Seeing past the mirror

We, all of us, have our own personal biases.  Our upbringing, our culture, our financial situations, the experiences we've had and many things outside our own control, all colour our perceptions and interpretations of things.

Even our geography can colour our views on things.  I was recently reminded of this in a conversation with Eldest.  She had been visiting with friends who live in a high rise.  Looking out their window towards the downtown core of our city, she was struck by how very green our city is.  If it weren't for high rises and the odd bridge here and there, you would hardly know that there was a city under the canopy of trees.  There's also a major river winding its way through the city,with parks along it containing a surprising amount of wildlife, including deer and the odd cougar sighting.

View of a residential neighbourhood from our downtown home.

Our current city is hardly unique in this respect. In all the cities I've traveled to and lived in from coast to coast, even those with the highest population densities still have a lot of trees.  When a lot of our cities were built, houses tended to be smaller and taller, with larger yards.  Today, subdivisions are built with larger houses and smaller yards, but they often include man-made lakes, parks and playgrounds.  As people move in, their sometimes tiny yards are quickly decorated with trees, shrubs, and gardens. Even some of our high rises and office buildings have gardens, lawns and trees on roof tops or terraces.

My sister's husband has a lot of relatives in Poland.  Every year or so, some cousins, aunts, or uncles come out to visit.  Being the good hosts that they are, my sister and her husband try to take their visitors out to see as much as possible during their stay.  My BIL might take them fishing on the various creeks, rivers and lakes they have access to via the creek running past their home (they've taken me by boat from their house on a farm in a blink town to the downtown of the nearest city in less time than it takes to drive).  He's brought in some fish big enough to get into the record books while they were visiting, which the relatives found quite thrilling.  Other times, my sister or her husband take their guests on a road trip to places like Niagra Falls or Banff, depending on which direction they want to drive.

Despite being a fraction of Canada's size, Poland has a greater population. These road trips in particular leave them amazed at things we tend to take for granted.  Like open spaces, for hours at at time.  Taking days to cross just half the country, rather than hours.  Fields stretching from horizon to horizon, with the odd farmhouse hidden within islands of trees planted as windbreaks.  Even the size and shapes of our hay bales has been a source of awe.  They're constantly snapping pictures and taking videos of things we find quite ordinary, but to them are extraordinary.

Growing up with this sort of terrain and living in cities filled with trees has certainly coloured my perception.  Which is why, when I hear or read people talking about how cities are concrete jungles, and of people never experiencing nature, I was long confused.  I understood it to a certain extent - after all, having grown up on the farm, even a small town seemed noisy and crowded to me.  But the more I heard people complaining about the lack of green space, population density and the troubles these cause, the less I was able to understand it.  I'd see photos of city streets in Tokyo or New York, and it still didn't really sink in.  It was a long time before I realized that our green cities and wide open spaces were the oddity, not the cities so crowded that the sidewalks were filled with a seething mass of humanity.  I just can't imagine living in a place so full of people.  Or, more accurately, I can't imagine living in such conditions without going stir crazy!  I now realize that I've been spoiled by our wide open vistas and low population density.  What is normal and ordinary to me was the exception, not the rule.

Realizing that my own perception was skewed was an important step.  It has allowed me to hear or read people lamenting the lack of nature and green spaces and not project my own biased image, like some kind of mirror, over what they were talking about.  Over time, I've learned to look more closely at the conclusions I jump to about many other things and examine where I might be looking at them through the biased lens of my personal experiences.

Having a biased view of things isn't actually a bad thing, in and of itself.  It's quite normal and, I think, necessary.  After all, as a parent, being biased towards my own children led me to parenting practises quite different from what the cultural norm told me I should be doing.  There is a place and purpose to bias.

Bias can be a problem, however.  More so when people refuse to acknowledge the role bias plays in our interpretations of things.  Bias is why two researchers can look at the exact same data, yet come to completely different conclusions.  That data is neutral.  The researchers should also be neutral, but unless they are aware of their own personal biases and how those biases might colour their conclusions, they themselves can't maintain neutrality. This is not to suggest the events that shaped their personal biases are automatically wrong or bad and should be rejected, but that the researcher needs to be aware that their conclusions may be unduly affected by them.

Accusations of bias are common enough, and such accusations are often used as weapons to question the credibility of those who hold opposing opinions or draw conclusions that are not popular.  A recent example of this has been making the news when one scientist published his conclusion that water downstream from the Alberta oilsands development contains higher levels of certain toxic chemicals, and that the oilsands extractions are to blame.  A government scientist, on the other hand, looked at the same data and came to a different conclusion; that while these levels are indeed higher than "normal," they have not actually been increasing, and that the source of these toxins is not necessarily from the extraction of bitumen from the oilsands.  That area is naturally high in toxins because of the presence of bitumen, and those toxins have always leeched into the water system. 

Immediately after these counter claims hit the news, the government scientist was disparaged for bias by those who oppose oilsands development.  Which is another demonstration of bias in itself.  These are the same people who claim that non-governmental scientists or organizations are unduly biased by the source of their paychecks (hence the accusations of scientists being in the pockets of "Big Oil," or "Big Pharma," etc.), while research paid for by government grants or paid for by special interest groups that just happen to support their own views is claimed to be trustworthy due to lack of bias.  In this case, it's the government scientist that's accused of bias because the government in question is a) conservative and b) owns the oilsands on behalf of the province's citizens.  For these anti-oilsands groups, the actual data is irrelevant; they've already decided that the oilsands are evil and must be stopped, so any who don't support their views are obviously paid stooges. 

From what I understand, this government scientist is just one of many other government scientists and employees that have been monitoring the Athabasca river since the late 70's.  It may be true that this scientist does have a bias in favour of oilsands development.  What is not being acknowledged is that the scientist that drew the opposite conclusion might also be biased.  Ignoring the fact that his findings were little more than science by press release, this is someone who has been pretty public about his opinions against the use of hydrocarbons.  You would think that someone who came in out of nowhere, looked at a bunch of data and drew conclusions that supported his already known position is more likely to be unfairly biased than someone who's been following, gathering and/or working with that data as his job for years. 

While this is a rather high profile example, similar examples can be drawn from most people's daily lives.  Each of us can look at the same information and, unless we are aware and train ourselves otherwise, see what proves our preconceived notions while ignoring information that doesn't.  I recently read a post on a sociology blog talking about images used by the Republican Party.  The writer noted that in these pictures, which supposedly represented "America" and "Americans" the people were all white - completely missing several people who clearly weren't white until people in the comments pointed them out (which, in turn, got dismissed because there were so few of them).

One commenter dismissed the entire series of photos as being a sea of "angry white" people.  I had to go back and double check what the writer was talking about.  I'm still not sure.  Of the photos that clearly showed faces, their expressions were universally cheerful and pleasant, if not openly smiling.  There was just one crowd shot I can imagine this person was talking about.  It was a wide angle shot of an audience.  Most of the people seated were turned in the general direction of the camera, looking at another audience member, whose back was to the camera, speaking at a microphone.  More people in the staging area were also looking at the speaking audience member.  None of the faces looked all that clear to me.  Not enough to determine facial expressions with any accuracy, at least.  Of the ones I could see, they were focused on the speaker and their expressions, while not cheerful, seemed attentively focused, not angry.  They looked like a room full of people taking part in a lecture/Q&A on a serious topic.  This commenter, however, saw anger in these pictures.  This person was clearly allowing their personal bias against... white people?  Republicans?  Guys in cowboy hats? whatever is was specifically, to colour their interpretation of the photos.  This is only a problem because that person is also dismissing an entire group based on their personal bias.  It's one thing to look at a group of people and see anger where there is none.  Using that bias to dismiss an entire segment of the population turns it from bias to prejudice.  The Republican Party may have, knowingly or unknowingly, shown bias by using photos of predominantly white people in their publication, but does that bias represent racism?  Or did they simply choose a bunch of photos showing a variety of activities that also just happened to have very few non-Caucasians in them?

Hmmm...  As I write this, I'm noticing yet another biased view being demonstrated here.  This particular sociology blog is a big one for discussing how "white people" tend to be the default representation for "humans," while people of colour are portrayed as the "other."  There is some truth to this, but it implies that there actually is this one big, homogeneous group that fits under the umbrella of "white."  They are defined by the lack of pigmentation in their skin.  White people, of course, aren't one homogeneous group.  They come from a wide variety of cultures, traditions and ethnicity's.  Assuming that the whiteness of their skin defines them is a bias every bit as prejudicial as defining, say, all First Nations people by their skin.  They might be Salish or Cree or Mohawk or Metis or Haida Gwaii or Iroquois, etc, just as a white person might be Swiss or Swedish, Polish or British, and so on.

This is the sort of examination of bias I am talking about.  Our personal biases will colour our views of things.  That's just part of being human.  Knowing this and learning to see past the mirror of our biases is what helps keep them from being negatives that keep our minds closed to alternative views, or worse, develop into prejudices, and allows us to see and understand other points of view, even if we ultimately disagree with them.

An experiment that didn't happen... sorta

How's that for an ambiguous post title?

I've mentioned before that I have friends and acquaintances all over the map when it comes to politics, religion, ethnicity, etc.  I've also mentioned that some of them are among my facebook friends, and I've noted significant differences in the behaviours and attitudes from those on the far left of the political spectrum vs those on the far right.

Most of the folks I know are of the "live and let live" sort.  Most don't even talk about topics of substance on public forums, but if they do put forward their feedback, they are generally respectful of those they disagree with, even if they disagree very strongly, or the topic is very emotionally charged.  They might share potentially inflammatory articles or videos, but they do so in such a way that they are asking for feedback, and to actually understand the why behind them.

There are, however, a few exceptions.  I've got the one person on the extreme far right who's also a 9/11 Truther that tends to use foul language and has some rather choice descriptive terms for those who don't agree with his "evidence."  He is, quite obviously, not representative of the political right.

Then there are the others.  These are people on the far left of the political spectrum, and as I've written before, their attitudes are quite different.  Judging from what I've seen and heard elsewhere, they are highly representative of the far and not-so-far left.

Which is rather disturbing, considering some of the things they share and the comments that accompany them.

In the past while, there has been a lot of sharing of stories from this group.  Articles, videos, comments on walls and in groups, etc.  When it comes to politics, they are very predictable.  Basically, they'll share and agree with anything that is anti-American, anti-Harper, anti-Conservative, anti-right, anti-Christian (especially anti-Catholic), anti-Caucasian, anti-male, anti-human, anti-capitalist, and anti-wealth.  The anti-wealth is a bit confusing, though, in that they clearly believe individuals should not have "too much" wealth, and that government should take it from these undeserving wealthy and spread it around to those who aren't wealthy, however they have no objection to those who fall into their acceptable categories to be wealthy, and to use that wealth to try and control our societies.

At the same time, they'll share any story the find that shows how downtrodden their preferred groups are.  Currently, that means any criticism of anything to do with Islam is automatically blasted as being Islamophobic.  Showing any support for Israel causes heads to explode, as is anything said in support of a Christian faith, since apparently accepting Christianity or Isreal in any way is the same as being anti-Islam.  Likewise, suggesting that anthropogenic climate change claims are questionable is met with accusations of being in favor of pollution, or being manipulated by Big Oil. 

There's a major double standard, of course.  They freak out if there's even the flimsiest of connections between the NRA and those trying to get rid of the long-gun registry, but have no problem with Avaaz putting out a petition making wildly false claims about the proposed Sun TV (or, as they think it's named, "Fox New North") channel, for example.  Wealth is bad, but not if it's in the hands of Al Gore or George Soros.   Oil and coal based energy is bad because of pollution, resources used, or they result in the deaths of a bunch of ducks in a tailing pond, but wind turbines are good, even though they kill birds and bats, use a lot of resources to manufacture and ship, are unreliable, may be causing health problems via noise and vibrations, etc.  They'll ignore the environmental cost of building solar panels while decrying the building of a coal plant.  They bemoan our modern lifestyles, painting idyllic pictures of less technologically advanced cultures while ignoring that those lifestyles mean illness, hunger and early death for millions around the world.  I could make a very long list of their double standards.

Of course, there's no trying to respond directly to their claims, because their positions are bolstered firmly by emotion first, then attempts at logic to support those positions.  They are perfect examples of my theory that logic is what people use to justify their emotional responses.  They have their emotional conclusion, and only see those things which support that conclusion, ignoring anything that counters it.  They've actually been the source of great amusement in our household, as we have found ourselves eagerly looking forward to seeing what new way these folks are demonstrating their gullibility, or how far they've fallen into the "useful idiot" category, in their rush to support anyone or anything that agreed with their anti-[see above list] views.

After seeing my newsfeed filled with these posts, I figured I'd try an experiment.  I'd start sharing stories and videos that countered theirs.  Unlike them, I would not make any personal comments on these stories, or give any direct sign that I agreed or disagreed with what I was sharing.  If they were posting stories about how wonderful liberalism was and how evil conservatives are, I'd share stories showing the damage those liberal policies had done, and the benefits reaped by conservative policies.  If they shared another story about how Americans are evil, I'd share stories showing the evils perpetrated by other countries that they'd have to ignore to maintain their illusion of how Americans are the worst of everything.  If they went on about how Christianity is so terrible, or how rife Islamophobia is in the US and Canada, I'd share stories about the horrors done in the name of Islam or how Christians are being persecuted in Muslim nations. 

At least, that was the plan.  I was simply going to share these stories.  I would not comment unless it was to respond to something someone else had said.  I would also be careful about the sources for what I was sharing.  Not because they were any less reliable than their sources, but because these sources might have an obvious bias. ie: if I found a pro-Christian story on a Christian website, I wouldn't share it from that link, but if I found the source of that story from a major news organization, I'd share it from there. That sort of thing.  I was going to show the other side of what they were claiming, and see how they responded. These stories would also be interspersed with all the usual interesting stuff I like to share, like new scientific discoveries, interesting photo collections, humorous quotes, etc.

I quickly found a problem with this plan. 

There were simply too many. 

For example, when the hullabaloo was going on about the weird preacher that wanted to burn the Koran, and the uproar about the "Ground Zero Mosque" had them going on about evil Christians and Islamaphobes, I was going to share stores about Bibles being burned, churches, synagogues or temples being destroyed, "victory Mosques" being built, and Christians, Hindus and Buddhists being persecuted and killed by Muslims.

I was finding hundreds of them - and not just different versions of the same source story - without really even trying.  Many of these stories were incredibly horrifying.  I'm actually still rather traumatized by one particular youtube video I watched almost a week ago, and it takes a lot to disturb me.  It was far too graphic and disturbing to share.

If I were to share all the links I was finding, I would have inundated my feed with just that one subject.  On top of that, I do have Muslim friends.  Even the few stories I did share, I was concerned that they would see these stories as an attack on them and their faith.  Since the experiment was to see how people responded, if at all, to the sharing of these stories, I couldn't explain to them why I was doing it. 

Which led to another problem I had.  While I may disagree with the opinions and conclusions of people I know, I respect their right to hold those opinions and, unless there is a reason to discuss these things, I have no desire to contest their views.  I'm more interesting in understanding why they think the way they do, then convincing them to think otherwise.  I'll share information I find interesting and share my own point of view, but if they disagree with me, they're welcome to it.  Heck, even when some of them get all pissed off and insulting because I hold a view they disapprove of, that's their prerogative. I find that sort of response very interesting, from a psychological and sociological perspective.  Because I was finding so much so easily, however, posting them all would have seemed like I was on the attack; like I was deliberately trying to persecute individuals and their beliefs, when they had nothing to do with the behaviour I was trying to counter. After all, most of them aren't even seeing the shared stories and comments I have been, since the people sharing them are not mutual friends.

It got to be so very strange.  I was finding story after story from around the world that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for to conduct this experiment, yet I couldn't bring myself to share most of them as part of the experiment.  These leftists on my list might not have any problem sharing stories that are offensive or antagonistic to those who disagreed with them (or just plain BS conspiracy theories), but it turns out I have a problem with doing that sort of thing myself.  I've found myself self-censoring, even though I'm looking to share them in response to people who don't self-censor themselves.

So now I'm at a bit of a loss.  I still have an interest in sharing these stories that I'm finding, as they would counter a lot of misinformation that I'm seeing spread around, yet I don't feel it's appropriate for me to share many of them on my facebook.  Even a lot of the mildest stories would be far too antagonistic for me to share on my own page. 

One thing's for sure; my attempt that this experiment has been an educational experience for me, and not in the way I expected.

Freedom for thee, but not for me?

I figure it's pretty safe to say that everyone's heard about the US pastor that threatened to burn the Quran.  Rather than ignore an obscure pastor of an obscure church that planned (but never carried out) a rather stupid, if perfectly legal, act, it became a media frenzy.  The news of his plans went round the world.  Leaders from all over stepped forward to condemn the proposed act.  Predictably, the "Muslim world" reacted with riots and protest, chants of "Death to America" and apparently the attack on an Anglican church in Baghdad, resulting in the deaths of two men.

Of course, the media frenzy has all been in the same direction.  That it should condemn the pastor's proposal was perfectly reasonable, but the over the top reporting and obsession with him served only to give him for more legitimacy than he deserved.  It also incited even more hatred against the US and Christians around the world, but apparently, that's perfectly okay.

Yes Magazine published a column, How to Confront Extremism on 9/11 that I thought was pretty typical of the media double standards.   Below are the eight suggestions made, with my commentary based on responses I have actually seen, heard and read.

1) Speak out in support for religious freedom
       Except Christianity and Judaism, because they are evil and the source of all evil in the world. 

2) Speak up when you hear Muslims or other groups disparaged...
      But never speak up when Muslims, atheists and liberals disparage Christians or Jews, because you might offend them.  Plus those groups deserve it, and if you defend Christians or Jews, you are defending prejudice, bigotry, homophobia, islamophobia and the subjugation of Palestinians by Israel.

3) Read out loud from the Quran or other Muslim texts on Sept. 11
      But you must not read out loud from the Bible in public, because if you do, you're preaching hate. Don't forget to burn them, just to make sure you aren't offending the locals.

4) Offer generous humanitarian aid to Pakistani flood victims
      Okay, I'm at a loss over this suggestion.  How is this confronting extremism?  What does it have to do with religion at all?  What does it have to do with anything else on this list?

5) Examine your own prejudices - most of us have them.
     Yes, we do.  But prejudice against Americans, Christians (especially Catholics), men, white people, Jews, Israel, Conservatives, Tea Partiers, The West, ugly people, fat people, skinny people, rich people, capitalists, etc ... are all acceptable prejudices.  Because they deserve it and their very existence is offensive.  Especially individuals like Beck, Bush (both of them), Palin and Harper.  Liberals, Leftists, Muslims, people of colour, gays, etc. are all incapable of prejudice, and disagreeing with anything they say is being prejudiced against them. 

6) Familiarize yourself both with the violent interpretations of the religions you encounter and with the interpretations of the same religious texts that emphasize love, compassion, and tolerance for all.
      But make sure you only emphasize the positive aspects of any non-Christian, non-Jewish religion, while emphasizing violent parts of The Bible and the Torah.  Extra points if you can bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition, point out (erroneously, but that doesn't matter) that Hitler was a Catholic and Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.  More bonus points if you bring up residential schools and pedophile priests.  If anyone tries to point out the differences between the actions of a particular non-Christian, non-Jewish religious group's and their claims of peace and tolerance, shout that person down as a right-wing nutbar, Islamophobe, homophobe, racist or bigot.  Because they're evil and they deserve it.

7) Speak out for tolerance on blogs, facebook pages, in public forums, in your faith group and in letters to the editor.
     Unless those people are attacking Christians (especially Catholics), Jews, Israel, Americans, white people, men, fat people, heterosexuals, conservatives.  They're fair game and defending them is only demonstrating your own intolerance, ignorance, and agreement with their hateful stances.  Above all, never, ever suggest that liberals, Muslims, gays, people of colour, etc. might also be prejudiced or intolerant, because their exalted status renders them incapable of it.  If they say it, it's always justified.




8) Monitor news and public-affairs media, and insist that they include voices for peace and tolerance in their programming, and not give undue importance to advocates of exclusion and intolerance. (A starting place is to sign Color of Change’s petition calling on businesses to “Turn Off Fox.”
     Because only Fox News and other conservative is intolerant and calling for violence, never the left wing media.   They must be silenced.  Only the left and certain approved ethnic and religious groups (namely, not white, not Christian, not Jewish, never conservative, nor anyone even remotely right of centre) are allowed freedom of speech.  Anyone else is evil and must not be allowed to speak out, nor should they be allowed to have a medium to speak out. 


Looking back over what I've written it seems extreme, yet this is exactly what I've been encountering.  It always astounds me when I see people who are so otherwise dedicated to freedom of speech turn around and insist those they don't approve of not be allowed to speak.  People who talk about tolerance and acceptance, yet spout intolerance and hatred - sometimes in the same breath! - against anyone who disagrees.  They're all about equality, but only for certain groups.  They're all about love and peace, only to condone violence and hatred against specific groups.  They interpret any disagreement with their views as prejudice and hatred, blissfully unaware of their own bigotry and hateful words.

It boggles my mind to see that those who preach loudest for freedom are the first to deny freedom to any who disagree.


 

edde13c7-a90f-4037-a37e-66eb1aee345f

1.03.01

First, we misrepresent what you say. Then, we tell you why you're wrong.

Not too long ago, some of my Liberal friends shared an article purporting to explain the myths and facts about the long gun registry. They are in support of the long gun registry, so this was right up their alley.

The problem, however, is that it's complete BS.

The biggest  issue is that the "myths" are largely not what gun registry opponents are actually saying.  The other is that the "facts" don't even necessarily negate the "myths."

This starts right with Myth #1.

The claim: gun registry opponents complain about the (insert large amount of choice) cost of the registry per year, but it only cost $4.1 million dollars to operate in 2009, therefore they are wrong.

First off, the "myth" is over simplified.  The objection is to the cost overruns, and to the fact that we're paying for something that doesn't accomplish it's goal of making us all safer and prevent another Montreal Massacre.  Second, the "fact" of the actual cost per year is questionable.

Originally, implementing the registry was supposed to only cast taxpayers $2 million.  After that, it was supposed to pay for itself through registration fees.  More specifically, in 1995, we were told it would cost $119 million to implement, with an expected $117 million collected in fees, thereby leaving $2 million for the taxpayers to cover.  An audit in 2002 showed that it would instead cost $1 BILLION, with an expected income of only $140 million from fees. That actual cost since the registry came into being has apparently exceeded $2 billion.

Which is why the long gun registry is referred to as the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

As for the annual operating costs, I don't know where they get their number of $4.1 million, because the reported cost is at $44.6 million.  (For a breakdown of all the costs, visit here)

Now, I don't know about you, but whether it's $4.1 million or $44.6 million, that's a lot of money coming out of taxpayer pockets every year for something that isn't accomplishing what it was designed to do.

As for registration fees, that takes us to Myth/Fact #2.  The "myth" is that it cost too much to register, while the "fact" says that it's free.

Not quite  It costs $60 (non-restricted) or $80 (restricted), renewable every 5 years. Which is interesting when you consider the registry was supposed to pay for itself through fees.

On to Myth/Fact #3, with the "myth" saying that there's too much red tape to register, while the "fact" states it's actually easy, because you can register by mail or online "in minutes."

How the "fact" negates the "myth" escapes me.  When my BIL, an avid hunter with several different guns, including a musket loader he built himself, tried to register his guns online back when it first became a requirement, it was a complete failure.  He finally tried to mail in his registration, and that didn't work out, either.  I know he was eventually able to register them all, but I don't think he was able to do it by deadline.  It also cost him something like $150 in total.  He's not the only one who's had troubles, and that's just the ones who successfully registered.  I've heard of others who attempted to register, only to be told their registration was never received and being threatened with criminal charges for it (funny... the police still managed to know they had guns).  Still others registered their rifles, only to have them seized shortly after for one reason or another.  They got them back eventually, as they were seized without cause, but not without a whole lot of hoop jumping (you know... like red tape) and being treated like criminals.

Being able to do something by mail or online doesn't make the red tape any less, nor the process any less of a hassle.

"Myth" #4 is the claim that the gun registry is not secure, while their "fact"claims it has never been breached, while making an ad hom attack on an Conservative MP.  Now, I have no idea what sort of numbers they're talking about that the "mythsayers" are claiming about security breaches.  This is what I do know.  John Hicks, a computer consultant and webmaster, claims to have hacked into the system in only 13 minutes; though that claim is denied.  In fact, every single link I've tried to follow to verify that story is now dead.  Others claim to have hacked the system, but those links are coming up dead, too.  Curious, indeed!  There is also reason to believe that the registry was used by criminals to target gun collectors - I recall one news story where a collector came back from vacation and discovered his home had been robbed, with only his gun safe broken into - something that took significant time and effort, considering the type of safe he had - and his guns stolen.  Strangely, I can't find that story again.  You can also get registration information with a FOI request. 

No computer system - especially a government one - is fully secure.  My husband writes software for government use, and has done so for several different departments.  More specifically, he takes software they already have and makes it do the things they want as the department needs change and grow.  One thing they all have in common is that they're a mess. Some have been modified so often for so long, it'd actually be better off to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch - not something that will ever be done.  Anyone that claims they haven't been or can't be breached, is either lying or deluding themselves, plain and simple.

Myth #5.  Criminals use handguns, while only hunters and farmers use long guns.

Nope.  No one against the registry is saying that criminals ONLY use handguns and that ONLY law-abiding citizens use long guns.  This "myth" is a complete misrepresentation. Worse still is the curious twist in the "fact" disputing it.   For this one, let me quote what they actually say:

FACT: Criminals also use shotguns and rifles. Of the 16 police officer shooting deaths in Canada between 1998 and 2009, 14 were killed by a long gun. Long guns are as lethal as handguns and have been used in domestic violence and in suicides. Most firearm-related deaths are caused by rifles or shotguns with suicides the leading cause of death by firearms in Canada.

 Note the shift?

First, there's the blatantly obvious statement that criminals also use long guns.  Duh! No one claimed they didn't.  Hand guns are, however, the weapon of choice for criminals.  They're easier to hide, for starters.  Also, while long gun homicides have been steadily decreasing, hand gun homicides have been increasing.

Then they talk about police officer deaths.  While such deaths are distinguishable precisely because they're police deaths, note that there are only 16 of them in 11 years.  They say nothing about non-police deaths involving guns.  They don't address the actual use of guns by criminals when they're not actively engaging the police.  In other words, they don't actually refute the "myth," even misstated as it is.  Rather, they move on to domestic violence and suicides, implying that the long gun registry would somehow prevent these.

How about some real facts? Hanging is the most common method of suicide in Canada.  Pesticides are also a commonly used for suicide, as is asphyxiation, poisoning, blunt force trauma (ie: jumping off a building), exsanguination, drowning, self-immolation, electrocution and starvation.  Oh, and lets not forget suicide by cop.  Suicide by firearm certainly happens.  I've known a couple of people who used guns to kill themselves.  You know what?  If they hadn't had access to guns, they would have killed themselves anyways.

As for domestic violence, weapons are not typically used.  When weapons are used, they are most likely to be knives (or something else that cuts).  Also explosives, fire and  poison.  According to this, firearms weren't used at all in the reporting period. (weapons use begins on page 13)  Use of firearms in domestic violence remains extremely rare.

Except, of course, the "myth" isn't about suicide or domestic violence.  In fact, those have nothing to do with the "myth" at all.  It's a strawman argument.  It is not the registry's purpose to prevent suicides or domestic violence.

The next three "myths" are variations of the same topic; police.  There's #6, claiming that police don't support the registry, #7 that they don't use the registry, and  #8, that the CPIC database automatically queries the registry.

Myth #6 is another misrepresentation: some police support it, some don't.  While the chiefs recently issued a statement in support of it, a survey found that the majority of police officers are actually against it.  As for the usage, visit here to see not only the number of queries, but how they were made (note the totals of firearms licenses, certificate and serial numbers vs. individual names).  With "fact" number 8, they don't even bother to address the "myth" (that the system automatically queries the registry).  They just throw out numbers about how often the database is searched and claim it's proof that police are using it.

Let's try reality.  The RCMP began tracking these numbers in 2003.  Since then, the computer systems - and the automation - changed, leading to increases of queries.  The result?  As of June, 2010, 96.3% of all queries were automatically generated (a simple license plate query will search the gun registry), while only 3.7% were the result of license, certificates and serial number searches all together.

It should also be noted that these searches aren't just from the police, but also from sales.  Every time someone buys a gun, that sale generates 3 hits; one each for the buyer, the seller and the firearm itself.


Myth #9, at least, seems accurate; it's the claim that the registry doesn't save lives.  Their "fact" first goes off on apples and oranges comparisons to seatbelt laws and helmet laws.  Last I heard, we didn't have to register our seatbelts or our helmets.  Nor do we register our knives, which would be a more accurate comparison, since knives are actually used to kill people more often then guns.  They then talk about how the numbers of firearm murders and suicides (again with the suicides...) have gone down, implying they've gone down because of the registry, though I'll give them a bit of a bonus for giving education and storage regulations some credit.  What they neglected to mention, however, is that gun related homicides are 1) very low in Canada to start with and 2) have been decreasing since the 1970's.  They also neglect to mention that homicides using firearms have decreased in other countries for the last two decades, including countries that don't have firearm registries.  Correlation does not equal causation.

Finally, we have Myth #10 - the claim that the registry does nothing to prevent violence against women.


They don't even try to counter this one with their "fact."  They just say "Women's safety experts and frontline women's shelters across the country agree. The registry helps reduce violence against women. Can they all be wrong?"

It's a completely rhetorical question.  Of course they can all be wrong.  The fact that they're "women's safety experts" (whatever that is) or "frontline women's shelters" (can shelters have an opinion?) suggests me that they have a vested interest in keeping the registry, no matter what.  I would certainly question impartiality; it's become a very emotional issue.

The long gun registry came into being directly as a result of the Montreal Massacre.  Many of the people involved, as well as many registry supporters, view it not so much as a safety issue, but as a women's issue.  There is some strange belief that, had there been a gun registry 20 + years ago, 14 women would not have been killed that day.  How, I have no idea.  If some wacko wants to use a gun to kill people, they're not going to think "oh, gee... I registered this gun.  I'd better not kill anyone."   If someone is crazy enough to plan out something as atrocious as a massacre, no registry is going to stop them.  The fact that there have been murders done using registered weapons shows the registry can't stop anyone from using a registered weapon to kill someone.  At best, it has helped police to identify a dead shooter.  It hasn't made it any harder for criminals to get guns, nor does it stop criminals from using them. 

The purpose of the long gun registry was to ensure something like the Montreal Massacre would never happen again; to somehow make us safer from criminals.  It does nothing of the sort.  A registry can't do anything like that.  All it can do is keep track of legal gun owners and their legally owned guns.

Surely there are more efficient ways to use the millions of dollar spent on the registry every year?


(note:  it is now past 2:30 am as I finish this, and my editor has long since gone to bed.   That and I've got a cat sleeping across my arms, making it rather hard to type. My apologies for any typos, spelling mistakes or confusing turns of phrase.)

edde13c7-a90f-4037-a37e-66eb1aee345f

1.03.01

Buying stuff

You know what?

I hate shopping.

I really, really, hate shopping.

I know that, being female and all, I'm supposed to love shopping.  Apparently, the sight of a sale somewhere and spending money is supposed to give me near orgasmic pleasure.  I'm supposed to have closets full of clothes, a different pair of shoes to match each outfit, and be totally gaga over jewelry.  According to our modern culture a day of going from store to store, blowing wads of cash, is even supposed to be therapeutic.

Nope.  Not me.

First off, I hate spending money wastefully.  There are very few things I'm willing to throw a few extra ducats at for the sake of quality.  Even less because I just really, really like it.  I might splurge on a higher quality ball of yarn perhaps, but I'm perfectly willing to score some cheap yarn at the Salvation Army, Goodwill or the Reuse Centre.

When it comes to shopping, though, the more I actually need to get something, the less likely I am to actually get it.  Especially if it's something for myself.  Still, even the most basic of shopping trips is a whole lot of stress and frustration I'd rather not take part in.

Take grocery shopping.  I don't shop with a list, exactly.  It's more like "I need meat, fruit, veggies... let's see what's on sale and what looks good."  Whatever I end up getting, that's what I make our meals with.

Let's start with meats and the like.  Beef is the one meat all four of us like - except for ground beef, which thoroughly disgusts one of us.  So that limits making things meatloaf, burgers, lasagna, spaghetti and meat sauce, etc.  Three of us like pork, but one finds it disgusting.  Two of us like dark chicken meat, one prefers white, while the other prefers to avoid it at all.  One of us won't eat anything with bones, even if I debone it first, because there always manages to be a piece of something that gets missed.  We have one person that likes seafood, the others don't care for it, unless it's wrapped in bacon, deep fried or lobster in a restaurant.  Three of us likes pork, while one finds it stomach churning.  Two of us likes to try new foods, though one is significantly braver than the other.  One would rather not eat than try something new, while the fourth is really, really uncomfortable trying new foods.

On it goes.

What about fruits and veggies?  We like fruit.  Nectarines, apples, plums, grapefruit, oranges, bananas, pomegranates, pears... yum!  The problems?  Discovering that the lovely fresh fruit we just bought is disgusting.  Whether it's biting into a luscious nectarine only to discover green mold growing in the pit (that was a recent one), peeling an orange only to find it's got weird, hard patches and no taste, biting into what was supposed to be a juicy, tart apple and finding it mealy and gross.  It's got to the point that I'm loathe to buy fresh fruit, no matter how good it looks, because I've too often had to throw them out.  As for veggies?  Touch and go, there.  Sometimes they are fine, but sometimes we'll pick up some fresh looking broccoli, only to have it turn yellow within a day or two.  Or a bag of potatoes goes moldy in no time.  I've lost track of the number of times I've tried to find a good bag of carrots, only to find bag after bag with slime on the bottom.  Forget about lettuces!  They don't last at all, though at least with lettuce, we can plant some on our balcony.

Oh, and just to make food shopping even more fun, I'm the only one in the family that isn't lactose intolerant.  Which sucks in a family that loves cheese.  Well, 3 of us do.  We cut soy quite some time ago, and now we find that one of us can't do wheat.  Only one of us really enjoys rice, while the rest have been riced-out considerably.  One of us likes barley and lentils, while another claims to like them but when they're served, never seems to eat them.  Another doesn't care for them, while the fourth finds them revolting.

On it goes.

As you can imagine, it makes grocery shopping a challenge.

Then there's other shopping.  Like clothes.

Ah, joy.  Not.

I used to have a hard time finding clothes because I had such huge breasts.  Now that I've had them lopped off, I've discovered that apparently, fat women aren't supposed to be small breasted.  We're also not supposed to be apple shaped, only hourglasses.  Oh, and our height is supposed to increase exponentially with our weight.  We're also supposed to be narrow at the shoulders.  Being short, big bellied and with the shoulders of a linebacker, it's quite nearly impossible to find clothes that fit, never mind ones that look good, too.

I'm not the only one with this problem.  While we all have different body shapes, all 4 of us have broad shoulders and wide feet.  No chance of accumulating a collection of shoes in this household; we're lucky if we can get a single pair that fits, and it's not unusual for us to keep wearing our shoes long after they've started falling apart, simply because it's so hard to find replacements that fit.

Which reminds me.  I'm going to have to throw out my hiking boots.  I've been wearing sandals all summer, but when it cooled down enough that I thought to dig them out, I discovered they're split wide open across the top.  The joys of having to buy men's shoes for a woman's foot.  Because they're designed for a foot that bends in a different place, they tend to split rather quickly.

What about non-personal items?  Like household needs?

I'm not much better there!  When we moved out here, some 6 years ago now, I left behind most of my baking supplies.  Most of them needed replacing anyhow, so I figured this would be a good time to do that.

I still haven't done it.

I've got some loaf pans, a couple of cookie sheets and a big roaster.  I've got an oven-safe frying pan with a missing handle I use for a small roaster.  I need some in-between sized pots, but every time I look at them, I walk away because I can't justify spending the money.  The only reason we've now got muffin tins and a glass pie plate is because of a friend's moving sale.  I need a new frying pan.  Actually, I need a couple in different sizes.  I just don't buy them.  There are a few things I was able to get, only because I had accumulated enough loyalty points to get them for free.  There are far more I really need to get, but the money is needed elsewhere.

Even if money weren't something I needed to worry about, I'd still hate shopping.  I dislike the entire experience.  The crowds.  The noise.  Wandering through shops, trying to hunt down staff when I need them, or peeling off the aggressive salespeople when I don't.  Searching for the things I need, and never being able to find them for one silly reason or another.  Of course, there's the shear pain of it, as my feet and knees click, clack and pop in and out of place, which happens much more frequently when the seasons are changing, as they are now. 

All in all, it's just a really horrid experience, and I truly don't get people who find shopping fun.  Me?  I just don't enjoy buying stuff.

Just a quick note...

Folks, I welcome intelligent discourse in the comments.  I'm even okay with the sharing of links promoting personal blogs in the comments.  But if you're going to share a link in the comments, at least let it be to something that actually has something to do with the post you're responding to.  Which would probably be easier if you actually *read* the post you're responding to.  Otherwise, it's just spam.  Spam gets deleted. 

At this point, I do not have moderated comments.  I haven't seen the need for it, and I'd really prefer not doing it.  So please; if you've got nothing to say on the post and just want to promote your own blog that has nothing in common with mine, don't.  Just don't.  Okay? 

Thanks.

Just another number

Dh and I had a conversation tonight that has left my brain rumbling around in different directions.  Which leaves me up and writing past 2 am.  Well, that and my chronic cough is keeping me up... :-P  So if I tend to ramble off in this post, chalk it up to sleep deprivation.


The subject of our conversation was intelligence and what it means.  I've thought of myself as a reasonably intelligent person, but no more than anyone else.  I did do an IQ test about a dozen years ago.  I don't even remember who did the test.  I just did it, got the result, and went on my merry way. 


The reason it came back to mind was a recent status update from someone on my facebook friends list.  It was a comment on Jim Morrison, and how he was so much more than people assumed.  Having read a biography on him back in high school, I knew he was quite intelligent and had a photographic memory.  I didn't remember reading any IQ, but it's just not a detail that would have stuck in my mind.  What caught my attention was someone's response, saying he was really smart and had an IQ of 140.


I remember looking at that and thinking, "is that high?"  I had no idea, but I wouldn't have thought so, since my own result was 143.  As I've never thought of myself as being smarter than anyone else (and definitely less so than some), I figured it was average.  So I went and looked it up.

It turns out that, depending on which test is done (and that far back, I don't even know if there was more than one available), I am either a genius/near genius, very superior or highly intelligent.



see more Lolcats and funny pictures


Well, lah dee frickin' dah.  Who'd have thought that?


Apparently, my husband did.  When I mentioned this to him, he told me he always knew I was smarter than him.  Really?  I had no idea.  He then pointed out something that I did at least already know; I come from a very intelligent family.  My parents may have almost no schooling at all and my mother might have a mental illness, but they are both very smart in their own ways.  I recall one of my brothers telling me about when he was building some stairs and was using trig. to calculate how many stairs to fit in and what their measurements should be to do the job right.  My dad?  He just built the stairs.  How did he get the calculations right?  I have no idea.  I remember helping him build a desk for me and watching him write out some quick calculations on a piece of paper.  Whatever method he used to do math, it wasn't anything like what I'd been taught in school.  It was also faster, and he did most of it in his head.


I can't do that.


Oh, and the brother that shared this with me?  Something else I'd forgotten about.  He's a card carrying Mensa member.  Or at least he used to be.  I don't know that he's kept up his membership, as he got it more than 20 years ago.  Thinking about my siblings, they're all quite intelligent in their own ways.  My sister, the farmer, designs houses and other buildings freelance for extra cash. One brother has forgotten more about computers than most people will ever know.  Another brother is in demolition's and understands forces and mechanics and all sorts of things you'd expect from a trained engineer.  If they don't have a piece of equipment for a job, chances are pretty good he can invent it.  Even the brother that, had he been the school system today would be considered learning disabled is an aircraft mechanic with a gift for understanding everything about airplanes, whether it's a little Cessna or a Boeing 747.  He can barely read a menu, but can understand some of the most technical textbooks I've ever tried to wrap my mind around.  All my siblings, as well as my parents, are artistically gifted, even though only my sister has developed it to any extend.


But are they all "near genius" or "very superior" intelligence?


I hadn't thought so.  Most of our neighbours were much the same.  I don't think I came from a town of unusually smart people.


To me, an IQ score is just another number.  Like the BMI.  Useful for the purpose of organization, but you can't judge a person's knowledge by their IQ any more than you can judge a person's health by their BMI.  The numbers are really meaningless - but many people put great store on them.


Personally, I think intelligence is something that's malleable.  Sure, we all have aptitudes and skills that are either there, or not.  My husband, for example, could do the calculations for navigating a ship in his head faster than his fellow officers could on calculators.  He can look at a bunch of computer code he's never seen before and understand what it does.  I can't do either, but I can look at a 2 dimensional object and mentally convert it into a 3 dimensional object.  I can flip it around in my head, or even turn it inside out.  My skills are in spatial reasoning and pattern recognition.  My husband can't do these things.  That doesn't make either of us smarter than the other.

As far as I'm concerned having a high IQ tells only part of the story.  It says, first and foremost, that a person can take a test and do really well on it.  Some very intelligent people lock up when faced with a test, no matter how thorough their knowledge may be.  Plus, just because a person is smart in one thing, that doesn't mean they're smart in all things.  There are some really stupid smart people out there.  Heck, Albert Einstein may have been a genius, but he held some rather unfortunate notions, too, and he sure wouldn't have been someone to turn to for relationship advice! That magic number doesn't confer infallibility.


I also feel that, given the opportunity and desire, anyone can be as intelligent as they choose (barring any physical problems that might prevent this, of course).  Use it or loose it, is how I see it.  As long as we are constantly learning new things, asking questions, exploring concepts, and thinking critically, we can develop our intelligence.  When we stop questioning, stop learning, and just accept what those around us tell us, I feel our intelligence suffers.


Which is why I kind of wish I never looked up what that 143 of mine actually means.


You see, as I get older, I find myself a lot less patient with what I see as willful ignorance.  It seems that, everywhere I turn, people unquestioningly accept whatever steaming pile of bovine feces fits their preferred viewpoint without digging any deeper.  I've found myself wondering how so many people can be so, I'm ashamed to admit this, stupid.  I don't really think they *are* stupid, which is why these behaviours confuse me so much.  It irritates me when I see people I know are smart, accept such dumb things.  With this number of mine defined, I might have to resist the temptation to think that maybe, just maybe, they really aren't that smart.  I know better than that, and I don't ever want to start judging or looking down on people on such a perception.

It's also why I find it so condescending when someone insists on dumbing down information for the masses, because they just don't think we, the great unwashed, could possibly understand such complex issues.  Screw that!  People are smart.  They can figure things out.  They can ask questions.  They can learn.  Having some grand high mucky muck from on high telling people what they think we should be thinking bothers the heck out of me.  They assume people are too stupid to understand.  Sadly, too many people have been convinced that they're really not as smart as the grand high mucky mucks, so they have no right to question those who decree from on high. Instead, they not only accept these decrees, they embrace them, and defend them against any who might question them.


My habit of delving to the core of various claims and being able to counter a lot of these cherished beliefs can make some people rather angry.  My concern is that, now that I know where that meaningless number puts me on the scale, the next time someone condescendingly asks me, "who do you think you are, that you question these really, really smart people," I might start thinking, "I'm the one with the IQ of 143, what's yours?"  Because I don't ever want to use a number instead of an explanation.  It's a lazy cop out.

Who do I think I am to question the grand high mucky mucks?  I'm the one who believes that we all are just as worthwhile as the grand high mucky mucks.  I'm the one who believes we're all just as smart as they are, just as capable as they are, and just as deserving of being treated with equal respect.  Their titles, their letters after their names, their status; these things do not make them better or smarter than me.  Or you.  They just give an idea of what sort of training they might have, what schooling they've had, or maybe it shows that they've kissed a lot of butt to get where they are.


Their number on the scale is every bit as meaningless as mine.

The joys of socialism

Every now and then, in looking at the different models of community living out there, the idealist in me longingly looks at socialism and thinks, gee, wouldn't that be nice?  Everyone helping each other out, working together in co-operation for the common good, and all those wonderful utopian ideals.

Then reality comes along and smacks the stupid out of me.

I need that every now and then.

Tonight was one of those head smacking nights.

As I've mentioned before, we now live in a housing co-op. This is a model that's somewhere in between the capitalist model of home ownership, leasing or renting, and the more communal co-housing model.  In a co-op, every unit owns exactly the same number of shares, whether it's a 1 bedroom unit with a single dweller, or a 5 bedroom unit with 7 people living in it.  One unit also represents one vote, so not only do we all own exactly the same percentage of the complex, but have the same level of power as anyone else.

One of the requirements is that everyone is expected to put in their share to the smooth running of things, to the best of our abilities.  Obviously, someone in a wheelchair isn't going to be able to do garbage room duty as well as an able bodied person, but there's nothing preventing them from participating in or heading the various committees.

Ah, the committees.  What joy! 

Yeah, that's meant to be sarcasm.

Some of the committees are necessary.  Maintenance.  Finance.  Membership.  Others are more for fun.  Social.  Gardening.  Newsletter.  Most of these get together at least once a month.  Then there are the board meetings every couple of weeks, quarterly membership meetings that we're all supposed to try to get to, and the annual membership meeting, where we get to vote in our various board members.

Now, in a perfect world, each of these committees would get together for their meetings, look at what needs to be done, make decisions on what they have enough information on, or find out what is needed and spend the time until the next meeting gathering that info so that decisions can be made.  Everyone gives constructive input, co-operatively debate what needs debating, call a vote if needed, and once the decisions are made, the job gets done.

The problem, of course, is people.

Which illustrates for me why the socialist model, as wonderful as it might sound, simply cannot work on a large scale, such as in running a country.  Because even on a scale as small as our own, it barely works.

In order for a democratic socialist model to work, everyone involved has to be motivated for the greater good.  What always seems to happen is that there people, usually the same one or two, that just can't seem to do it.  Even the simplest of things get stymied, blocked, argued over and lambasted.

I was just at a general meeting.  Not an annual one, so not as many people were there.  Still, these are the meetings where decisions involving the entire co-op are made, so long as the minimum number of people show up for any voting that needs to be done.  The meeting moved along swimmingly until we got to the one piece of new business we had, which happened to involve a chunk of money.  There is some needed renovation of a public, communal area in our complex, and it was suggested that some of the money gets invested there.

Cue the bickering.

Note, we weren't even trying to decide on what needed to be done, just that we agreed this area needed work beyond regular maintenance, and that we'd look into the details for future decision making.


On one side, there are the people who don't want any "spare" money going towards anything at all.  They'd rather the money was rerouted to [insert preferred budgetary area here].  Then there are the ones who refuse to accept a specific process.  Others refuse to accept details; in the case of a renovation, that might be the type of flooring, or paint colours.  None of which was even part of this meeting.

Even after the president specifically stated that he didn't want things to get bogged down like another suggestion that had been made a while back - so bogged down, in fact, that even after everyone agreed it needed to be done, it hasn't been done and may well not be done at all anymore - someone went and suggested that...

Can you guess?

That's right... another committee get formed.  A temporary one, formed just to deal with this one renovation. 


Which would pretty much guarantee that this needed renovation of a communal space wouldn't happen for probably a year, if at all. 


While a community situation like ours pretty much requires the use of committees, it is probably the most inefficient way to get things done that exists.  Things that could be taken care of in a matter of days are instead taking months just for the decision making process.  Not that everyone is happy when things do get accomplished, but that's just human nature.  Were this a commercial property, owned by an individual or corporation, things can still get bogged down, but in the end, the owner(s) say, "this is what will be done," hire the appropriate people to do it, and it's done.  The more people involved in the decision making process, the longer it takes, which is why decision by committee is so bloody frustrating.  When the committee has to answer to an even larger number of equally invested interests, the result often feels like running into a brick wall at every turn.  After hitting that wall head first time and again, it gets pretty hard to see straight.  The same points get rehashed over and over, because there are always some people who are completely unwilling to accept that their opinion on the subject isn't the one everyone else agrees on.  If they don't get their way one way, they try another, and if that doesn't work, they'll insist on various actions that drag things on and on and on.

It gets worse.

With some people, they're among those bitter, toxic people that hate everyone and everything.  They just love poisoning the well, and nothing is ever right for them. With others, it might be the manifestation of psychological problems.  How do you respond to someone who keeps repeating issues that have already been resolved because they literally can't remember what happened 5 minutes ago?  Still others do it as a way to grasp power and gain relevance in their lives.  Perhaps they're frustrated at work or in their home lives, so they latch onto the one thing in their world where they can actually exercise some control, so they do it, even if it causes distress to others.  Well, to be honest, the more distress it causes to others, the better this particular group seems to like it.


In a nutshell, no matter how much socialist style co-operation would benefit a community, human nature will never allow it.  The only way it could work smoothly is if all the members of a community reject or hold back their own self-interests in the interests of the group, and no one has any ambition beyond what the group desires.  There certainly isn't any room for individualism, unless the individual's desires happen to be the same as the group's.  Independent thinking, whether it's of the negative sort I've mentioned above, or more positive sorts that suggest improvements and changes, is not encouraged.  Rocking the boat, even it it's to try to knock people into a bigger and better boat, is not tolerated. 


In the end, what develops is apathy and complacency.  Why bother showing up at all these meetings, when every good idea will just get shot down by the toxic avengers?  Why take part in committee meetings, when the same people bring up the same issues, over and over and over and over and...


... yeah, we've been getting that one a lot.


There's little incentive to improve, and even less to innovate.


Now, as much as I find all this frustrating, we chose to live here.  We came in here with our eyes open, knowing what our responsibilities and expectations were.  So we put up with it, and we try to work with it as much as we can.  If others don't pull their weight, we're not going to slack off, because what we do that benefits our community benefits us.  This was a decision we made, and we will make it work to the best of our abilities.



On a grander scale, however, such as governing a country, that choice is gone.  On a large scale, even if things are supposedly democratic, freedoms are not just lost, but taken, to benefit a larger community we did not necessarily elect to be part of.  Such a system, instead of breeding co-operation, breeds resentment; apathy instead of activity; complacency instead of ambition.  It becomes bloated and inefficient. 

History has shown, time and again, that socialism as a system, no matter how well meaning and well intentioned the original co-ordinators were, devolve to become the most wasteful, the most environmentally harmful, and the least free of all societies.  For all the problems capitalist based societies have, they still manage to be better, for the individual, the community and the environment.

A touchy subject

For the last while, Eldest has been checking out a lot of old and esoteric movies from the library. (you can check out her new movie blog here) Tonight, we re-watched Metropolis, and it reminded me of a conversation we'd had about how different the old movies are from today.  In the old silent movies, the acting is physically over the top. Motions are exaggerated, facial expressions extreme. Without speech to convey the message, people did a lot of heart clutching, eyebrow waving and dramatic swooning.

In one old Garbo movie, the two male leads played characters who where the best of friends. They often held each other in their arms, faces inches apart, while talking. They even kissed each other in greeting. While watching Metropolis, we saw various male characters hold and hug each other in various ways, even though the characters weren't close friends. There was a great deal of physical contact. In modern movies, physical contact between men is either the macho, manly sort, where they punch each other's shoulders, or roughly clasp each other, or they're gay characters who's physical contact is meant to imply romance or sexual intimacy. It's similar with female characters, though modern movies do allow women to have more physical contact with each other in a non-sexual manner then men.

Old novels describe characters behaving in similar ways, and these reflected the culture of the time. I remember women of my parents' generation, for example, would frequently walk hand in hand or arm in arm if they were good friends. At social gatherings, I often saw little old ladies dancing waltzes and polkas with each other more often then with men.

Everyone, male and female, greeted each other with kisses. On the cheeks, on the lips, it didn't matter. It wasn't unusual for people staying overnight in each other's homes, at a time when spare bedrooms were rare (if people had houses big enough for there to be bedrooms at all), for women to sleep with other women, and men with men, and no one thought anything of it. It really wasn't that long ago when entire families would sleep together, sometimes in a big dog pile, and any guests would join them. Co-sleeping among family groups was the norm, even for those wealthy enough to have space and beds. I remember reading that the largest bed recorded belonged to a British (?) king, and it slept 120 people. These days, in Canada and the US, everyone is expected to have their own bedroom, and even infants are expected to sleep alone in a separate room - a truly modern turn of events, and far from the norm around the world.

Other cultures are far more comfortable with physical contact. I recall my FIL telling me about some of the customs they had to get used to while living in Bamako, Mali. There, men walked down the street hand in hand, without anyone assuming they were gay. My FIL demonstrated to me the typical behaviour when meeting someone at the beginning of the day.My FIL reached out to hold my hand with one hand, while stroking the back of it with the other.While looking me full in the face, he started asking me things like, how are you feeling today? How is your wife? Your daughter? This would be coming from the people he was working with! Job talk would not start until after this greeting ritual. Saying hello could take 5 or 10 minutes. It took a long time for him to get used to this level of physical touching.

How different our current culture has become!  Somehow, we seem to have come to a point where all physical intimacy is viewed as sexual. If we see two people holding hands, we assume they are in a romantic, if not sexual, relationship; especially if they are of the same gender. More so men than women, for whom girlfriend hugs are still okay. Physical touch has become so sexualized, that many women won't do breast self exams, never mind use tampons that don't come with applicators. Even parents are suspect when touching their own children. Particularly fathers and daughters. I recall reading one psychological text that described a father bouncing his toddler daughter on his lap, interpreting not only the father's actions, but the daughter's responses, in a purely sexual manner. It was downright creepy!

How did we come to this point, that we have so physically isolated ourselves from each other? How did we come to interpret even the most innocent of physical contact as sexual? (I could probably blame Freud, now that I think about it.)

More than that, we seem to have even begun to see all non-familial relationships as potentially sexual. In looking at older generations or reading books from earlier time periods, we see that people developed close, intimate relationships with each other, without them becoming sexual, and no assumption that they ever would. Men and women alike expressed their love for each other, in words, in letters, in gestures, without it ever becoming sexual. Many people, looking at these real or fictional relationships through the lens of our modern culture, insist that this meant they were actually gay - the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Watson being one example.

It seems to me that our sexualization of intimate relationships may even be effecting our ideas of our own sexuality. I think it's perfectly natural to want to touch and hold someone you care deeply for, regardless of gender or sexual preference.  Since we live in a culture that seems to interpret any sort of physical or emotional desires for intimacy as sexual, I suspect that some people who've found themselves caring very deeply about someone of the same gender are concluding that they must be homosexual. Why else would they want to be so intimate with them? It seems we can't even admire the beauty of someone of our own gender without the suggestion that we must be gay because of it. I can look at another woman, admire and enjoy her physical beauty, without it meaning I'm a lesbian and want to have sex with her, yet our culture increasingly sends the message that I couldn't possibly enjoy looking at another woman without being gay. Heaven help a man who appreciates the beauty of another man! (Note: when it comes to homosexuality, I know that for some people, there's no doubt that they are born that way. They're not who I'm talking about.)

The idea that we can form a close bond with another person, share our heart and soul with them, hold them or even *gasp* kiss them! without also wanting to have sex with them just doesn't compute. Our highly sexualized culture tells us that men and woman can't have intimate (or sometimes, even casual) relationships with each other and not want to have sex with each other. In fact, it seems as if our culture sees people as being completely enslaved by our sexual desires, and that we must indulge them. Not only that, but if we find we *don't* have these desires, something must be wrong with us. The idea that we can have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex without wanting to hop into bed with them means one of two things. Either we're gay, or there's something wrong with us and we should go to a doctor for a pill to fix our lack of desire. The idea that we might actually enjoy an intimate, non-sexual, relationship with others seems an aberration. Yet, like co-sleeping and higher levels of physical contact, this interpretation is very new, and not at all the norm for humanity.

Giving it a go...

Gosh, I can't believe it's been such a long time since I've written.  It's not like there hasn't been an overabundance of potential subject matter, such as how the AGW fiasco has been crumbling before our eyes, or the latest report telling us we're all gonna DIEDIEDIE, based on double-blind, clinical trials a self reporting survery.

Real Life, however, has a way of stepping in.  Rather distracting that way. ;-)  The biggest issue has been my husband's health taking another turn for the worse.  *sigh*  Poor guy can't win for losing.  His latest combination of drugs has been doing its job and his blood sugars are back in normal ranges.  The side effects have calmed down. Unfortunately, it looks like stress has triggered another flare up of whatever's wrong with his digestive system.  The dr. even signed him off for a couple of days of medical leave (and he ended up taking another day more) in hopes that the rest would help.  Can't say that it did.  We discovered when he tried telecommuting that my husband doesn't have the temperment to be home a lot.  Of course, with having only one chair that gives his back proper lumbar support, that being the computer chair, means Dh has been at the computer playing WoW for hours at a time (well... in between bathroom sessions).  Meanwhile, the dr's written him up for another barium test to try and see what kind of damage there is.  Dh has had this test before, or a similar version, before we changed provinces.  He's not really looking forward to it.  At least this time, he's not expected to go on a liquid diet for a week before the test, with the last couple of days spent drinking that horrible prune juice on steroids he was given.  He's just got a 2 day liquid fast to deal with, instead.  :-P

We've managed to get out and about, though.  Dh even went with me to a big potluck dinner organized by a member of one of our home school groups.  It was followed by games and dancing, but he wasn't up to staying that long.  I hated to cut and run right after eating like that (and boy, was it good!), but we were already pushing his tolerance levels.  There were a few friends I never got the chance to talk to beyond a quick hello.  It would have been good to chat.  Ah, well.  We do what we can.

I also headed out with Youngest for a regular get together with another group of friends.  We got our baby fix in and everything. :-D  I'm still getting to know a lot of the people in this group.  They're a nice bunch of ladies, but I'm a bit taken aback by how much diet talk there is.  It seems like they're all dieting, or about to diet, or should be dieting...  I never know quite how to respond.  Talking to one of them, who's had a baby just 6 months or so ago, she threw out a comment along the lines of "you know how, when you're overweight, you HAVE to diet."  I was rather stunned speechless by that.  Especially when she went on to talk about how hard it was with the rest of the family not needing to diet, then recounted how her daughter, who's about 7, I think, was all upset about eating a piece of cake instead of something "healthy," and all the calories eating an apple would be.  The best I can do, I guess, is just not contribute to the conversation.  I'd be quite the wet blanket if I started going on about how I consider weight loss dieting to be a form or disordered eating that encourages body dismorphia.  I take some solace in the comment Youngest made in the van later on.  She swore to me that she'd NEVER go on a diet.  She is, however, interested in improving her fitness.  She accompanied me on my mall walk (Eldest usually joins me) that night, and we talked about hiking and doing weights and stuff.

One thing I've noticed when talking with other parents with kids of all ages.  We've got a couple of great kids!  Neither of them are suicidal, experimenting with drugs, viciously rebellious, or running away from home.  They don't hate themselves or their bodies, each other or Dh and I.  I'm rather surprised by how much of this I've been seeing.  Apparently we've been doing something right.  What that is, I have no idea.  Could be something we're NOT doing that's right, for all I know.  I can throw out a few possibilities, but for every one of them, I can look at a family that does the same thing, but has issues we don't have, or do things completely differently, and their kids are just as fine as my own.

Whatever it is, I'm thankful for it!

What do you do when the shoe doesn't fit?

 (this is a cross post from my home schooling blog, as I felt it fit here as much as it does there)

This blog post was brought to my attention this morning, and I really enjoyed it.  Here's an excerpt.

 Now, on the whole, I've found unschoolers to be one of the most tolerant, kind, accepting groups of people there are. In my experience it's pretty rare to see an unschooler behave in a way that is blatantly racist or homophobic, and furthermore, unschoolers in general tend to be accepting of a wide variety of personalities and interests.

However.

I've also seen an awful lot of negative attitudes towards religious people, particularly Christians.

I have seen and experienced this myself a number of times, and I just admit, it has left me very jaded about my fellow unschoolers.  In fact, I've found myself frequently questioning the tolerance of the self-professed tolerant, and along with anti-Christian sentiment, I would also include political, geographical and other ideological intolerance as well.



While the writer talks about how few unschoolers there are compared to more regulated styles of home based education, I would say that has a lot more to do with where one lives, and what support groups are available.  In all our moves, I've found the majority of my fellow home schoolers are more on the unschooling side of things than the stereotypical school-at-home style.  If fact, I don't recall ever meeting any hs'ing family in the school-at-home extreme, but I've met quite a few that could be considered "radical" unschoolers.  (Personally, I don't think either extreme is a good idea.)  Most of the families I've encountered over the years tend to fall more towards the unschooling side of things - they have routines and maybe even purchased curriculum, or make their kids do sit-down bookwork at certain times, but are still very relaxed about things. 

There's a general assumption made about the different styles of home schoolers.  School at home types are viewed as Conservative, Right Wing, and Christian (and, by extension, racist bigots) - the more regulated the schooling style, the more to the right their political views, and the more extreme their religion is assumed to be.  There is also a tendancy to view this category of home schoolers as anti-science, as well - young earth creationists and the like.  There is probably some truth to the stereotype (after all, there's a reason stereotypes come about), but I just haven't encountered it personally.  I've only read about them.

Unschooling types, on the other hand, are assumed to be left leaning, more socialist, and have little or no religion at all (agnostic or athiest), to be Unitarian if they're Christian, or Pagan, Buddhist (or at least their version of Buddhism), Secular Humanists, etc. In my experience, the left leaning tendancy of unschoolers leads to a higher number of AGW believers, and greater levels of environmental extremism.

Over the years, I've seen a very strong divide between the home schooling ideologies, and unfortunately, the most bigoted, least tolerant views I've encountered have been from my fellow unschoolers.  I used to be part of a large, active Canadian home school email list.  I finally left it when a troll was allowed to spew his vile unchecked, while those who tried to counter his bile were clamped down on by the moderator.  This, on top of the anti-Christian sentiment and other bigotry I saw allowed on the list was the final straw, and I left a community I'd been part of for almost a decade.  Sadly, I am seeing similiar intolerance within our local community as well - especially when it comes to topics such as AGW and environmentalism.


We are an unschooling family.  Not out of ideology, but because that's what worked with our older daughter, and we just kept it up with our younger.  Quite simply, our attempts to school-at-home, even slightly, were failures and set the girls, especially Eldest, back considerably.  My definition of unschooling, however, is very broad, and I think a lot of unschoolers would disagree with me.  I do not, for example, have any problem with sit down bookwork, or using a curriculum, text books, etc.  To me, these are just tools and methods to be used or discarded, based on need.  Some families simply do better with a more regimented schedule, and some kids need a more orderly learning style.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as the methods are used because they best suit the child, not because of external beliefs on how education "should" happen, it's still unschooling.  I know teens who have chosen to go back to high school.  As far as I'm concerned, they're still unschooling, because it was their choice to use the school system as an educational resource.  If a family is unschooling because the parents decided that this was the "right" way to educate children, but ignore that their individual child actually thrives better on something more regulated, I cannot think of that as actually unschooling.  It's still a method that's forced onto the child, regardless of that child's needs or desires.  The key, to me, is that the methods used are suited to the individual child, even if the parents don't necessarily think it's a good idea.



We are a Christian family.  I am an ex-Catholic, but not anti-Catholic.  Over the decades, as I've looked at different religions, belief systems, and the different types of Christianity, I find I still have greater respect for Catholicism than any of the others.  I would, in fact, still consider myself catholic, as the word means "universal church," and therefore really encompasses most, if not all, the Christian faiths.  I respect people who follow different faiths, even if I don't agree with them.  What I've found, however, is that there is a very strong anti-Christian sentiment among unschoolers, and that tolerance for Christian faiths (except, possibly, Unitarianism, which I'm not sure is even a Christian faith at all) is very low.  Secular Humanism and environmentalism are frequently the religions of choice (and yes, I consider both to be religions, every bit as dogmatic as the "fundamentalists" they often profess to abhor), but any religion that can be viewed as opposite to Christianity is acceptable.  Heaven forbid this bias or religious double standard is pointed out, though.  On the email list I mentioned before, people were supposed to be welcome to discuss their own beliefs, but in reality, people who expressed their Christian sentiments would be accused of proselytising.  Christian bashing was allowed, but if anyone pointed out that that's what was being done, there would be a great outcry of how it wasn't really bashing, and besides, the bashers were right.  Point out the double standed, and there would be another outcry, denying that there was one at all.  It got very tiring.


I used to consider myself an environmentalist.  Growing up on a subsistance farm, it was kind of hard not to be aware of the environment.  Of course, going through the public school system, I got some of the indoctrination that was increasingly becoming part of the curriculum at the time.  I am a strong believer in responsible environmental stewardship.  I cannot, however, call myself an environmentalist anymore.  What passes for environmentalism today has become a religion.  It's assumed that if you're "green" you are against capitalism, and that you agree with a long list ideas, whether it's views on global warming, the use of DDT, or that humans are a blight on the planet.  Responsible environmental stewardship has been co-opted by a political ideology that I find very disturbing.  Here, the political left/right divide is very strong.  Among environmentalists, I see the word "conserivative" used as an accusatory insult a lot, and it's assumed that if one is "green" they are also "liberal."



I am not a Darwinist.  Now, to many, this automatically makes me a Right Wing extremist, a religious quake, a young earth creationist/ID nutbar who denies science and evolotuion.  They would, of course, be wrong but, like environmentalism, Darwinism has become dogmatic.  Part of the problem is that most people things evolution = Darwinism, and it doesn't.  Even what people think of Darwinian evolution doesn't have much to do with what Darwin actually said or, according to his writings, believed.  It turns out there are all sorts of alternative theories of evolution out there, and Darwin's is not even close to answering the problems of evolution.  Unschoolers, in my experience, have been the most viscious in attacking anyone who dares question Darwinism, and no matter how much one tries to point out that there are alternative theories that are very bit as legitimate, they insist on calling those who disagree with them as religious, anti-science, anti-evolution, Right Wing nutbars.  It's not quite as bad as, say, disagreeing with AGW, but it gets pretty close at times.


Politically, I tend towards libertarianism, but I'm not a Libertarian (when I looked into the local political party, I found them to be a bunch of anarchists).  While a lot of my views can be considered conservative, others are considered liberal or socialist.  I find the definition of Classial Liberal fits my views very well, but it doesn't seem to exist any more.  This leads to all sorts of confusion in conversations.  When I mention I am an unschooler, I've had other unschoolers assume I am also Liberal, or Green.  When I mention my views on AGW, people assume I'm Conservative.  What I mention my thoughts on Darwinism vs evolution, I've found myself dismissed as a religious nut.


So where do I fit?  I've never been one to put labels on people, but there is a purpose to categorization.  I don't seem to be a square peg trying to fit into a round hole.  I seem to be more like a dodecahedron trying to fit into a pentagon.  Only one side fits at a time, but that leaves 11 other sides that don't fit anywhere.

I don't get it.

Forgive me for a bit of a rant, here, but I just don't get it.

What is it with women's painted eyebrows these days?

Women have been painting their eyebrows for a long time.  My mother used to do it.  That's because she really didn't have eyebrows.  She was a dark haired woman with sparse, light haired eyebrows.  Hollywood starlets used to paint fine arcs, and that's kindasorta come back.  What on earth for?

I can't figure out the weird painted eyebrows I'm seeing more and more of these days.  These are the chunky, blocky, stencilled things.  I didn't realize stencils were used, or even existed, until I picked up a recent Avon catalog and saw some.  The write up described removing any hairs outside the stencil shape, appling the stencil, then filling in the shape completely with makeup.  Today I followed a link to an online fashiom magazine - I normally avoid fashion magazines - and there was this model with stencilled in eyebrows.

They looked like painted on mustaches.

Groucho Marx mustaches.

Over her eyes.

It didn't help that the thickest part was drawn well towards the bridge of her nose, looking like she's had a uni-brow, but someone erased a space in the middle.

How is this attractive?

Then there are the shavers.

Why would anyone shave off perfectly good eyebrows so that they could pencil in fake ones?  In odd shapes, no less.  I once saw a woman on the bus with eyebrows painted on where no eyebrows would possibly grow.  Her natural browline, devoide of hair, was completely ignored in favour of this weird, clown-like arc that went half way up her forehead at its highest point.

I realize I'm blessed with well shaped eyebrows.  How I managed that, with my mother's non-existant ones and my father's bushy visors, I have no idea, but all my siblings and I have pretty normal eyebrows.  No stray hairs growing in weird places.  No unibrows.  Still, according to fashion, I should be plucking, threading or waxing them anyway.  Then painting them.  Screw that! 

I'll save my eyebrow painting for Halloween.