They have GOT to be kidding!

So there's another petition link being passed around by the leftists/liberals I know (why is it only the left leaning folks I know that pass petitions around?  My right leaning friends almost never do, and when they do, it's in support of something (or some one), not against).  This time it's a petition to stop "Fox News North."

It's driving me nuts.  Do the folks on the left just not research anything?  Do they just automatically assume anything against the right, the CPC or PM Harper is true, so long as it paints them as evil?

I won't put the link here.  If you want to sign it, go to the Care2 site and find it yourself.  If you just want to read it, I'll save you the trouble.

This is what's on the petition, with my comments added.

First, let's just start with the name of the petition:  Keep Hate Media Out of Canada.

Okay.  Fair enough.  But what is this "hate media" they're taking about?  Here's the overview.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is trying to create a "Fox News North" -- 

Uhm.  No.  PH Harper is doing no such thing.  Despite rumours and innuendo, the PM has nothing to do with this channel.  Quebecor, a private corporation which owns Sun Media, is creating an all-news, conservative/right leaning channel called Sun TV.  They're going to combine various forms of media, including TV, print and the internet, which is something other media companies are working towards as well.  It's going to be a right-leaning station, trying to balance out all the left leaning channels we already have.  Currently, there is NO right, or even centrist, Canadian channel.  How does that make it a "Fox News North?"

similar to the kind of hate-filled propaganda Fox News displays.

Fox News is hate-filled propaganda?  Look, I don't watch tv news for a reason, but I especially can't stomach the US news channels.  CNN is every bit as obnoxious as Fox.  Any accusation made against Fox for that sort of thing can equally be made against CNN.  Or CBC, Global and CTV for that matter.  Here's some news to the folks on the left: just because something supports a position you agree with or comes from the left, that doesn't make the vitriol any less hateful then when it comes from a right/conservative viewpoint.  Personally, I'd like to see news channels just report the news, not have their anchors and reporters making rude or snide comments, or twisting stories into some made up controversy full of allegations and suspicion, but no facts or evidence - like the CBC did when trying to make a connection between anti-long gun registry people and the NRA.  One of the most pathetic attempts to manufacture a controversy I've seen in a long time.  It totally disgusted me.  Ah, well.  That's what I get for watching the news in hopes of catching a local story. 

The channel will be run by Harper's former top aide

 So?  Seriously.  Are you trying to say that, just because this guy used to work with Harper, he can't get a job in the media?  Would this also apply to any Liberal former aides?  Are they, too, banned from media jobs?


Oh, and it isn't going to be run by him.  When people made a big stink about his connection to Harper, he chose to step down rather than allow the haters (and yes, they are haters - the things being said about him have been pure poison) drag down the proposed channel because of him.  He didn't have to do that, but he believed enough in what he was doing that he gave it up.  I believe it's called integrity.  Look it up.

and will be funded with money from Canadian citizens' cable TV fees!

 No.  It won't.  The station is being funded by Quebecor.  They were applying for a specific license.  Actually, one type first, then the other.  One type of license would have Sun TV as part of the basic cable package cable companies offer.  CBC is on there, as is Global and CTV and a whole bunch of other channels we never watch but pay for anyway.  The other type, if they couldn't get the first one, would have required cable companies to have Sun TV available to customers.  The customers could still choose not to buy it, but the companies would have to offer it.   

Now, from a purely business perspective, it makes sense for a start up channel to apply for the first type of license.  It also makes perfect sense to try for the other, if they got turned down for the first.  What company wouldn't?  It would be stupid not to.  The whole point of having a tv channel is to have it available to as many people as possible.  How else are they going to be successful?

Quebecor, however, has pulled its application completely.  They're going to have to convince individual carrier companies to take them on.  This actually gives them a lot more freedom, even if it might make it harder to get carrier companies to offer them in their line up. 

Of course, pretty much all the stations are funded by our cable fees (plus advertisers, shareholders, etc).  That's part of what the fees are for, after all.   What cable tv channel isn't funded by cable fees?  The thing is, until Sun TV is actually out there and people start buying the channel, it's going to be funded by Quebecor, shareholders and advertisers, not cable fees.

One major opponent of this new media outlet is the Chairman of Canada's Radio and Telecommunications Commission Konrad von Finckenstein. As a result, Harper is trying to get him out of the job well before Finckenstein's term as chairman is up.

Well, that's just plain bull.

This type of biased, hateful media will bring no good to Canada. Show Harper that you do not approve of his new idea.
Take action -- prevent this biased media from entering Canadian airwaves!

Hold on... what biased, hateful media?  Fox News North?  There is no such channel.  Fox News?  How can people claim that a TV station that isn't even up and running yet be biased or hateful?  In fact, the only biased and hateful commentary I've seen has been coming from the people who oppose the channel.

That's the overview.  Click on a tab, and you see the letter meant for PM Harper.

Prime Minister Harper,

I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed "Fox News North."

Note that they don't use the channel's actual name, Sun TV, at any point in this petition.  They're fixating on the Fox News connection, even though Fox News has nothing to do with this channel.

This type of biased and hateful media will bring no good to Canadian television -- and I refuse to fund and support such a program. I do not want this type of television to be aired in Canada.

Again, how can a channel that isn't even up and running yet be biased and hateful?  Because they're intending to be right leaning/conservative?  Is that really it?  If they don't want it, how does that give them the right to tell everyone else they can't have it, either?  We're all grown up enough to make those decisions ourselves, thank you very much.

 The U.S. Fox News Network has already sparked enough controversy, we do not need any of that negativity here.

Once again, it's all about Fox News.  Fox News has nothing to do with this channel.  This is not going to be a carbon copy of Fox News.  

Then there's the whole "controversy" and "negativity" comment.  Seriously?  Is this a joke?  The news - ALL news - thrives on controversy and negativity!  They go out of their way to find and report on controversy and negativity, even if they have to make it up themselves.  Since when was it anyone's job to shielf viewers from controversy and negativity?  Of all the possible reasons to ban a station from airing, they picked a couple of really lame ones, here.
 

Please spare the people of Canada this expense and type of media -- we do not want a Fox News North.

Sincerely,
[Your name here] 

You know what?  I'd rather be spared from busybodies who think they can dictate to the rest of us what "type" of TV we can watch, or what we are willing to pay for!  If they don't want to watch it, they can change the channel.  No one is going to force them to watch Sun TV, nor is anyone (despite insinuations to the contrary) going to force them to pay for it, like we're forced to pay for the CBC through our tax dollars.   

There is room for Sun TV on Canadian TVs.  There are even people eager to have an alternative station to what we have now.  Personally, I'd like to at least see it before I make up my mind as to whether or not it's any good.  Heck, I'd even prefer it to be offered with the basic cable package.  I'm already paying for a whole bunch of channels I don't want, and at least this way I wouldn't have to pay extra just to check it out.

So here we have a petition that is filled with lies, insinuations and misinformation.  A petition against a channel where they won't even use that channel's real name.  A petition against "hate filled media" that is... well... biased and hateful; the very things the petition is supposedly against.


Needless to say, I won't be signing it.


What I can't get over, however, is just how amazingly threatened the left is by this channel.  So much so, that they are willing to put up petitions full of lies like this one.


What are they so afraid of? 

Birther, or just wanting answers?

Flipping around on the internet, I found a few more stories disparaging "birthers" for questioning Pres. Obama's legal eligibility to actually be president of the US.

Now, I know that some of these Birthers are pretty far off the deep end when it comes to conspiracy theories and so on.  They've clearly got other issues and are using the "birther" controversy to support them.

On the other hand, a lot of people are honestly wanting to know, and not buying the official responses?

Why?

Well, let's go back to the presidential election.  It was claimed that one of the candidates was not eligible to be president because he was not born in the US and was therefor not a "natural born citizen."  The accusation was half right.  The Democrats were correct in saying the John McCain wasn't born in the US.  He was born in Panama.  Rather than make a stink about it, though, due process was used.  A couple of months after Obama was sworn in, I happened to catch a news article stating the court's conclusion.  It was ruled that McCain, having had 2 American citizens for parents, who's military father was posted in the Panama, who was born in a US military hospital on a US military base, was legally considered a "natural born citizen" of the US.  One does not actually have to be born in the US to be a US citizen.

No big controversy.  No hiding of records or sealing of files.  No angry and indignant rebuttals against the accusers.

Compare this to the same accusation being made against Obama.  Rather than following due process, a number of things happened.  First, those raising the question were accused of racism.  On top of that, Obama's records were sealed and no one was allowed to see his original birth certificate, which is apparently sealed in a vault in a hospital in Hawaii.

Now, I don't know how it's done in the US, but I have my official birth certificate in my wallet.  I also have my kids' certificates in a safe place until they are on their own, when they will then be responsible for them.  In Canada, every time birth is registered, a certificate is issued.  There are specific rules about them, too.  You're not allowed to laminate them, for example.  My husband's birth certificate accidentally ended up in the wash with the rest of his wallet, and is barely legible. He currently keeps it in a plastic holder, where it is still removable, to protect it, but he legally cannot laminate it to keep it from deteriorating.  If he wanted to replace it, there's a whole lot of bureaucratic red tape he would have to go through to get it done. 

The thing is, if it is necessary for someone to see my official ID, I have my birth certificate on hand to show them.  Proof, right there, of where and when I was born, with my full birth name.  I find it surprising that the US doesn't have the same thing, which led to some initial confusion on my part when doubts about Obama's citizenship were first brought up. 

So why are there still doubts, even though it has officially been stated that Obama is a "natural born citizen?"

Well, there's a few things.  It may have been changed fairly recently, but the rules of citizenship in the US has been that for a single mother, her children have her citizenship, but if she's married, they would have their biological father's citizenship.  Obama's biological father was Kenyan and, from what I've read, his parents were married when he was born, though I don't think they were when his mother became pregnant with him.   When did those rules get changed, and is the change retroactive?  I don't know.  That should be a simple thing to clear up, though.

Then there's the date and place of birth question.  Obama's Myspace page had his birthdate on a different year than what is now considered his official birth date.  It could have been a typo, but if so, why was it there for so long, even after the controversy arose?  It is also claimed he was born in Hawaii - but two different hospitals were listed.  Meanwhile, his paternal grandmother claimed to have been present during his birth - in Kenya.  Whatever the official story, Kenyans certainly consider him both Kenyan and Muslim (his faith being a whole different question).

Then we have the paperwork from when he attended school in Indonesia.  A Catholic school, if I remember correctly, where he went to school under the name Soetero (his step-father's name) and was listed as both an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim.

All of these questions should have been simple to answer, had due process been followed, as it was when the same question of citizenship was raised against McCain.  Why hasn't that happened?

The thing is, the more people (perhaps rightly) demonize the "birthers," the more they fuel the doubts.  More people are questioning Obama's legal citizenship now, because of this refusal to just go through the process and answer the question through the courts, then when these accusations first came out. 

Personally, I don't think a person has to be a "natural born" citizen to qualify for leadership of a country.  In fact, I've seen far more people who are passionately interested in their adopted country's well being than people who were born there.  I know my own parents have shown more pride and gratitude for their Canadian citizenship than most Canadians I've met who were born here, or who's families have been here for generations.  There's a tendency to take the country of one's birth for granted, I think. 

The US, however, has a requirement for their president to be a "natural born" citizen.  If there is any question about that status, why attack the questioners?  If McCain could follow due process and have his citizenship proved beyond any question, why won't Obama?  Doing so would answer the question once and for all, to the satisfaction of all involved.  A successful result would even allow the Democrats and Obama to rub the noses of Birthers in it, too. 

Instead, the courts refuse to hear the challenges.  Appeals are rejected. 

Why?

That on its own creates more doubt than any official announcement stating otherwise.  If Obama and his supporters want to end the Birther conspiracy theories, it could be easily done.  Obama would be vindicated and the Birthers humiliated.

Unless, of course, it turns out the Birthers are right.

Double standards, once again.

While going through my morning news and blogs, I've noted something.  A few blogs have been writing about the protesters arrested at Carleton University.  These were peaceful protesters, who were also tuition paying students at the university.  There was no aggressiveness, belligerence or... well, see for yourself.



There are a couple of things that stand out when I watch this.  Number one is how incredibly polite everyone is being.  The students stood their ground, verbally defending their right to free speech and their rights, as students of the university, to have a public protest.  Even while being arrested, the students were polite, with no resistance of any kind.  No shouting, rudeness, mockery, violence... nothing.  A bunch of students, wanting to exercise their free speech rights, were arrested for it, and it was all amazingly calm.

The other thing I noticed was how little was written about this in the news.  It was just another story that quickly went away.  Where were all the stories about how free speech is being squashed?  Where are the loud admonitions of police unjustly arresting peaceful protesters?  Where are the loud admonitions from bloggers and free speech advocates?  Where is the hue and cry to release these protesters immediately and have all charges dropped?  Where are the folks so eager to attack the powers that be (whether it's the university, the police, Conservatives and Stephen Harper) for allowing this authoritarian rights abuse?

Oh, wait.  These are pro-life demonstrators.  Never mind.

Don't think there's a double standard?  Well, how about this for comparison.





You'll note, for starters, that no one is arrested in this video.  The protesters are loud and in-your-face.  There's the two guys being obnoxious and behaving rather offensively; especially the one pretending to cup the genitals of one of the police officers.  (Yeah, there's a girl there, too, but she clearly doesn't know how to do a lap dance.) The protesters are shouting a mocking chant.  Their attitude towards the police is mocking in general, and while, judging from the looks on their faces, they seem to think it's all fun and games and a big joke, the behaviour is actually quite aggressive and threatening.

So on the one hand, we've got a bunch of obnoxious "peace" protesters behaving like idiots, then everyone is surprised when the police end up arresting the whole lot of them.  A small segment of people is struggling mightily to keep this 'atrocity' - as they see it - in every one's minds.  Every chance they get, they're bring up the G20 arrests, along with speeches about how our government is so evil.

Then we have a small group of protesters who actually behave peacefully, as well as respectfully.  They get arrested, again peacefully.  Yet the same people who are bursting blood vessels in anger over the G20 protesters being arrested are completely silent over this abuse of rights on behalf of a university. On the contrary, when this sort of thing happens (and it has happened before) if there is any comment, it's to condemn the protesters.  

As is so often the case, it's all about freedom for them and their points of view, but not for those who hold opposing points of view.

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.

Another one gone

Once again, Death has paid a visit to my ever shrinking family.  This time, it was after a long and hard fought battle against cancer.  I saw my cousin at my my brother's funeral just a couple of months ago.  It took a lot for him to make it, and I greatly appreciated it.  Now, I will never see him again.  We can't afford another trip out for the funeral.  I'll have to say my good byes from a distance.

As the years go by, there's nothing strange about loosing our loved ones.  The strange part is that it's been the younger generation we've been loosing.  The saying goes, no parent should have to bury their own child.  My aunt has now buried two children and a grandchild.  My heart goes out to her and my remaining cousins.  They were there for me.  I so wish I could be there for them.  I am in spirit, but it's just not the same.

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