientious views often do.And he is willing to take a stand.Far better than saying nothing,because,in case you haven't noticed,America is deeply dysfunctional.So,when a professional athlete takes his position of role model seriously,he is to be commended,not vilified.
Colin Kaepernick is not the first football player to take a stand.The late,great Reggie White took a stand for Christ.His onetime team mate with the Philadelphia Eagles once took a stand against the KKK.Ricky Williams took a stand too,of sorts.He decided to stand for marijuana,rather than football.Taking a stand is not all that unusual.
Perhaps the most memorable stand taken by a pro football player was that taken a few years ago by Pat Tillman.Pat Tillman was a defensive back with the Arizona Cardinals.Following the 9/11 attacks,he decided that he could not in good faith continue to play football while others went overseas to fight The War On Terror.So he enlisted and was sent to Iraq,where he made the supreme sacrifice.And I honor that sacrifice.He's the only pro football player that I'm aware of who lived out his belief to the point of dying for it.Pat Tillman joined a long list of Americans who fought and died to defend the rights of Colin Kaepernick to take his stand.
Kaepernick's stand is a bit different from Pat Tillman's.But if Tillman's actions are to be fully appreciated,and not wasted,we have to accept Kaepernick's actions as well.Otherwise,sacrifice is meaningless.I believe,Colin Kaepernick loves his country. I've never heard him say otherwise despite his not standing at attention for the National Anthem.He is on record as saying there is a particular aspect of society that he does not wish to honor,and whether you agree that such is the case in America today,or differ with him on how to deal with that reality,he should not honor that which is wrong.So Colin Kaepernick is trying to be part of the solution.I can't say I would have approached this issue in the same way.And I equally believe that those who choose to demonstrate their patriotism by standing,hand over heart when The National Anthem is being played,love their country.But,if you love your country,you need to encourage it to be the very best that it can be.Is that not what Colin Kaepernick is doing?
blyndpapaya
Say what you will about Colin Kaepernick,he has a conscience.He uses his position to speak his mind,on behalf of people who lack that ability.Colin Kaepernick is the backup quarterback for the San Francisco Forty Niners and,this season he has been sitting as the National Anthem was being played prior to team games.He says it's in protest of living in a country that discriminates on the basis of race,that oppresses black people.Let's be clear,Colin Kaepernick has the right,as do all Americans to express opinions others may find offensive.He is not insulting the Military,or the powers that be,or the establishment,or people of any identifiable race.He is stating a strongly held,which may cost him,as conscientious views often do.And he is willing to take a stand.Far better than saying nothing,because,in case you haven't noticed,America is deeply dysfunctional.So,when a professional athlete takes his position of role model seriously,he is to be commended,not vilified.
Colin Kaepernick is not the first football player to take a stand.The late,great Reggie White took a stand for Christ.His onetime team mate with the Philadelphia Eagles once took a stand against the KKK.Ricky Williams took a stand too,of sorts.He decided to stand for marijuana,rather than football.Taking a stand is not all that unusual.
Perhaps the most memorable stand taken by a pro football player was that taken a few years ago by Pat Tillman.Pat Tillman was a defensive back with the Arizona Cardinals.Following the 9/11 attacks,he decided that he could not in good faith continue to play football while others went overseas to fight The War On Terror.So he enlisted and was sent to Iraq,where he made the supreme sacrifice.And I honor that sacrifice.He's the only pro football player that I'm aware of who lived out his belief to the point of dying for it.Pat Tillman joined a long list of Americans who fought and died to defend the rights of Colin Kaepernick to take his stand.
Kaepernick's stand is a bit different from Pat Tillman's.But if Tillman's actions are to be fully appreciated,and not wasted,we have to accept Kaepernick's actions as well.Otherwise,sacrifice is meaningless.I believe,Colin Kaepernick loves his country. I've never heard him say otherwise despite his not standing at attention for the National Anthem.He is on record as saying there is a particular aspect of society that he does not wish to honor,and whether you agree that such is the case in America today,or differ with him on how to deal with that reality,he should not honor that which is wrong.So Colin Kaepernick is trying to be part of the solution.I can't say I would have approached this issue in the same way.And I equally believe that those who choose to demonstrate their patriotism by standing,hand over heart when The National Anthem is being played,love their country.But,if you love your country,you need to encourage it to be the very best that it can be.Is that not what Colin Kaepernick is doing?
blyndpapaya
Friday 26 August 2016
"StopWhitePeople2K16.
There are times I'd like to be a fly on the wall.I'd like to find out about something which wouldn't ordinarily be available be available to me and which the media doesn't seem to sufficiently explain.At least not yet.Such a time and place would be in the Binghamton,New York university that is offering a training course to it's residential assistants called "StopWhitePeople2k16.Because I'm not at all certain what is being undertaken here,but the title alone invites one to imagine some rather unpalatable things.Perhaps the days to come will make thing more clear.I would hope that would be the case,because when you describe something in what seems to be racially provocative language,a fuller explanation is in order.
Briefly this course is described as having to do with "race" and "privilege"presumably that would be in the context of the undertaking of one's duties as a residential assistant,that is within the residences of the college.So can I assume that this instructs residential assistants on how to intervene in potential racial disputes with sensitivity? Because there doesn't seem to be anything especially inappropriate about that.In fact,if that's all it were,most Police Departments,and in fact most organizations of any sort would benefit from such instruction,as would society at large.
But there would seem to be a political shadow lurking over this course.First,there is the mention of privilege,which may logically imply to reasonably minded people that what is being discussed is in fact white privilege,however that is being described.At this point I would ask just how applicable the idea of white privilege would be within the context of a state university.While I'm certain that there are racial divisions,state colleges,in my experience have generally been attended by middle class and even lower income people of all races.Moreover,they seem to be more liberally minded academically and socially than their private counterparts,though there are exceptions.So,in the context of CUNY Binghamton,is white privilege being identified as a problem,or as THE problem? Is it an assertion of "fact" that racial minorities are being disadvantaged or even abused by a group,namely white people,who cannot experience racism by virtue of some imagined privilege? And if so,is it proposing some particular kind of response in terms of social engineering? I really wish State University Of New York would provide a more complete explanation.And I emphasize here,they are a state funded institution, so some accountability is in order.
Among the questions I have are,what is it you are proposing to stop white people from doing? Without a clearer explanation I can accept this only as provocation.If stopping white people means stopping them from abusing the rights of others on the basis of race,sexual orientation,language,religion or any of the other criteria of human rights,or reasonable university policy,I'm all in.I just wish I knew,as a white person,what it is that this particular institution was requiring of me.Because my basic orientation is to treat humans,of any description as humans deserving of respect.I look at as basic interpersonal courtesy and wonder why such things need to be regulated.
Further,I'm wondering what will be the outcome of residential assistants having such training.How will it effect everyday campus life,and how will that be different than in the past,before the advent of such a course.Again that's a matter of accountability.
Looking at the actual title of the course,a rather cynical thought occurred to me.I tend not to be cynical in everyday life,but it's a shoe that fits rather well when I write op ed.It may even be necessary given the current nature of society.But,in any event,it's crossed my mind that such provocation might well be a response to the current top down debate among those wanting to be American leaders. Why call it 2K16 unless you were intending to associate it with the current electoral cycle? Surely addressing race issues would have virtue in any given year.In that sense,it could mean stopping would be leaders who have long records of racially charged speech,in the attempt to gain public confidence and,thus,public office.Those people,whom I am content not to name for the purposes of this discussion could hardly be misidentified given their current profiles,and I do not limit them in partisan terms.Nor are they limited solely to those seeking highest office.It seems a clever,if perhaps unintended negative response to those trying to rack up political points on the backs of those just trying to get by,educate themselves,and who could do so much more effectively and peacefully without creating a greater problem.And that applies to all races.It is important to consider how one's actions on the biggest stage there is will effect a society already struggling with racial issues.
Finally,I simply encourage State University Of New York to step up and explain themselves.Be part of a solution,not an exacerbation of current problems.Because it may be that I have things all wrong.But that's in the context of a rather thin explanation at this point.
blyndpapaya
Briefly this course is described as having to do with "race" and "privilege"presumably that would be in the context of the undertaking of one's duties as a residential assistant,that is within the residences of the college.So can I assume that this instructs residential assistants on how to intervene in potential racial disputes with sensitivity? Because there doesn't seem to be anything especially inappropriate about that.In fact,if that's all it were,most Police Departments,and in fact most organizations of any sort would benefit from such instruction,as would society at large.
But there would seem to be a political shadow lurking over this course.First,there is the mention of privilege,which may logically imply to reasonably minded people that what is being discussed is in fact white privilege,however that is being described.At this point I would ask just how applicable the idea of white privilege would be within the context of a state university.While I'm certain that there are racial divisions,state colleges,in my experience have generally been attended by middle class and even lower income people of all races.Moreover,they seem to be more liberally minded academically and socially than their private counterparts,though there are exceptions.So,in the context of CUNY Binghamton,is white privilege being identified as a problem,or as THE problem? Is it an assertion of "fact" that racial minorities are being disadvantaged or even abused by a group,namely white people,who cannot experience racism by virtue of some imagined privilege? And if so,is it proposing some particular kind of response in terms of social engineering? I really wish State University Of New York would provide a more complete explanation.And I emphasize here,they are a state funded institution, so some accountability is in order.
Among the questions I have are,what is it you are proposing to stop white people from doing? Without a clearer explanation I can accept this only as provocation.If stopping white people means stopping them from abusing the rights of others on the basis of race,sexual orientation,language,religion or any of the other criteria of human rights,or reasonable university policy,I'm all in.I just wish I knew,as a white person,what it is that this particular institution was requiring of me.Because my basic orientation is to treat humans,of any description as humans deserving of respect.I look at as basic interpersonal courtesy and wonder why such things need to be regulated.
Further,I'm wondering what will be the outcome of residential assistants having such training.How will it effect everyday campus life,and how will that be different than in the past,before the advent of such a course.Again that's a matter of accountability.
Looking at the actual title of the course,a rather cynical thought occurred to me.I tend not to be cynical in everyday life,but it's a shoe that fits rather well when I write op ed.It may even be necessary given the current nature of society.But,in any event,it's crossed my mind that such provocation might well be a response to the current top down debate among those wanting to be American leaders. Why call it 2K16 unless you were intending to associate it with the current electoral cycle? Surely addressing race issues would have virtue in any given year.In that sense,it could mean stopping would be leaders who have long records of racially charged speech,in the attempt to gain public confidence and,thus,public office.Those people,whom I am content not to name for the purposes of this discussion could hardly be misidentified given their current profiles,and I do not limit them in partisan terms.Nor are they limited solely to those seeking highest office.It seems a clever,if perhaps unintended negative response to those trying to rack up political points on the backs of those just trying to get by,educate themselves,and who could do so much more effectively and peacefully without creating a greater problem.And that applies to all races.It is important to consider how one's actions on the biggest stage there is will effect a society already struggling with racial issues.
Finally,I simply encourage State University Of New York to step up and explain themselves.Be part of a solution,not an exacerbation of current problems.Because it may be that I have things all wrong.But that's in the context of a rather thin explanation at this point.
blyndpapaya
Wednesday 24 August 2016
What is Laurella Willis apologizing for?
Laurella Willis has been busy parading about the South Side of Chicago carrying a sign that says"Black America,I'm Sorry." I'm a bit unsure as to what it is she is sorry for.The video of her strolling about is a bit vague on that matter.It says she's apologizing for everything going on in America Today." And while I cannot deny that America seems to be living out an ongoing tragedy in terms of race relations,I'm not certain that Laurella Willis,or anyone else should be apologizing for everything and anything.I do salute her initiative,I do believe it's intended to add something positive to all that's going on today but not everything demands an apology from everyone.
America has a tragic history with race relations from African slavery to Jim Crow.to the attempted genocide of Native Americans.It continues today with the numbers of African American men being incarcerated,or even killed before due process is allowed to follow it's intended course.And for that we should all be profoundly sorry.So it's hard not to get behind Laurella Willis when she steps up.So far she's been walking about twenty miles everyday.The video does show mostly positive reactions from the black people she meets,though one does ask her what she's sorry for.
I'm wondering,specifically if Laurella Willis is apologizing for being white,and ,if so is she doing so for white people collectively.If so,I must say she does not speak for me.Let me just say,I am not ashamed of being white.I have not owned slaves,nor has my family going back in history.I have and always will support human and civil rights.I will regard any and all people without respect to their racial background.And if I am not doing so,I am receptive to having this pointed out to me because we all hold sub-conscious attitudes that are usually less than flattering.So in short.I will not apologize for being white,nor do I accept anyone else doing so on my behalf,or anyone's contention that I should provide such an apology.Now,I should note that I have,in the past,when I was possessed of much less maturity than I am now,done and said things which were not altogether right,in terms of race relations.I have,for instance,used the N word,and for that I should be,and am sorry.But this idea that we need to apologize for past wrongs committed by generations long gone is stopping anyone from moving forward.
Behavior is what may demand apology.But ones existence does not.But then again behavior may be changed with the diligent efforts of all people,without regard to race,or any other aspect of an individual's or community's existence. So,develop a good value system in relating to others.It's called respect.It needs to be accorded to all people without exception.Apologize when it's called for,but not when it is not.Apologize for unacceptable behavior,then get on with life.It's called repentance.And we all have a ton of things to repent of.
I wonder how black people feel when they encounter Laurella Willis.I don't really know and I don't want to attribute any one sort of thought to all.I would think that there would be a wide range of different reactions,and indeed,that is viable when you see Laurella's video.But I can make note of how I would regard someone doing something similar to me.And again,I'm not black.But were a black person apologizing to me in such a general way for,say high crime rates or the fact that certain communities are not safe,I would have two distinct reactions.First,I would tent to be embarrassed that some well meaning person might think that such an apology was necessary or even demanded.And,to a somewhat lesser degree,I would feel that it was just possible that I was being patronized.Neither reaction is especially helpful in moving forward with the hard work of improving race relations today.
What is needed today cannot be accomplished by means of general,non specific and uncertain apologies.There is a certain counterproductive political correctness to Ms.Willis actions,and that is limiting debate on a great many painful things that must be discussed if we are to leave our children with a better state of race relations than we now have.We need to ask hard questions like how do we combat gang violence,how do we insure better outcomes between black people and police,and why do we see such high rates of incarceration among young black males.We need to take on open expressions of racism too,wherever we find them,be they from the man in the street or our would be leaders.First we need to agree among ourselves that we are going to commit to these discussions with honesty and with respect to those who are not like us and who have very different experiences than we do.Then we need to get on with life and believe that we can make that life better,unapologeticly.
blyndpapaya
America has a tragic history with race relations from African slavery to Jim Crow.to the attempted genocide of Native Americans.It continues today with the numbers of African American men being incarcerated,or even killed before due process is allowed to follow it's intended course.And for that we should all be profoundly sorry.So it's hard not to get behind Laurella Willis when she steps up.So far she's been walking about twenty miles everyday.The video does show mostly positive reactions from the black people she meets,though one does ask her what she's sorry for.
I'm wondering,specifically if Laurella Willis is apologizing for being white,and ,if so is she doing so for white people collectively.If so,I must say she does not speak for me.Let me just say,I am not ashamed of being white.I have not owned slaves,nor has my family going back in history.I have and always will support human and civil rights.I will regard any and all people without respect to their racial background.And if I am not doing so,I am receptive to having this pointed out to me because we all hold sub-conscious attitudes that are usually less than flattering.So in short.I will not apologize for being white,nor do I accept anyone else doing so on my behalf,or anyone's contention that I should provide such an apology.Now,I should note that I have,in the past,when I was possessed of much less maturity than I am now,done and said things which were not altogether right,in terms of race relations.I have,for instance,used the N word,and for that I should be,and am sorry.But this idea that we need to apologize for past wrongs committed by generations long gone is stopping anyone from moving forward.
Behavior is what may demand apology.But ones existence does not.But then again behavior may be changed with the diligent efforts of all people,without regard to race,or any other aspect of an individual's or community's existence. So,develop a good value system in relating to others.It's called respect.It needs to be accorded to all people without exception.Apologize when it's called for,but not when it is not.Apologize for unacceptable behavior,then get on with life.It's called repentance.And we all have a ton of things to repent of.
I wonder how black people feel when they encounter Laurella Willis.I don't really know and I don't want to attribute any one sort of thought to all.I would think that there would be a wide range of different reactions,and indeed,that is viable when you see Laurella's video.But I can make note of how I would regard someone doing something similar to me.And again,I'm not black.But were a black person apologizing to me in such a general way for,say high crime rates or the fact that certain communities are not safe,I would have two distinct reactions.First,I would tent to be embarrassed that some well meaning person might think that such an apology was necessary or even demanded.And,to a somewhat lesser degree,I would feel that it was just possible that I was being patronized.Neither reaction is especially helpful in moving forward with the hard work of improving race relations today.
What is needed today cannot be accomplished by means of general,non specific and uncertain apologies.There is a certain counterproductive political correctness to Ms.Willis actions,and that is limiting debate on a great many painful things that must be discussed if we are to leave our children with a better state of race relations than we now have.We need to ask hard questions like how do we combat gang violence,how do we insure better outcomes between black people and police,and why do we see such high rates of incarceration among young black males.We need to take on open expressions of racism too,wherever we find them,be they from the man in the street or our would be leaders.First we need to agree among ourselves that we are going to commit to these discussions with honesty and with respect to those who are not like us and who have very different experiences than we do.Then we need to get on with life and believe that we can make that life better,unapologeticly.
blyndpapaya
Water For Pigs
It's true that no good deed goes unpunished.Some time last year Anita Krajnc,a human rights activist had a run in with a couple of truck drivers who were transporting pigs to a slaughterhouse west of Toronto. While the truck was stopped,Ms.Krajnc gave a drink of water to some of the pigs.For her trouble,the owner of those pigs had Ms.Krajnc charged.He objected to anyone touching his belongings.The case comes to court today.
Ms.Krajnc's politics are not my politics.While I do believe animals,including the pigs in question should be treated humanely, I have no problem at all eating pork,or any other meat product,though I do try to purchase meat that is ethically raised and slaughtered.By that I mean that I will not purchase meat if I know it's been raised in inhumane conditions,and I trust our agriculture authorities to ensure that it is.Perhaps that's not enough for some people.Generally I believe certain animals were intended to feed us.
Having said all that,I also have no problem with someone giving water to pigs,or any other sort of animal,and I wonder why the courts are being used to convict this woman,at the expense of taxpayers.Obviously,one would suspect that there were some basis for charging this women,or the police would not have done so.But I'm very curious as to what she did that is so wrong.Was any damage done to these animals as a result of the simple kindness offered by Ms.Krajnc? I fail to see how.It seems as though there is some history here.Something of a difference in ideology between Ms.Krajnc and the owner of these animals.There would seem to be a matter of dissent about business as usual.So,if that's true,I'm not surprised to see the law coming down hard on Ms.Krajnc.There is a price to dissent.
Property rights are not supposed to be absolute.That's especially so when you count as your property things which may incur suffering as a result of not being properly handled.Pigs are certainly not persons and therefor do not have the same rights as persons.Neither are they machines or some other class of inanimate object.You are therefor not free to do with them as you might like,without regard for their well being.And there is no real indication,so far as I've been able to determine that these pigs were being mishandled,though it was a hot day and it would be reasonable to think that they welcomed a cool drink of water. If these animals had been dogs found locked in a hot car we would now be applauding any effort made on their behalf,up to and including breaking a window to relieve their distress.And I'm all in on that one.Yet Anita Krajnc finds herself charged for undertaking an action that saw no damage done.Where is the sense in that? Why should the courts be using as much as one cent of tax dollars to prosecute a person for providing a simple kindness? Is winning that one point in a war between animal rights activists and the meat industry so important that we must spare no help to business? I guess some people feel that there is a point to be proven here,but I fail to see what exactly that point is or why it matters.From my perspective the incident in question was win win.A few pigs were provided with a comfort they would not otherwise have had on their way to be slaughtered.No harm,no foul.There was no attempt to stop that slaughter and indeed those pigs went on their way and inured no loss of value.So do the right thing.Leave Anita Krajnc alone. Stop using my tax money on pointless prosecution.
blyndpapaya
blyndpapaya
Friday 19 August 2016
What is so threatening about modesty?
Can anyone tell me why I should be threatened by someones personal choice to be modest of dress,speech or behavior? Is there really a problem with burquas and hijabs or is it just an invented problem drawn up from that place where we all unwittingly store those mostly negative attitudes that we are sometimes unaware of?
There used to be a time in my lifetime when people,in general were far more modest that what they are now.Women were deemed to be appropriately attired in a dress of a certain length,rather than jeans,and very tight pants on either male or female would have been considered provocative.Of course cross dressing was thought to be deviant and seldom encountered in respectable places.However,time goes on and fashions change.Not always for the better,but that's only my opinion perhaps.
Now we live in world of wardrobe malfunctions,knee high pants that show way too much and thong swim suits. I've given up on tuning into The Academy Awards to see what the celebrities aren't wearing.Instead I just sit at home with the television off and wonder why such wealthy and influential people can never seem to afford to buy the rest of whatever garment they are wearing.I am hardly prudish,but at times,I do miss modesty.
Modesty doesn't seem to be a concept that North American society accommodates very well.That may just be changing fashion,for good or for bad,but really,I think there may be something else afoot here.Take a look across the big puddle to where European countries have been banning religious head wear for some years.In almost every respect this seems to be unique to the post 9/11 era.The thought behind it would seem to be that religion is the foe here,having been the cause of much of human strife.It would be hard to argue with that,but the idea in nevertheless misguided,and all too often directed at Islam as an ideal.
But we need to ask,if it only Europe where freedom is being eroded,and what the enemy really is.Europe,for the most part was guided by liberal ideas.But the current bans on religious attire,no matter what the logic behind it is a direct attack on religious values,beginning with,but unlikely to end with the attack on modesty.Modesty is a concept shared by most religions,so,is the attack on modesty simply the thin edge of the wedge.I would note here too,that I've recently talked to two friends just returned from Europe,on a Christian,the other an observant Jew.Neither were confronted over their choice to wear appropriate head gear,or,in the case of the Christian,a t-shirt stating "Jesus Is Lord" The identified enemy seems clearly limited to burquas and hijabs.
Of course there seems to be a rising tide of Islamophobia here in North America as well,again originating with 9/11.At one time,Americans were retaliating appropriately against the right enemy.Now The War On Terror is a war on Islam,and many people seem more interested in attacking a convenient but vilified straw man.
In terms of attacking Muslim modesty here,much of the debate has focused on the issue of identity.But the thrust of this argument is rather cleverly disguised.It focuses on the need to identify persons in the public forum,in the day to day interactions with others in society.But it wrongly insists that identity can only be assured by the banning of garments associated with religious,Muslim modesty.I'm unaware of any nuns,for instance who have been asked to remove their habits in order to vote,or who have been asked to submit to some form of body search in order to enter some public event.Identity can be assured in other ways,and really,in most cases those ways are more personally invasive yet nevertheless respectful of modest attire.What's being cleverly hidden here is the actual attack on Muslim identity.Even so,those of other religious backgrounds need to be cognizant of the fact that religious values in general are being attacked,and need to give some thought to where those attacks could lead.
What the trend to want to ban religious expression,specifically Muslim attire seems to be directed at is largely a matter of image. I've mentioned above the role that celebrity plays in determining what is attractive and therefor valued.Of course those celebrities have no shortage of corporate accomplices in making those determinations.We are all quite aware of the problems,for instance of young girls trying to achieve a particular body image,in the name of beauty.Something rather similar seems to be going on with respect to Muslim women,by creating an expectation that they will conform to our immodest values,such as they are,Or,more likely there is a recognition that they will not,or perhaps not be able to comply with those expectations,and can justly be discriminated against on that basis.The idea planted in our minds then becomes that there is a model that represents beauty and that Muslim women cannot achieve that ideal.An admittedly subtle form of Islamophobia,but Islamophobia nonetheless.
Let's think for a minute about what true beauty means,then put this idea in the trash heap where it belongs.Beauty has less to do with what you look like than it does with who you are and what you are like.I live in Toronto,and there are many Muslim women.Some are dressed in typical North American fashion.Many are traditionally attired Traditional is not to be confused with unattractive.Nor should it be taken as a slight against society at large,because that's not how it is normally intended.The traditional Muslim dress is simply a self assure affirmation of ones own values in most cases.At times it may be dictated by a male relative,but that is far from always being the case.Moreover,such can sometimes be dictated by American or Canadian men as well.Beauty.then is a person acting conscientiously and in a self assured confident manner in the expression of their values,and in respecting others who do likewise.
There is a very good reason to give up this war on modesty,especially as it applies to those choosing to observe traditional Muslim values.Simply put,we need to win The War On Terror.And a big part of any effective strategy in doing so will involve building strong relationships with dissenting Muslims both here and abroad.Those relationships cannot be built in a climate which disrespects the traditions and religious values of others.Classical liberal ideas in this respect were and are well founded.It's time to stop shadow boxing with the straw man.Modesty is not the enemy.
blyndpapaya
There used to be a time in my lifetime when people,in general were far more modest that what they are now.Women were deemed to be appropriately attired in a dress of a certain length,rather than jeans,and very tight pants on either male or female would have been considered provocative.Of course cross dressing was thought to be deviant and seldom encountered in respectable places.However,time goes on and fashions change.Not always for the better,but that's only my opinion perhaps.
Now we live in world of wardrobe malfunctions,knee high pants that show way too much and thong swim suits. I've given up on tuning into The Academy Awards to see what the celebrities aren't wearing.Instead I just sit at home with the television off and wonder why such wealthy and influential people can never seem to afford to buy the rest of whatever garment they are wearing.I am hardly prudish,but at times,I do miss modesty.
Modesty doesn't seem to be a concept that North American society accommodates very well.That may just be changing fashion,for good or for bad,but really,I think there may be something else afoot here.Take a look across the big puddle to where European countries have been banning religious head wear for some years.In almost every respect this seems to be unique to the post 9/11 era.The thought behind it would seem to be that religion is the foe here,having been the cause of much of human strife.It would be hard to argue with that,but the idea in nevertheless misguided,and all too often directed at Islam as an ideal.
But we need to ask,if it only Europe where freedom is being eroded,and what the enemy really is.Europe,for the most part was guided by liberal ideas.But the current bans on religious attire,no matter what the logic behind it is a direct attack on religious values,beginning with,but unlikely to end with the attack on modesty.Modesty is a concept shared by most religions,so,is the attack on modesty simply the thin edge of the wedge.I would note here too,that I've recently talked to two friends just returned from Europe,on a Christian,the other an observant Jew.Neither were confronted over their choice to wear appropriate head gear,or,in the case of the Christian,a t-shirt stating "Jesus Is Lord" The identified enemy seems clearly limited to burquas and hijabs.
Of course there seems to be a rising tide of Islamophobia here in North America as well,again originating with 9/11.At one time,Americans were retaliating appropriately against the right enemy.Now The War On Terror is a war on Islam,and many people seem more interested in attacking a convenient but vilified straw man.
In terms of attacking Muslim modesty here,much of the debate has focused on the issue of identity.But the thrust of this argument is rather cleverly disguised.It focuses on the need to identify persons in the public forum,in the day to day interactions with others in society.But it wrongly insists that identity can only be assured by the banning of garments associated with religious,Muslim modesty.I'm unaware of any nuns,for instance who have been asked to remove their habits in order to vote,or who have been asked to submit to some form of body search in order to enter some public event.Identity can be assured in other ways,and really,in most cases those ways are more personally invasive yet nevertheless respectful of modest attire.What's being cleverly hidden here is the actual attack on Muslim identity.Even so,those of other religious backgrounds need to be cognizant of the fact that religious values in general are being attacked,and need to give some thought to where those attacks could lead.
What the trend to want to ban religious expression,specifically Muslim attire seems to be directed at is largely a matter of image. I've mentioned above the role that celebrity plays in determining what is attractive and therefor valued.Of course those celebrities have no shortage of corporate accomplices in making those determinations.We are all quite aware of the problems,for instance of young girls trying to achieve a particular body image,in the name of beauty.Something rather similar seems to be going on with respect to Muslim women,by creating an expectation that they will conform to our immodest values,such as they are,Or,more likely there is a recognition that they will not,or perhaps not be able to comply with those expectations,and can justly be discriminated against on that basis.The idea planted in our minds then becomes that there is a model that represents beauty and that Muslim women cannot achieve that ideal.An admittedly subtle form of Islamophobia,but Islamophobia nonetheless.
Let's think for a minute about what true beauty means,then put this idea in the trash heap where it belongs.Beauty has less to do with what you look like than it does with who you are and what you are like.I live in Toronto,and there are many Muslim women.Some are dressed in typical North American fashion.Many are traditionally attired Traditional is not to be confused with unattractive.Nor should it be taken as a slight against society at large,because that's not how it is normally intended.The traditional Muslim dress is simply a self assure affirmation of ones own values in most cases.At times it may be dictated by a male relative,but that is far from always being the case.Moreover,such can sometimes be dictated by American or Canadian men as well.Beauty.then is a person acting conscientiously and in a self assured confident manner in the expression of their values,and in respecting others who do likewise.
There is a very good reason to give up this war on modesty,especially as it applies to those choosing to observe traditional Muslim values.Simply put,we need to win The War On Terror.And a big part of any effective strategy in doing so will involve building strong relationships with dissenting Muslims both here and abroad.Those relationships cannot be built in a climate which disrespects the traditions and religious values of others.Classical liberal ideas in this respect were and are well founded.It's time to stop shadow boxing with the straw man.Modesty is not the enemy.
blyndpapaya
This dog bites!
I was once bitten by a dog.And as much as I love dogs,I came away from that experience with one vital piece of information :that particular dog bites.Life really is very simple at times.The need to over think is not always necessary or helpful.
Donald Trump has a new campaign manager.His run seemed to be faltering so it's reasonable to change strategy,the goal,after all being to get elected.So now we are seeing what would seem to be a kinder,gentler Trump.Also,a politician who seems more prepared to stick to the script rather than calling in his own plays.
Along with the new sense of direction,Donald Trump has become,at least in terms of appearances apologetic in respect of past misdeeds,especially those misdeeds which were perceived to hurt people.Perhaps he's sincere,or perhaps he's just become satiated with the taste of his own shoe leather.Either way,he insists that " I will always tell the truth." So what does that statement mean in view of the many things he's said already?
Was he telling the truth when he described Mexicans as rapists and criminals? If that was the truth a few short months ago,is it the truth now too?Speak up Mr.Trump,I'm wondering.Here's how I translate those expressed thoughts:Trump is taking ownership of being a racist.Mr.Trump,is it still an issue that we have no reason to suspect,on the basis of Clinton being "unable to satisfy her husband" that she could satisfy the pressing needs of America.Translation:I'm a misogynist,and given the actual matrimonial score keeping,a hypocrite as well.If that was the truth then,has that truth changed at all? Donald,are disabled people still worthy only of your ridicule and contempt? Tell us the truth now.because my current translation is "I have no empathy,I don't care for a whole class of people who are beneath me" But maybe that "truth" is different now.Does the sacrifice of a Muslim war hero seem any different to you now than it did a month ago?Different truth ,different day? Translation:I support our troops.As long as it's a good old all American boy.
The problem with Mr.Trump's current repentant statements is that it's impossible to know what they really mean.I believe that many people,given the choice would choose not to hurt others.Equally,difficult truths need to be told at times.Trump is just talking in generalities.What is important is that if certain people are being hurt by thoughtless dirty politics,then those specific incidents need to be identified and apologies made to those specific groups and individuals.I would be much more inclined to believe this change of heart were Trump talking about trees rather that the forest.Genuine sorrow over ones past actions is specific.
Now,lets find the bottom line here.Mr.Trump suggests,in what seems like a brush off to me,that these issues are insignificant relative what is actually at stake.So then,what is at stake,again,specifically?Moving the nation to the right? Preventing America from being dominated by liberal ideals? Making America Great Again? Maybe I'm missing something here,but how does any of this not have something,indeed a lot to do with racism xenophobia and lack of empathy?
So I'm walking down the street,past that house where I was bitten by the dog.But,instead of a sign saying "Beware Of Dog",I only see a sign saying "Under New Management." But the same old cars are parked in the yard,the same old pitbulls roam the yard and the fence separating me from them is neither higher nor newer.The kinder,gentler,repentant dog owner is still standing on the porch,with a nicer smile.It'a a damn good thing I know what I've learned by hard experience: THIS DOG BITES!
blyndpapaya
Donald Trump has a new campaign manager.His run seemed to be faltering so it's reasonable to change strategy,the goal,after all being to get elected.So now we are seeing what would seem to be a kinder,gentler Trump.Also,a politician who seems more prepared to stick to the script rather than calling in his own plays.
Along with the new sense of direction,Donald Trump has become,at least in terms of appearances apologetic in respect of past misdeeds,especially those misdeeds which were perceived to hurt people.Perhaps he's sincere,or perhaps he's just become satiated with the taste of his own shoe leather.Either way,he insists that " I will always tell the truth." So what does that statement mean in view of the many things he's said already?
Was he telling the truth when he described Mexicans as rapists and criminals? If that was the truth a few short months ago,is it the truth now too?Speak up Mr.Trump,I'm wondering.Here's how I translate those expressed thoughts:Trump is taking ownership of being a racist.Mr.Trump,is it still an issue that we have no reason to suspect,on the basis of Clinton being "unable to satisfy her husband" that she could satisfy the pressing needs of America.Translation:I'm a misogynist,and given the actual matrimonial score keeping,a hypocrite as well.If that was the truth then,has that truth changed at all? Donald,are disabled people still worthy only of your ridicule and contempt? Tell us the truth now.because my current translation is "I have no empathy,I don't care for a whole class of people who are beneath me" But maybe that "truth" is different now.Does the sacrifice of a Muslim war hero seem any different to you now than it did a month ago?Different truth ,different day? Translation:I support our troops.As long as it's a good old all American boy.
The problem with Mr.Trump's current repentant statements is that it's impossible to know what they really mean.I believe that many people,given the choice would choose not to hurt others.Equally,difficult truths need to be told at times.Trump is just talking in generalities.What is important is that if certain people are being hurt by thoughtless dirty politics,then those specific incidents need to be identified and apologies made to those specific groups and individuals.I would be much more inclined to believe this change of heart were Trump talking about trees rather that the forest.Genuine sorrow over ones past actions is specific.
Now,lets find the bottom line here.Mr.Trump suggests,in what seems like a brush off to me,that these issues are insignificant relative what is actually at stake.So then,what is at stake,again,specifically?Moving the nation to the right? Preventing America from being dominated by liberal ideals? Making America Great Again? Maybe I'm missing something here,but how does any of this not have something,indeed a lot to do with racism xenophobia and lack of empathy?
So I'm walking down the street,past that house where I was bitten by the dog.But,instead of a sign saying "Beware Of Dog",I only see a sign saying "Under New Management." But the same old cars are parked in the yard,the same old pitbulls roam the yard and the fence separating me from them is neither higher nor newer.The kinder,gentler,repentant dog owner is still standing on the porch,with a nicer smile.It'a a damn good thing I know what I've learned by hard experience: THIS DOG BITES!
blyndpapaya
A salute to The International Olympic Committee.
The 2016 Olympics has seemed like The Silly Olympics at times.First there was the Russian doping scandal.It was curious to say the least how more accountability for that was put on disabled athletes than on all of the Russian team collectively,but the Russian team is a top draw at a venue that has seemed somewhat beleaguered at times,Then,of course,there is the Zika virus,and concerns over water quality,and street crime.And,the unsavory actions of a few American swimmers is a trending news topic.But once in a while,the International Olympic Committee and it's member organizations gets something right.
Judo is perhaps not the highest profile Olympic event,but it matters to those who are fans,and to those who dedicate there lives to performing it at it's highest level.I would have to admit both ignorance and disinterest with this particular event,were it not time to commend the IOC for a job well done.
Following a match between Egyptian Islam El Shehaby and his Israeli opponent Or Sasson, El Shehaby left refusing to bow,shake hands with or otherwise acknowledge his opponent.He was called back,asked to bow and acknowledged his opponent with a quick nod.His actions were deemed unacceptable by the IOC,and that position was supported,at least publicly by The Egyptian Olympic Committee who sent El Shehaby home.Given the Russian doping scandal,we might legitimately wonder if the outcome would have been different if the athlete in question were involved in a higher profile event,like the 100 meter dash for instance,or if he were from some other nation,again,a higher profile one.But all that aside,lets give credit where it's due.
The Olympics is not the place to make a political statement,unless that statement is that sporting events like The Olympics is intended to be transcendent of world politics.To be certain,national pride is a big part of competition.Who is not proud when our competitors excel? And there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.As a Canadian I am unapologetic in my pride of our athletes.They have taken on and beaten worthy opponents from all over the world.But national pride and Nationalism,especially that sort of Nationalism that denigrates the nationalism of others are not the same thing.The later has no place in Olympic competition.
In viewing the actions of El Shahaby,at least at this point,I'm a bit uncertain as to his motivation.It may be a bit premature to put it down as anything more than simple poor sportsmanship,however badly he's behaved.On the other hand,it's a short step in thought to suspect that his motivations might have had a lot to do with the national and religious identity of his opponent.Such would not be the case were that opponent Canadian or Icelandic or Arabian or Paraguayan.But given the state of world affairs,his actions tend to be automatically assigned certain intentions.
In a world that is often racist,xenophobic and politically uneasy to say the least,the IOC and the it's Egyptian counterpart have scored a small victory.But small victories are not insignificant.Firstly,they have not allowed indecent behavior to prosper,notwithstanding any past failings.Simply,they made the right call in issuing a game misconduct.Secondly,at least so far,they've prevented any group from claiming the actions in question as a victory for some political agenda,be it Islamicist or Zionist,or any other for that matter.So far the incident has been confined to the forum in which it belongs,and indeed sport has been made to transcend.This time,the IOC got it right,and in a controversial Olympiad and an often turbulent world every small difference adds up.
blyndpapaya
blyndpapaya
Wednesday 17 August 2016
Caveman with too much testosterone in Alberta Canada.
Do you recall that commercial a few years back with the slogan"so easy even a caveman can do it"? The one that ended with a red faced announcer eating crow while apologizing to two cavemen for having offended them.It was a well received if only mildly amusing commercial.However,I just recently discovered that there is at least one surviving caveman,and his antics are not anywhere close to amusing.In fact,I find them repulsive,as anyone that has any sense of morality that is developed beyond a purely pre-historical level should. And,I will in no way apologize to this particular neanderthal once I've demonstrated on him how the pen is mightier than the spear,and left him gutted out but still breathing all over this blog entry.
Josh Bowmar is from Ohio.Recently he came to Alberta,Canada to hunt bears.With a spear.He posted video of that experience for the whole world to see.Briefly,that video shows,initially an unsuccessful attempt to spear a black bear,which Mr.Bowmar had lured with bait.It shows Mr.Bowmar holding a spear which has been outfitted with a camera along it's shaft.It also has a menacing looking blade..As I say,initially the bear escapes,but comes back and is then speared,in the side and runs off again.It is found dead some time later and quite nearby.
The remaining minutes of the video show Josh Bowmar in his self absorbed,demented victory dance,laughing and shouting about how he speared a bear.What it does not show is Mr.Bowmar doing anything to track the bear,obviously still alive,to complete the task of dispatching it humanely.He claims,at that point that to do so would be dangerous.Yet coming to the woods without a sure means of securing his safety was not? His narcissistic display of self congratulatory orgasm was not? Mr.Bowmar is not a true hunter,he's a cold.callus killer and that sort of action,that anyone so inclined can witness on the video,is likely the only thing capable of causing him an orgasm.I'm imagining that Bowmar considers himself a purest in terms of hunting.I consider him a menace a sensationalist addict of barbarian thrill and arrested in a pre-historic stage of moral development.In fact I find nothing at all redeeming about his actions. It's like shooting goats in a petting zoo.Only afterward does the idea of danger appear in Bowmar's mind,and only then as a excuse not to do the right thing.
And that's the most positive view of this whole situation that I can come up with.In fact,in viewing the whole video,I'm really convinced that it's not merely a matter of ignorant moral neglect on Bowmar's part.It seems far more malignant than that.It seems as if what I'm viewing was something that holds the suffering inflicted as an end in and of itself.But I could be wrong so watch the video yourself if you can stomach it.
Now you might be tempted to label me as a left wing, radical,tofu eating tree hugger Let me assure you that is not the case.Like a good many people,especially males,I took a firearms safety and was taught to hunt.In fact I was rather accomplished at shooting in years past when I had better eyes.But I never really took up hunting as an adult.I have no objection to hunting.Some people hunt to survive.Other people,including people I know in Alberta live far from town.For them the possibility of an animal attack,in particular a bear attack is real,and they keep guns to defend themselves against that possibility.In either event,I have no objection.I am somewhat less comfortable with the idea of trophy hunting,but I think I would have admit that even that can be done humanely.I'm just not convinced that it serves any real need.
I live in the city and have no fear of attack from anything more dangerous than a garbage eating raccoon with an attitude.There is lots of meat,which I eat with pleasure,in the supermarket,and which I can more or less afford.If I could not,I might well hunt as a supplement.I know,fully well that a living creature gave it's life that I might enjoy that meat.And in fact,I respect that sacrifice.
And therein lies the wrongfulness of Mr.Bowmars actions.As with most actions of it's sort,it comes down to a simple and total lack of respect.Again,as a Christian,I feel that in any sort of killing,one needs to have a deep sense of reflective reverence for the things which our Creator made,and which we could not.Again,there is no particular need to be religiously observant in order to find this reverence.But either way,killing is not a small thing,and most people seem to get that. In fact,it occurs to me that those who do not are less than fully endowed with human sensibilities.
Firstly ask,was the killing of Bowmar's bear necessary.Did it serve any legitimate purpose?.Was anything fed by it,save Bowmar's obvious blood lust? If it was a function of self defense,it was only made necessary by engaging in an activity that any reasonably minded person could have anticipated would bring danger,perhaps extreme peril. Mr.Bowmar however seems to have no such thought.And,to that end,it's a shame that he is not eligible for a Darwin Award.We would be well deprived of his DNA.
I would,finally,be remiss in not noting the sensationalism involved in this horrifying act.That is less a problem with Mr.Bowmar than a problem of epidemic proportions in society at large,in which we have been turned into a world of vicarious thrill seekers.Mr.Bowmar has no qualms about pandering to the reality of that world though,as he carries on,laughing and joking.In one news article,he even describes the spear in sickening detail,and the damage it can do to a bear.Mr.Bowmar,I for one fully comprehend your point in providing that description.You are overly fixated on the size and prowess of you spear.Had you not meant to convey it's power to penetrate,you would not have affixed a camera to it's hard,uncompromising shaft.It all plays so well in some morally decayed circles,doesn't it?
Let me ask,what's next Mr.Bowmar?What is you next act of self absorbed masturbation? May I make a suggestion? Why don't you go elephant hunting with a Swiss Army knife.Maybe that way you will reap the Darwin Award that you so richly deserve.
Just a note in ending this post:I find this to be the harshest thing I've ever written in my life.Yet I find Mr.Bowmars actions fully worthy of every word of criticism.I will pray for a world in which such things need not be said.It will be a far better world than this one.But again,I will not apologize to this neanderthal.
blyndpapaya.
Josh Bowmar is from Ohio.Recently he came to Alberta,Canada to hunt bears.With a spear.He posted video of that experience for the whole world to see.Briefly,that video shows,initially an unsuccessful attempt to spear a black bear,which Mr.Bowmar had lured with bait.It shows Mr.Bowmar holding a spear which has been outfitted with a camera along it's shaft.It also has a menacing looking blade..As I say,initially the bear escapes,but comes back and is then speared,in the side and runs off again.It is found dead some time later and quite nearby.
The remaining minutes of the video show Josh Bowmar in his self absorbed,demented victory dance,laughing and shouting about how he speared a bear.What it does not show is Mr.Bowmar doing anything to track the bear,obviously still alive,to complete the task of dispatching it humanely.He claims,at that point that to do so would be dangerous.Yet coming to the woods without a sure means of securing his safety was not? His narcissistic display of self congratulatory orgasm was not? Mr.Bowmar is not a true hunter,he's a cold.callus killer and that sort of action,that anyone so inclined can witness on the video,is likely the only thing capable of causing him an orgasm.I'm imagining that Bowmar considers himself a purest in terms of hunting.I consider him a menace a sensationalist addict of barbarian thrill and arrested in a pre-historic stage of moral development.In fact I find nothing at all redeeming about his actions. It's like shooting goats in a petting zoo.Only afterward does the idea of danger appear in Bowmar's mind,and only then as a excuse not to do the right thing.
And that's the most positive view of this whole situation that I can come up with.In fact,in viewing the whole video,I'm really convinced that it's not merely a matter of ignorant moral neglect on Bowmar's part.It seems far more malignant than that.It seems as if what I'm viewing was something that holds the suffering inflicted as an end in and of itself.But I could be wrong so watch the video yourself if you can stomach it.
Now you might be tempted to label me as a left wing, radical,tofu eating tree hugger Let me assure you that is not the case.Like a good many people,especially males,I took a firearms safety and was taught to hunt.In fact I was rather accomplished at shooting in years past when I had better eyes.But I never really took up hunting as an adult.I have no objection to hunting.Some people hunt to survive.Other people,including people I know in Alberta live far from town.For them the possibility of an animal attack,in particular a bear attack is real,and they keep guns to defend themselves against that possibility.In either event,I have no objection.I am somewhat less comfortable with the idea of trophy hunting,but I think I would have admit that even that can be done humanely.I'm just not convinced that it serves any real need.
I live in the city and have no fear of attack from anything more dangerous than a garbage eating raccoon with an attitude.There is lots of meat,which I eat with pleasure,in the supermarket,and which I can more or less afford.If I could not,I might well hunt as a supplement.I know,fully well that a living creature gave it's life that I might enjoy that meat.And in fact,I respect that sacrifice.
And therein lies the wrongfulness of Mr.Bowmars actions.As with most actions of it's sort,it comes down to a simple and total lack of respect.Again,as a Christian,I feel that in any sort of killing,one needs to have a deep sense of reflective reverence for the things which our Creator made,and which we could not.Again,there is no particular need to be religiously observant in order to find this reverence.But either way,killing is not a small thing,and most people seem to get that. In fact,it occurs to me that those who do not are less than fully endowed with human sensibilities.
Firstly ask,was the killing of Bowmar's bear necessary.Did it serve any legitimate purpose?.Was anything fed by it,save Bowmar's obvious blood lust? If it was a function of self defense,it was only made necessary by engaging in an activity that any reasonably minded person could have anticipated would bring danger,perhaps extreme peril. Mr.Bowmar however seems to have no such thought.And,to that end,it's a shame that he is not eligible for a Darwin Award.We would be well deprived of his DNA.
I would,finally,be remiss in not noting the sensationalism involved in this horrifying act.That is less a problem with Mr.Bowmar than a problem of epidemic proportions in society at large,in which we have been turned into a world of vicarious thrill seekers.Mr.Bowmar has no qualms about pandering to the reality of that world though,as he carries on,laughing and joking.In one news article,he even describes the spear in sickening detail,and the damage it can do to a bear.Mr.Bowmar,I for one fully comprehend your point in providing that description.You are overly fixated on the size and prowess of you spear.Had you not meant to convey it's power to penetrate,you would not have affixed a camera to it's hard,uncompromising shaft.It all plays so well in some morally decayed circles,doesn't it?
Let me ask,what's next Mr.Bowmar?What is you next act of self absorbed masturbation? May I make a suggestion? Why don't you go elephant hunting with a Swiss Army knife.Maybe that way you will reap the Darwin Award that you so richly deserve.
Just a note in ending this post:I find this to be the harshest thing I've ever written in my life.Yet I find Mr.Bowmars actions fully worthy of every word of criticism.I will pray for a world in which such things need not be said.It will be a far better world than this one.But again,I will not apologize to this neanderthal.
blyndpapaya.
Tuesday 16 August 2016
Donald Trump 101.
It's really a very simple matter.There is so much that I really don't have to pay a lot of attention to.But I'll admit,it's been entertaining for the most part,if it wasn't so damn sad.Watching the greatest democracy on Earth sink to the depths that it has in this election cycle is sad and disturbing.American society has become so fractured and it's would be leaders are possessed of the lowest quality of debate I've ever seen in any society where debate really matters.Debate still does matter,doesn't it?
All through the preliminaries to the American election,I've watched Donald Trump,and I've come to one conclusion.I don't want him as The President Of The United States.I could go on and on about why,discuss his silly antics until November,but why bother.Frankly I've got better things to do,more issues to bring some hopefully thoughtful commentary to.As far as Donald and his merry band of crackers is concerned,I just hope that the Republican Party has enough left in the way of operating political machinery to overcome it's present circumstances,to protect the world from the whims of a leader who appears unstable.And beyond that I'll just pray to God for the rest.
Believe me,I'm not dismissing Trump easily,even if I appear to be doing so quickly.But you see,I've decided that I learned all I really need to know about him in one rather short,succinct video.You may have seen the same video.It's the one where he is childishly mocking a disabled man.Full Stop,go no farther.What this video tells me is one single,vital fact.The man lacks empathy.But he carries on about making America great again.Don't believe it,he will only represent the interests of those most like him,that's all that we can expect from someone who lacks empathy.And those most like him are rather small in number...about 1% perhaps.
America cannot be made great without empathy,nor can the rest of the world be made safe for humanity.
blyndpapaya
All through the preliminaries to the American election,I've watched Donald Trump,and I've come to one conclusion.I don't want him as The President Of The United States.I could go on and on about why,discuss his silly antics until November,but why bother.Frankly I've got better things to do,more issues to bring some hopefully thoughtful commentary to.As far as Donald and his merry band of crackers is concerned,I just hope that the Republican Party has enough left in the way of operating political machinery to overcome it's present circumstances,to protect the world from the whims of a leader who appears unstable.And beyond that I'll just pray to God for the rest.
Believe me,I'm not dismissing Trump easily,even if I appear to be doing so quickly.But you see,I've decided that I learned all I really need to know about him in one rather short,succinct video.You may have seen the same video.It's the one where he is childishly mocking a disabled man.Full Stop,go no farther.What this video tells me is one single,vital fact.The man lacks empathy.But he carries on about making America great again.Don't believe it,he will only represent the interests of those most like him,that's all that we can expect from someone who lacks empathy.And those most like him are rather small in number...about 1% perhaps.
America cannot be made great without empathy,nor can the rest of the world be made safe for humanity.
blyndpapaya
Monday 15 August 2016
Carrion eating tourism in Vancouver?
Vancouver,Canada is a magnificent city,well worth the visit.I lived in Greater Vancouver for a very short time in 1979.It has unparalleled scenery,Gastown,Stanley Park and Canada's largest Chinatown.The saying of the day used to be"even our cities have a countryside".
But Vancouver has another side as well.It always has had.That is what's known as the Downtown East Side,around Hastings and Main.It's a shadowy world of prostitutes,pimps,homeless and displaced persons and the addicted.It's the former hunting grounds of serial killer Robert Pickton.Drug use and violence are clearly in evidence even to the unobservant eye.Every form of human degradation and vulnerability is on display here.And now,there is at least one tour company conducting walking tours of the area,so that visitors might have the chance get a close up view of all the neighborhood has to display.
The idea,such as I understand it is not dissimilar to celebrity tours.Celebrities in this context though are the people of the street,users,hookers,mentally ill persons,bottle pickers and petty criminals.For a price,and not a small one,tour operators get you up close and personal with everything that this sort of existence implies.Kind of a new twist on a trip to the zoo.
I have two distinct reactions to this enterprise.Firstly,as a Christian,I find it abhorrent to see anyone making a living of the dire misfortune of others,regardless of whom,or what brought about that misfortune.We are called upon to love others, to seek to relieve suffering,and to provide enlightenment to the lost,not to regard deviance and it's attendant hardship as a curiosity or an entertainment or opportunity for entrepreneurship.As a Christian,I simply and loudly pronounce this as being unseemly and morally wrong.Without the least hesitation.
As a thinking person,I also find an abundance of reasons why this sort of undertaking is wrong.There are those that say we do not need to appeal to religion to inform us in matters of morality.Obviously I disagree,but an appeal to intellect does not leave these tour operators in a favorable light.
First,at over two hundred dollars for a two hour tour,this is simply crass,callous capitalism at it's worst.An average zoo,by comparison charges something in the neighborhood of twenty dollars to enter and stay for most of the day,and,from those proceeds provides not only an enjoyable and informative family experience,but is instrumental in providing support services for conservation of endangered species as well.But apparently humiliation and ridicule can command a higher price.And given the totality of human history in this respect,that's exactly what should be expected.Shades of an American Presidential candidate mocking a disabled man come immediately to mind.
There are those who suggest that walking tours of this blighted neighborhood are one way to encourage empathy for marginalized populations.I am not buying into that idea in the least.In fact,I see this as being nearly entirely based on the desire to ridicule.Were empathy the goal,the tour guides would be providing education on the psychological,sociological and philosophical aspects of social problems.I'm guessing that that's not happening.I'm guessing it's more or less a quick and dirty tour of a readily available"zoo" in which the tour operator bares no responsibility for the upkeep of the "animals". If anyone finds themselves in need of more empathy,there are an abundance of volunteer opportunities in most such areas.Feed hungry people,step up and provide for a need.In the process you will inevitably get to know some of the people who live in these circumstances.With the tour provider,you will most likely come away with a heightened awareness of the stereotypical,at best.
Stereotypes attach themselves to everything.But in marginalized populations they loom disproportionately large in the lives of those being typecast.What are these tour providers doing to promote the humanity and individualism of even one street person? How do they provide any enlightenment of the root causes of addiction or homelessness or prostitution in individuals? They simply provide a sensational,visceral experience that does not edify and is often quickly forgotten.A low form of entertainment.
Perhaps the people conducting the tours in Vancouver can speak to a concern that I have.I invite them to comment here if they wish.Who are your clients.I don't mean that you should name them,after all I respect privacy in a way that these people clearly do not.But,do tourists include children?And,if so what is being done to minimize risk,not to mention emotional trauma associated with the activities providing the entertainment.For that matter,what is being done to ensure anyone's safety? Hopefully Vancouver police are as concerned with this as much as I am.
Humans are entitled to a presumption of dignity,no matter what state they find themselves in,and it's true that many sacrifice that dignity to feed their base desires.Again,as a Christian,I would suggest that this is because we are all created in God's image,but you needn't appeal to religion unless you see fit.When in shelters,homeless people are entitled to an expectation of privacy,though I'm uncertain of how strictly this is enforced.But the absence of that expectation does not mean that persons-any persons can be deprived of their dignity.Now I ask,how many persons are photographed during these tours?Not just engaging in deviant acts such as prostitution,but also necessary acts,such as perhaps urination,which is not always easily facilitated within this population.And,do any persons ever come to be portrayed in a particular and almost always unflattering light,even though their presence may be nothing but the merest coincidence?
To people visiting Vancouver,I urge you to partake of all the city has to offer.It's a truly great place and,as a Canadian,I am very proud of it.I usually like to get off the beaten track when I'm in an unfamiliar city,and I encourage you to do likewise.If you want to photograph,or write about,or sketch,draw etc.,homeless,addicted or less fortunate people,I urge you to get their permission,and seek to dignify in any of your interactions.If you seek to be more understanding and empathetic,take some time to get to know someone you might not otherwise seek out.When you do,bring a sandwich,a dry pair of socks,a warm jacket,maybe a hug or a prayer.You can see the troubles of this world for yourself and come away educated and with a better point of view.But most of all,I urge you not to patronize those tour companies that make their living by increasing the uncalled for humiliation of fellow human beings
blyndpapaya
But Vancouver has another side as well.It always has had.That is what's known as the Downtown East Side,around Hastings and Main.It's a shadowy world of prostitutes,pimps,homeless and displaced persons and the addicted.It's the former hunting grounds of serial killer Robert Pickton.Drug use and violence are clearly in evidence even to the unobservant eye.Every form of human degradation and vulnerability is on display here.And now,there is at least one tour company conducting walking tours of the area,so that visitors might have the chance get a close up view of all the neighborhood has to display.
The idea,such as I understand it is not dissimilar to celebrity tours.Celebrities in this context though are the people of the street,users,hookers,mentally ill persons,bottle pickers and petty criminals.For a price,and not a small one,tour operators get you up close and personal with everything that this sort of existence implies.Kind of a new twist on a trip to the zoo.
I have two distinct reactions to this enterprise.Firstly,as a Christian,I find it abhorrent to see anyone making a living of the dire misfortune of others,regardless of whom,or what brought about that misfortune.We are called upon to love others, to seek to relieve suffering,and to provide enlightenment to the lost,not to regard deviance and it's attendant hardship as a curiosity or an entertainment or opportunity for entrepreneurship.As a Christian,I simply and loudly pronounce this as being unseemly and morally wrong.Without the least hesitation.
As a thinking person,I also find an abundance of reasons why this sort of undertaking is wrong.There are those that say we do not need to appeal to religion to inform us in matters of morality.Obviously I disagree,but an appeal to intellect does not leave these tour operators in a favorable light.
First,at over two hundred dollars for a two hour tour,this is simply crass,callous capitalism at it's worst.An average zoo,by comparison charges something in the neighborhood of twenty dollars to enter and stay for most of the day,and,from those proceeds provides not only an enjoyable and informative family experience,but is instrumental in providing support services for conservation of endangered species as well.But apparently humiliation and ridicule can command a higher price.And given the totality of human history in this respect,that's exactly what should be expected.Shades of an American Presidential candidate mocking a disabled man come immediately to mind.
There are those who suggest that walking tours of this blighted neighborhood are one way to encourage empathy for marginalized populations.I am not buying into that idea in the least.In fact,I see this as being nearly entirely based on the desire to ridicule.Were empathy the goal,the tour guides would be providing education on the psychological,sociological and philosophical aspects of social problems.I'm guessing that that's not happening.I'm guessing it's more or less a quick and dirty tour of a readily available"zoo" in which the tour operator bares no responsibility for the upkeep of the "animals". If anyone finds themselves in need of more empathy,there are an abundance of volunteer opportunities in most such areas.Feed hungry people,step up and provide for a need.In the process you will inevitably get to know some of the people who live in these circumstances.With the tour provider,you will most likely come away with a heightened awareness of the stereotypical,at best.
Stereotypes attach themselves to everything.But in marginalized populations they loom disproportionately large in the lives of those being typecast.What are these tour providers doing to promote the humanity and individualism of even one street person? How do they provide any enlightenment of the root causes of addiction or homelessness or prostitution in individuals? They simply provide a sensational,visceral experience that does not edify and is often quickly forgotten.A low form of entertainment.
Perhaps the people conducting the tours in Vancouver can speak to a concern that I have.I invite them to comment here if they wish.Who are your clients.I don't mean that you should name them,after all I respect privacy in a way that these people clearly do not.But,do tourists include children?And,if so what is being done to minimize risk,not to mention emotional trauma associated with the activities providing the entertainment.For that matter,what is being done to ensure anyone's safety? Hopefully Vancouver police are as concerned with this as much as I am.
Humans are entitled to a presumption of dignity,no matter what state they find themselves in,and it's true that many sacrifice that dignity to feed their base desires.Again,as a Christian,I would suggest that this is because we are all created in God's image,but you needn't appeal to religion unless you see fit.When in shelters,homeless people are entitled to an expectation of privacy,though I'm uncertain of how strictly this is enforced.But the absence of that expectation does not mean that persons-any persons can be deprived of their dignity.Now I ask,how many persons are photographed during these tours?Not just engaging in deviant acts such as prostitution,but also necessary acts,such as perhaps urination,which is not always easily facilitated within this population.And,do any persons ever come to be portrayed in a particular and almost always unflattering light,even though their presence may be nothing but the merest coincidence?
To people visiting Vancouver,I urge you to partake of all the city has to offer.It's a truly great place and,as a Canadian,I am very proud of it.I usually like to get off the beaten track when I'm in an unfamiliar city,and I encourage you to do likewise.If you want to photograph,or write about,or sketch,draw etc.,homeless,addicted or less fortunate people,I urge you to get their permission,and seek to dignify in any of your interactions.If you seek to be more understanding and empathetic,take some time to get to know someone you might not otherwise seek out.When you do,bring a sandwich,a dry pair of socks,a warm jacket,maybe a hug or a prayer.You can see the troubles of this world for yourself and come away educated and with a better point of view.But most of all,I urge you not to patronize those tour companies that make their living by increasing the uncalled for humiliation of fellow human beings
blyndpapaya
Charlie McGillvary,Part II.
First,apologies for not getting to this story in a more timely fashion.As you are already aware if you've read my past entries,I was,and continue to be greatly disturbed,and yes,offended by the death of Charlie McGillivary at the hands of Toronto police in August of 2011.So much so,that today,five years later I'm not prepared to allow anyone to forget.Because disabled person's lives,like all lives matter.I have decided however to present a rather shortened version of what I had to say in response to this matter.
In my last entry,I indicated that I attended a pizza party/vigil/protest for Mr. McGillvary about a week after his fatal encounter with police.But that's not where it ended for me.There were maybe eighty people in attendance at this vigil,and it can best be described as a fond remembrance for a man who was rather well known in his community.I,however had never met the man.He was recognized by many at that vigil as "a gentle giant" and a "gentleman".In speaking to dozens of people,a picture emerged in my mind of a person who was what a great many disabled people tend to be by a largely uninformed populace-misunderstood.And,when I think about it,that doesn't make him so very different from most people.I think it can be safely said that he was tragically misunderstood by Toronto Police.
I've worked with disabled people,I count some among people who I respect,admire and love.And therein partly lies my interest.But a big part of it too was that the tragic events that befell Mr. McGillivary happened very close to home,in my neighborhood,along streets I pass every day.So,when I was invited to attend a protest rally at City Hall a few days later I went out of a sense of concerned duty.It was an eye opening experience.
Protest was very much in style in 2011,the year of The Occupy Movement.It was before the emergence of Black Lives Matter,but that's not to say that the sentiments of that movement were not clearly in evidence at the protest over Charlie McGillivary's death.Generally we paraded around,made a lot of noise,and took the time to speak with a good many people about our concerns.We demanded answers.We demanded,LOUDLY a full investigation,which was to be carried out as usual by The Special Investigations Unit,the body that investigates critical incidents involving police in the province of Ontario.Many of the protesters indicated a concern with the composition of The Special Investigations Unit,insofar as they claimed that it was constituted mainly of police,or former police personnel,and thus was over representative of police interests,as opposed to wider community concerns. As one of the more moderate of the protesters,I noted among my fellow citizens that if we wanted a capable,creditable investigation,we needed to rely on qualified,experienced investigators,and that often meant resorting to police as a necessary evil.That's not to say however that investigations should be carried out exclusively by police.Even I,as a moderated,given to diligent consideration of issues,tend to suspect bias when such investigations are carried out solely within a police culture.To be sure,though,I am not pointing the finger here at the Special Investigation Unit.Like all aspects of policing,it is a difficult and thankless job,but it does need to be done.
My biggest concern was ,and continues to be the ability,or even the inclination of The Special Investigations Unit to access outside help in completing it's work.Specifically in the case of Charlie McGillivary,I'm concerned that investigators may not have understood how disability in general and Mr.McGillivary's disability in particular played out in the tragic events being investigated.Because I'm certain this was not an ordinary police killing,if indeed there can ever be said to be such a thing.I'm still not convinced that all of my concerns in this regard have been answered to my satisfaction.
I've noted in my last entry that information now seems rather scanty on the Charlie McGillivary case.A few days after the events in question it was the talk of the town and a google search provided literally dozens,if not hundreds of related articles.Five years later,a similar search reveals much less material.To be sure you can find a basic outline of the case from beginning to end,but much less in the way of supplemental material.But,of course the ruling of the Special Investigations Unit was there.Mr.McGillivarys death was ruled to be an accident.And,because I've not been able to read the actual text of the ruling online,I do grudgingly accept that ruling.However,I wonder if given the intent that must be involved in undertaking policing,the results of such interactions can be considered to be accidental.In my view,we simply have to do better."No harm,no foul" is not the right answer.It's simply not good enough.It offends our community and is reflective of a negative value we put on the lives of disabled people,relative to the lives of others.
As a footnote,I should say that many of the protesters at City Hall were both much more experienced and more radical than myself.One of them even suggested that she would simply want police out of their neighborhoods completely and would be willing to accept any increased danger within the community as necessary if it achieved that end. For my part,I've not yet acquired that level of mistrust in those who police us.I hope I never do.
For what it's worth,I want to take note of a small but perhaps significant event that took place after the protest that day. My new found colleague suggested to me,as I was about to take my leave that I decide upon a route home and let her know just what that route was,in case of any "retaliation." I was not in the least concerned with this as a possible outcome of my militancy,but nevertheless decided to humor my friend,and provided her with my plans for a safe walk home.Upon arriving on my street,I noticed two police cruisers parked just south of my house.As I approached,an officer greeted me,in a not unfriendly way and asked where I was going."Home." I replied. "Where's home" he asked,but I just walked past and turned into my walkway,assuming his question would be answered.And indeed he did not make any further inquiry.While I don't know if this incident was at all connected to my presence at the City Hall protest,I do note it's seeming coincidence,and the fact that it's the only time I'd ever been approached by police in all the time I'd lived in that neighborhood.
blyndpapaya
In my last entry,I indicated that I attended a pizza party/vigil/protest for Mr. McGillvary about a week after his fatal encounter with police.But that's not where it ended for me.There were maybe eighty people in attendance at this vigil,and it can best be described as a fond remembrance for a man who was rather well known in his community.I,however had never met the man.He was recognized by many at that vigil as "a gentle giant" and a "gentleman".In speaking to dozens of people,a picture emerged in my mind of a person who was what a great many disabled people tend to be by a largely uninformed populace-misunderstood.And,when I think about it,that doesn't make him so very different from most people.I think it can be safely said that he was tragically misunderstood by Toronto Police.
I've worked with disabled people,I count some among people who I respect,admire and love.And therein partly lies my interest.But a big part of it too was that the tragic events that befell Mr. McGillivary happened very close to home,in my neighborhood,along streets I pass every day.So,when I was invited to attend a protest rally at City Hall a few days later I went out of a sense of concerned duty.It was an eye opening experience.
Protest was very much in style in 2011,the year of The Occupy Movement.It was before the emergence of Black Lives Matter,but that's not to say that the sentiments of that movement were not clearly in evidence at the protest over Charlie McGillivary's death.Generally we paraded around,made a lot of noise,and took the time to speak with a good many people about our concerns.We demanded answers.We demanded,LOUDLY a full investigation,which was to be carried out as usual by The Special Investigations Unit,the body that investigates critical incidents involving police in the province of Ontario.Many of the protesters indicated a concern with the composition of The Special Investigations Unit,insofar as they claimed that it was constituted mainly of police,or former police personnel,and thus was over representative of police interests,as opposed to wider community concerns. As one of the more moderate of the protesters,I noted among my fellow citizens that if we wanted a capable,creditable investigation,we needed to rely on qualified,experienced investigators,and that often meant resorting to police as a necessary evil.That's not to say however that investigations should be carried out exclusively by police.Even I,as a moderated,given to diligent consideration of issues,tend to suspect bias when such investigations are carried out solely within a police culture.To be sure,though,I am not pointing the finger here at the Special Investigation Unit.Like all aspects of policing,it is a difficult and thankless job,but it does need to be done.
My biggest concern was ,and continues to be the ability,or even the inclination of The Special Investigations Unit to access outside help in completing it's work.Specifically in the case of Charlie McGillivary,I'm concerned that investigators may not have understood how disability in general and Mr.McGillivary's disability in particular played out in the tragic events being investigated.Because I'm certain this was not an ordinary police killing,if indeed there can ever be said to be such a thing.I'm still not convinced that all of my concerns in this regard have been answered to my satisfaction.
I've noted in my last entry that information now seems rather scanty on the Charlie McGillivary case.A few days after the events in question it was the talk of the town and a google search provided literally dozens,if not hundreds of related articles.Five years later,a similar search reveals much less material.To be sure you can find a basic outline of the case from beginning to end,but much less in the way of supplemental material.But,of course the ruling of the Special Investigations Unit was there.Mr.McGillivarys death was ruled to be an accident.And,because I've not been able to read the actual text of the ruling online,I do grudgingly accept that ruling.However,I wonder if given the intent that must be involved in undertaking policing,the results of such interactions can be considered to be accidental.In my view,we simply have to do better."No harm,no foul" is not the right answer.It's simply not good enough.It offends our community and is reflective of a negative value we put on the lives of disabled people,relative to the lives of others.
As a footnote,I should say that many of the protesters at City Hall were both much more experienced and more radical than myself.One of them even suggested that she would simply want police out of their neighborhoods completely and would be willing to accept any increased danger within the community as necessary if it achieved that end. For my part,I've not yet acquired that level of mistrust in those who police us.I hope I never do.
For what it's worth,I want to take note of a small but perhaps significant event that took place after the protest that day. My new found colleague suggested to me,as I was about to take my leave that I decide upon a route home and let her know just what that route was,in case of any "retaliation." I was not in the least concerned with this as a possible outcome of my militancy,but nevertheless decided to humor my friend,and provided her with my plans for a safe walk home.Upon arriving on my street,I noticed two police cruisers parked just south of my house.As I approached,an officer greeted me,in a not unfriendly way and asked where I was going."Home." I replied. "Where's home" he asked,but I just walked past and turned into my walkway,assuming his question would be answered.And indeed he did not make any further inquiry.While I don't know if this incident was at all connected to my presence at the City Hall protest,I do note it's seeming coincidence,and the fact that it's the only time I'd ever been approached by police in all the time I'd lived in that neighborhood.
blyndpapaya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)