tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2592836016655598762024-03-05T05:14:40.066-08:00Miffed in CliftonPhilosophical Musings and Other MiscellaneaAndrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-35907952858142055282016-01-08T15:14:00.000-08:002016-03-23T16:46:10.889-07:00Unmeasurable Externalities: Advertising and ChildrenMost discussions concerning advertising to children demand government intervention to reduce it. I suggest that the issue will not be solved soon and parents need to take the issue into their own hands: if you believe that advertising negatively affects your child, avoid subjecting you child to it. This seems like pretty obvious advice; yet, many parents, while submitting petitions to the government, allow their child to watch television for hours a day. <br />
<br />
Marketing to children has been growing in intensity since the early 1980s when it got its start due to working parents spending more money, and less time, on their children. This symptom highlights an issue with the structure of working life in Canada (and many other countries): we work more than we have to. But, paradoxically, we have to work a certain amount of hours due to hours-worked being tied to benefits. Marketers took advantage of this situation and the powerful new consumer group that it created. The processes involved with children's advertising have become more sophisticated over the years. Marketers have expanded beyond achieving an immediate marketing goal. If children grow up and become adult buyers, marketers can create lifetime loyalty. In fact, the goal of some advertising to children is not to get the child to purchase the product but to introduce the child to the brand with the intent that later in life the child will become a customer. As an example of this early-life advertising, there was a BMW commercial that aired a few years ago. It showed a young boy that goes to a BMW dealership. The salesperson allows the boy to go into the car, and later gives the boy a business card. The advertisement ends with the implication that the boy will but a BMW once he ages and has the means to. The intent is not to sell a car to a child but to introduce the brand to the children watching the commercial. Brands are instilled into a child at a young age.<br />
<br />
There have been a few policy acts that purport to control the amount and type of advertising that marketers can direct towards children. There have been strict laws in Quebec, as wells as a few European countries, that directly concern, and prohibit, advertising to children. In 1978, the FTC attempted to ban advertising to children less that seven years of age claiming that children are often unable to distinguish between advertising and program content. The general population has come to accept advertising to children as a normal activity. This acceptance leads to a circumstance where children are exposed to hundreds of commercials each day through TV watching. <br />
<br />
Ethical consideration concerning advertising to children, I believe, is extremely important. Children are unable to see the fanciful elements of advertisements, As adults, we are able to understand that an advertisement portrays the product in an unrealistic way. We do not expect the product to be as "amazing" as the advertisement shows it to be. If children are being advertised to, marketers should not take unfair advantage of the child;'s inability to rationalize the advertisements. However, marketers are concerned about selling a product and will work within the boundaries of the law to do that. Thus, the government is expected to jump in, but the negative externalities related to advertising to children are extremely difficult to prove, and even more difficult to put a price tag on. Marketers and the Government are concerned about the economics of the situation. This allows children to be abused. As responsible parents we must be aware of the negative affects of advertising on our children and bare the burden of prevention.<br />
<br />
Sandra Turner<br />
Relaxing while my child watches her shows in Kelowna BC<br />
July 2014 Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-53336359214237312612015-02-27T05:00:00.000-08:002016-01-26T08:44:31.544-08:00Lady Justice Sides With Cash: Legal Bias Against Low Income PersonsOne thing we can all hope for is equal treatment under the law. If I kill someone, I hope that I will be thrown in jail just like the next guy. This consistency allows lawbreakers to know what the punishment will be, and hopefully this will persuade them to be not break the law. There are obvious human and systematic flaws in this system. I can speed down the same road day after day with no troubles, but one day just like any other I get pulled over and given an expensive ticket. This leads to the trouble I see with many drivers: they're not afraid of breaking the law, but rather they're afraid of seeing patrol cars on the road. The biggest flaw, however, with the punishment system is the effect of money. The lawbreaker with money faces lower punishment than the man without money. In an insignificant example lets look at our speeder: a $200 fine for a person who works for minimum wage is a larger punishment relative to wealthy gentlemen receiving the same. A more significant and important situation is one where a person's money allows them to receive a smaller absolute punishment. Money can allow us to purchase better legal help; money increases freedom, and this is not justice.<br />
<br />
The justice system is ran like a for-profit business instead of on the principles it is supposed to be founded on. Another acquaintance of mine was found guilty of an assault with little evidence against him. The case rested solely on the persecutor's narrative. The defendant couldn't afford a lawyer and the liberal government in BC at the time had cut legal aid so he wasn't even given a lawyer to defend him. A relatively recent <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/Mulgrew+Lawyers+still+rankled+over+legal+services/9982589/story.html">news article</a> claims that most legal aid funds don't even go into legal aid. We don't actively consider that we may one day need legal aid. The
rich don't think about this - they can hire better lawyers if need be
anyhow. There's no demand for funds going into legal aid. The people
that need it are deemed unimportant.<br />
<br />
<br />
If lawyers have this make-or-break it power, then there is something wrong with the system. The textbooks are too complicated. People with low literacy skills flood jails. In the end the rich and the educated have more freedom. A potential solution is to nationalize lawyers and have the state assign them, but most competent lawyers would all move to more lucrative countries. A more practical solution would be to have an open source of information on the web that is easily accessible by everyone. <br />
<br />Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-54155692662443539692015-02-13T00:00:00.000-08:002015-02-12T02:06:10.725-08:00Pollution Management 101 and Political AlienationThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the two different methods the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia use to reduce carbon emissions and to select the best alternative. <br />
<br />
Carbon tax and cap & trade are both methods that policy makers can use to reduce carbon emissions. Pollution is a negative externality; left to themselves firms with produce more pollution than the socially efficient amount because the private marginal cost of the firm is less than the social marginal cost. This occurs because the marginal cost of the pollution is not borne by the firm. This is an example of a market failure that causes an efficiency loss. Policy makers can correct the problem by internalizing the cost of pollution for the firm. Pollution abatement, on the other hand, is a positive externality. Free markets will not do enough to abate pollution because the social marginal benefit is higher than the private marginal benefit of the firm. The government can correct this by giving the firm incentive to do more pollution abatement.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that the socially efficient level of pollution is still above zero. Even though some radical environmentalists would like to see Canada and its industries produce zero levels of carbon emissions it is in the public interest to pollute. The rule of thumb used in pollution abatement is that pollution should only be reduced as far as the costs are lower than the benefits. Pollution abatement is, in itself, considered to be a reasonable social objective as proven by the amount of media and international attention it receives. Numerous international organizations have pollution agreement sides, such as NAFTA. Canada has agreed, in these treaties, to reduce green house gases by specific amounts. It is, however, hard to put an economic price tag on the social benefit of pollution abatement.<br />
<br />
There are four basic solutions to all externality problems. <br />
<ol>
<li>Internalizing the externality</li>
<li>Quantity controls and standards</li>
<li>Taxes and subsidies</li>
<li>Market creation</li>
</ol>
The first method is impractical in most situations. The second method is the one that Canada has been known to adopt in the past. Economists prefer the latter two methods because they both utilize economic incentives; they are the two methods that will be examined in depth. <br />
<br />
<b>Taxes and subsidies - Carbon Tax</b><br />
Carbon tax achieves the socially efficient level of pollution by raising the firm’s marginal cost to the social cost. Taxes raise the private marginal cost by the amount of the tax. This is shown diagrammatically in figure 1 in the table of figures. By raising the private cost to the social cost the firm will produce the socially efficient quantity, shown in the figure as Q-optimum. Taxes work well because they offer incentive effects for pollution abatement and they take advantage of some market forces. Taxes are easily incorporated by the firm into its normal cost of doing business.<br />
<br />
The firm will abate carbon emissions as long as the marginal abatement cost is lower than the cost of the tax. When the marginal abatement cost becomes higher than the tax the polluting firm will choose to pay the tax and pollute. This situation is shown in figure 2. The cost of pollution abatement to the left of the cap line is shown by the area B, the tax cost is shown by the area A and B. Thus it is cheaper for the firm to abate pollution up to the point of the tax line when the abatement cost become the area C and D, more than the tax cost. <br />
<br />
Taxes are an enticing form of pollution abatement for the government because it provides a clear source of revenue. However, when compared to standards and cap & trade, the government has less control over the quantity of emissions. Taxes affect the cost of doing business and the market determines the quantity of emissions and the amount of pollution abatement activity. With sophisticated forecasts the government can have a fairly good idea of how much a tax will affect the quantity of emissions. Taxes require accurate monitoring technologies to ensure appropriate tax amounts are levied. Having known schedules of future tax hikes will positively affect the behaviour of the firm towards future abatement practices, such as investing in more efficient equipment. <br />
<br />
One of the main problems associated with taxes is public relations. Many citizens and firms are strongly against raising taxes. Taxes may also be more susceptible to lobbying parties than the cap & trade method which may deter sufficient tax levels being set. British Columbia adopted the Carbon tax in 2008 . It did this to address the problem of carbon emissions and to bring in additional revenue. <br />
<br />
<b>Market creation - Cap & Trade</b><br />
Cap & trade is a policy example of quantity control and market creation. It also works to limit pollution to a level equal to the socially efficient quantity. It does this by internalizing the cost of the externality through permits. A set amount of issued permits allows the government to limit to the amount of carbon emissions. <br />
In the Cap & trade method the government issues out carbon permits to polluting firms. Each permit gives the firm permission to emit a unit of carbon. There are various ways of handing out these permits. One way is to give more permits to high pollution abatement cost firms. A second is the give each firm the same number of permits. The third, and probably best way, is to auction off the permits. In the first two methods the permits can be re-sold in a secondary market. All methods allow the forces of the market to decide the price of pollution. If the firm’s marginal abatement cost is lower than another firm’s abatement cost it would propose a trade. The abatement cost to the firm is reduced by the amount is saves by selling the permits. This is shown in figure 3. The low marginal abatement cost firm saves the costs shown by the areas C, G, and K by selling the permit to the high marginal abatement cost firm. The government has less control over the price of emissions in this method compared to the tax method but cap & trade utilizes market forces to set a price that more accurately reflects the actual value of pollution relative to the limit the government wishes to set.<br />
<br />
The fact that the government is able to set a cap on the quantity of emissions through the amount of permits it releases may be one of the reasons the Government of Canada wants to adopt a cap & trade method; it will enable them to reach its international pollution abatement goals with more certainty than a tax would. It’s a better approach then simple quantity controls and standards because it allows the market forces to determine the price of pollution, giving low marginal pollution abatement cost firms incentive to reduce pollution and high marginal pollution abatement cost firms the ability to ‘buy’ more pollution. <br />
<br />
<b>Analysis</b><br />
Policy makers can use either the tax method or the cap & trade method to reduce pollution to the socially efficient quantity. Both methods increase efficiency and prevent the market failure associated with externalities. Economists prefer tax and cap & trade over standards and quantity control because they both utilize market forces. The main difference between the two methods is how they are administered and how the costs are distributed. The cost to the firm can be lower for the cap & trade method, depending on how the permits are distributed. If the permits are auctioned off cost to the firm may be very similar to that of the tax method . Both methods give the firm incentive to reduce carbon emissions and to abate them through new technology investments. The government receives revenue through taxes but using the auction distribution method of cap & trade the government can also receive revenue. Neither method is universally or significantly better than the other. The best selection depends on the specific situation and needs of the policy maker.<br />
<br />
I feel the best method for Canada and the Government of British Columbia is the cap & trade method. The main goal of pollution abatement is reducing the quantity of pollution to the socially efficient amount. The cap & trade method allows more certainty at meeting the reduction goals than the tax method. The cap & trade method also helps at reducing the power of lobbying parties as the cost of pollution is set by market forces and not by a policy maker. By using the auction method of permit distribution British Columbia could achieve much needed revenue.<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
I wrote this article a few years ago and unfortunately Harper's Government in Canada doesn't seem to want to address the issue. They posted a<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E1KQzO8PrE"> video on their YouTube account</a> claiming that we should "REJECT this expensive new tax hike". Comments are closed so we can't hold an open discussion on that channel. Harper recently claimed that "nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector" which is misleading at best and probably just false. Countries like Norway and Mexico use techniques that I mentioned earlier and the European Union has a cap and trade program that covers a range of industrial facilities. <br />
<br />
Nothing I mention here is new or revolutionary. I would like to get more info on why Harper is so against enforcing policies that I feel would help control waste emissions.<br />
<br />
I hate politics. I feel so alienated by it all. And when the ruling government posts shit like this image, I just want to die. Even someone non-partisan, a non-Canadian, should be offended by this. This isn't sharing knowledge. It isn't helping me make a critical decision come election time. It's crap that makes people not want to vote - and that's what allowed Harper to gain power.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8F1jpg1HrUIBCdgxpn0CIg70nqQAaQpxrYjUPL6VnMm-VoTWnECwTdmeFedi25TGeeND8bC7ocwPL56m9kkxA7_ttwz12CTmZkN82UuDxyb0fGTbxT4sprIqybH1BHWFctrTE6IUSABs/s1600/20150204-Trudeau-EN.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8F1jpg1HrUIBCdgxpn0CIg70nqQAaQpxrYjUPL6VnMm-VoTWnECwTdmeFedi25TGeeND8bC7ocwPL56m9kkxA7_ttwz12CTmZkN82UuDxyb0fGTbxT4sprIqybH1BHWFctrTE6IUSABs/s1600/20150204-Trudeau-EN.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-15902223434670571352014-09-19T03:32:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:23:37.680-07:00Self-Esteem: The Reflection of Our Actions by Isaac SnowSelf-esteem, being our evaluation of the self, is the highest thing we can hope for, and thus it is important to analyze where our notions of self-esteem lie. Self-esteem is set by the rational reflection of the self's power of acting. It is affected by the praise and blame from others, as well as the self's notion of what right actions are and the ability to abide by those notions. If one allows external elements to affect his opinion of what constitutes correct actions, he runs the risk of shying away from the activities that are truly meaningful. Submission to outside influence causes a person to place emphasis in his evaluation of self-esteem in actions he does not consciously agree with. Thus, if he is not excellent in those actions, he diminishes his self-esteem meaninglessly. Even if he does excel in those action the disjointedness of the external pressure and internal, unconscious rejection prevents authentic happiness. This essay seeks to determine how a man living in our society can attempt to gain control over his own happiness by placing the authority of the definition of meaningful actions internally. <br />
<br />
Aristotle speaks of happiness as a consequence of acting in accordance to virtue. Happiness is thus an activity and not an end state. A person can only be happy, as a consequence, when they act in what he and others believe is a virtuous manner. In the absence of a teleological end-purpose, man is given the ability to define his own meaning within the limitations of his immutable psychology and physiology. Therefor a person has the ability to define is own meaning of virtue (and hence the actions that will lead to his happiness), but to the extent that he is a social animal, he lacks a comprehensive control over his ability to craft his own notions; therefor, man is reliant on society for even his abstract happiness. <br />
<br />
This inability to define one's own meaning of virtue conflicts with the typical Canadian view (and possibly other groupings of people I don't have direct contact with) as many see their jobs as solely a source of income, and the income as a means to achieving happiness. The truly happy people are the one's who balance a job that they love with a fulfilling personal life. But these people are only happy by chance. It is by chance that their perceptions of fulfillment align with what society forces them to do. The easy way to happiness within a strict society is to simply line up your will with what society demands of you. If society says the virtuous man works hard, work hard. However, in deeper reflection these people of false assimilation may be found to not be truly happy at all. The happy man is the man who, on his deathbed, can look back on his life and say, "that is what I wanted to do as those actions are what I felt meaningful, and I excelled in my performance." What the Stoic's prescribe is falsity; and dishonesty to one's self necessarily distorts and diminishes one's self-esteem.<br />
<br />
The external show of happiness itself becomes an important part of a person's assimilation in society, as few people tolerate an outwardly unhappy person. This unhappy person, although more honest than if he were to assume a 'happy' countenance, is unlikely to obtain the career positions and social relations that would allow full assimilation into society. Thus, if he refuses to fake his true feelings, he will maintain his position as a reject; and, furthermore, this will hamper his ability to achieve the real emotion of happiness. The person that rejects the social definitions of virtuous actions, yet attempts to perform them anyways, going so far as to accept the external evaluations, will stimulate in himself a negative self-esteem, even if he is judged positively as those positive evaluations are of actions he rejects as unimportant.<br />
<br />
External evaluation effects self-esteem, although it is different to it. Eternal evaluation effects self-esteem to the extent that, as social animals, we are conscious of the opinions others hold of us and reflect this in our self-esteem. Our view of the external opinions may, of course, very likely be inaccurate.There is an element of our own will when determining how other feel about us. <br />
<br />
We have, as a capitalist society, a seemingly objective way of performing our analysis of external evaluation through our monetary worth. It is not uncommon to evaluate people based on their perceived potential to generate monetary value for the evaluator. Using this measure, the worth of the individual is necessarily reduced as the immaterial parts of ourselves are not able to be valued. This type of behaviour is destructive because it necessarily scorns those things that have no apparent monetary value. Erich Fromm gives an example of this under-appreciation. The employees of a department store underestimate the worth of the individual. The individual is not valued because he is only important as far as he represents the universal customer. If he is being mistreated, the store is not worried about his individual mistreatment, but solely that his mistreatment "would indicate that there was something wrong and it might mean that the store would lose other customers for the same reason." Fromm summarizes: "as an abstract customer he is important; as a concrete customer he is utterly unimportant." No one at the store cares about the individual person, but only his utility and his representation as a general customer. Thus, we need to be weary of allowing any sort of outside evaluation enter into the reflection of our abilities that produces our self-esteem.<br />
<br />
Everyday the individual is considered differently, and thus valued differently, by the various parties that we interact with. At work I am valued at the value I deliver to the company, at school I am valued at the value of my scholarly input, and even in social relations I am the value that I deliver to that person. With these reference points in mind, we base our self-worth on our ability to market ourselves. We are worth what others say we are worth; and one of our most important 'virtuous actions' is the ability to simply appear valuable to others; even if that means deceiving the other person or assuming a false personality. This is a type of circular reasoning that distorts our self-esteem, and ultimately leads to a temporary, positive self-esteem that is actually empty as it is not built on our ability to perform meaningful actions. <br />
<br />
There are only two parties that could possibly put the full value of our self in view: the self itself and the people who truly love us. As true love is hard to achieve, and may be impossible; especially if we begin with a lack of real self-esteem, we must achieve the confidence required to evaluate ourselves (without pride, the overestimation and distortion of our true abilities) and accept our results. The results, if accepted, will either allow our self-esteem to flourish, or indicate areas where we need to improve. I am not advocating a complete disregard of external sources of valuation, only that they are inadequate and must be viewed abreast to our own evaluation - to either support it or point out flaws in our reflection, but never to replace.<br />
<br />
Many people in first-world countries suffer from depression. People view this as a purported paradox: How can people living in comfortable conditions with relatively high incomes be less happy than those living with poverty in hostile environments? The question is confounded further when we acknowledge that many statistics use purchasing power as a proxy for happiness. The answer to the 'paradox' lies in the individual's ability to align his actions with the virtues that he deems to be fulfilling. The wealthy man is unhappy because he spends his time engaged in meaningless activities. The poverty-stricken man in contrast spends his time engaged in meaningful activities; these activities are meaningful if only because they contribute to the perseverance of self. The man living in a wealthy country with social programs has his basic physiological needs met; thus, he needs to create meaning in higher-order actions. This is a difficult task, and many fall victim to the errors discussed previously. <br />
<br />
As an example, it can be said that the archetypical Canadian father is at work 40 hours per week; yet, research supports the hypothesis that a father is with his children only 6.5 hours per week. Being with your child is more likely to rank as a more meaningful activity than work. A person who seeks a positive self-esteem will find a better balance of work and family; sacrificing a higher income if need be (this is justified if spending time with your children is more important than the extraneous products and services you could otherwise afford). Within a first-world country a person with a young child has many options concerning the child's care and has the ability to choose to accept certain services like warfare in light of the work-family balance. A person in a third-world country may consider work as a means for his child's perseverance as meaningful enough, and opt to spend less personal time with his family. The point is that our self-esteem is affected by our external conditions as our evaluation of virtuous actions are contingent on what is possible.<br />
<br />
Self-esteem is a joy that arises from considering our virtues in a positive way. The idea of our weakness is a sadness. Thus it is important to be able to consider ourselves in a positive way, but this is only possible if we have an appropriate sense of what virtues are important. If we lack a strong self, we run the risk of valuing ourselves based on the virtues that those others posit. My boss considers me virtuous when I over-work myself. The store owner sees my virtue in my extraordinary spending habits and ability to support the payments. If these are among the only affects on my identity of virtues, I risk skewing the criteria for my self-esteem. My self-esteem will be based on the consideration of virtues that are inappropriate. And this will be a difficult habit to break out of. Once I've built my self-esteem on inappropriate virtues I will lack the strength to dismiss those virtues for more appropriate ones. With confidence in our own definitions of virtues and our valuations of our actions in accordance to those virtues, whilst taking into account, albeit with skepticism to its accuracy, external valuations, we will be able to achieve positive self-esteem and true happiness.<br />
<br />
<br />
Isaac Snow<br />
Prideful in Kelowna, BC<br />
June 2014 Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-3968980729654875032014-08-22T02:39:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:24:24.091-07:00A Plea for Dionysian Consciousness by Samuel Bucker<br />
Many philosophers concerning themselves with the notion of happiness, and the acquirement of such, have come to the general agreement that a personal emphasis on reason is vital. Reason allows us to soberly avoid negative emotions, as well as plan coming events that will prove beneficial. However, reason can lead us to unavoidable and unpleasant conclusions. The pursuit of Truth necessitates that we accepts certain unpleasantness, as well as incorporate propositions that may negate life. Reason gives us an appreciation of the meaningless of existence, but it doesn't provide an opportunity to move past this. In fact, reason raises this concern above all else. When reflecting on one's existence, one distorts the Truth out of the psychological and physiological inability to obtain pure, disinterested, objective truth. For this reason it can be recommended that one engage in his own truth making when analyzing his self. By using creative and artistic powers we can distort our own history to create one that facilitates the will to life. A distorted view of reality, the unreason, can bring joy to our lives and meaning to our existence that would be excluded with strict adherence to reason.<br />
<br />
Being is, in reality, a connected series of has-beens. When we finally
come to death we understand the termination of our being, and thus
conclude that being is something that was. The past is our being. In
this way, we have the power to alter our own beings through our
interpretation of our personal history.<br />
<br />
Nietzsche in his Birth of Tragedy states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is an ancient story that king
Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the
wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, without
capturing him. When at last he fell into his
hands, the king asked what was best of all and
most desirable for man. Fixed and immovable,
the demon remained silent till at last, forced by
the king, he broke out with shrill laughter into
these words: "Oh, wretched race of a day,
children of chance and misery, why do ye compel
me to say to you what it were most expedient for
you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever
beyond your reach : not to be born, not to be, to
be nothing. The second best for you, however,
is soon to die." </blockquote>
It is this predicament that reason leads us into: life is misery and we may as well end it as soon as possible. The pursuit of truth is taken as a moral commandment from society. Those who engage in lies are ostracized. But this is because the 'liar' is a liar in the relationship to society. The public liar is selfish and attempts to further his own ends at the expense of others through his lies. The liar is one who challenges the notions of truth held by society. But what is truth? If it is based on the ability to uphold correspondence with others, truth is simply a social construct that we must abide by - at the risk of being labelled a liar if we do not. In one's personal, internal life - the life that does not affect others, at least not directly but only indirectly through the affects that it has on the person's will and behavior - he has the ability to alter his interpretation of his experience. Every time one recalls a memory this memory is recreated. A memory therefor is an inaccurate representation of the original perception of the experience he submitted to. These inaccuracies, or distortions, come from a multiplicity of factors - internal and external. Considering the fact that memory is wrong, why not alter the memory to personal benefit? If to recall a memory in one way leads to a affirmation of the will to life, why deny it in favour of an interpretation that leads to life's denial? I say we should be the artist of our own being. We should revel in the drunk interpretation and shutdown the sober, life denying one. <br />
<br />
The pursuit of truth leaves us trapped between the two paradigms that purport to be its arbiters. Science rejects spirituality and leaves us to the dark abyss of existence. Religion, on the other hand, demands absolute resignation to an illogical doctrine. Only in the self itself are we to find an alternative; the creation of the 'truth' that leads to a life affirming state of being. <br />
<br />
Human life without art is a mistake. An aesthetically void existence is one where man is a simple compound of needs that are to be satisfied. Once these needs are satisfied he is subjected to a perpetual state of boredom until new needs arise. Boredom is just the affirmation of the emptiness of life. Even our seemingly wholesome desire to birth a family is birthed from the stranglehold of necessity and desire to escape boredom. We have a psychological need to seek out sex, and are subjected to intense pleasures during copulation. If one were to have a sober view of sex and the subsequent birth of a new life, would they then engage in the activity? No, they do so because they are slaves of the passions. It is only when the will is brought to the forefront, and we interact with reality in some way, that we transcend an existence based on needs and escape the looming staticity of boredom. Art is the most direct way of interacting with reality; we shape reality without restriction. Music is the only art form void of reference. Reference ties us to reality. No-reference enables us to create our own, personal world. Music is the pure engagement of will in reality. By engaging with reality on our own terms, in contrast to simply doing what we must out of necessity due to the physiological inveigle of Perseverance, we give life meaning. We must make a symphony out of our history.<br />
<br />
The pursuit of truth and commitment to reason commits one to accept a notion of the self and reality that is life denying. By artistically interpreting our lives and engaging our will in reality, we transcend doldrum and affirm life. Life is not a motion picture that we are to sit back and watch; and recall prior scenes with perfect clarity. We are to alter the course of our lives through engagement, and alter the recollection of the past to improve the whole. What is the pursuit of truth but the pursuit towards a better life?<br />
<br />
Samuel Bucker<br />
Fucked up on 'shrooms somewhere in the Central Okanagan<br />
May 2014Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-91709400215713849822014-08-08T19:39:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:24:39.834-07:00Reading Genesis by Andrew AnsonI've never had much exposure to the Bible. I was raised in a predominately atheist house-hold; although that word was never used. My mother went through a few phases of religion leaning, and would drag my father and us children to church on Sunday. These phases would last a couple months; up until she decided to submit to our pleas (my father included) that church was awful. I didn't enjoy it simply because it was boring. I had no rejection in principal. I think I could find that now; this essay won't go into those details though. My social circle was also very non-religious, expounding only those religious preachings that are so common place in society they have lost their direct link to religion. Like many social norms, the origin becomes irrelevant - we simply live with them and only contemplative people, or those with specific goals in mind, chose to challenge them to the chagrin of the passive folks who want to justify their behavior through appeal to the authority of time. The secular public school system also introduced to me no formal teachings of religion, only to the veiled, religious affected philosophies of certain school teachers. So as a rational man, steeped in a constant diet of a society affected by multiple ideologies, I now approach the first book of the Bible. Perhaps I should have taken the advice of St. Augustine, who claimed that the Bible should be read beyond its literal meaning, and sought the assistance of a professional.<br />
<br />
It's interesting to read the source after being exposed to the effects of the Bible all of my life. It's not often we get the opportunity to approach the source of such an affection. Experiencing the stories that have been re-told and bastardized in various media in their accepted form is an elucidating experience. The various quotes lifted from the book, that we see everyday, are interesting to see in context - many of which are taken completely out of context, and thus distorted.<br />
<br />
One such quote I saw recently in a church read, lovingly, "Walk about the land through its length and its breadth". In context though, God gave Abram (later renamed Abraham) the land (which was already inhabited, so God usurped the land) for him and his seed, God's chosen people. The irony is readily apparent. The pleasant church goer who plastered that quote on the wall didn't understand that if I'm not of Abraham's seed, I have no right to be on that land at all. I can't walk about the land because its all private property, and the last time I did that I got physically assaulted (in the Bible, God would probably get me killed). Ultimately, I'm stuck walking around my apartment, which is only mine temporarily and as long as I continue to make rent payments. I suppose this interpretation of the quote comes off as cynical, but it's hard not to be. The early followers of this new religion reveled in their being God's favorites. Judaism is exclusionary in nature. I speculate that this was a source of the contention that has brought them so much hatred over the centuries. Just as the teacher's favourite in the classroom is bullied by his classmates, the Jews were bullied by their religious opponents. <br />
<br />
The Jews declared themselves different from the dirty desert dwellers (and on par with the clean Egyptians) by instituting a doctrine of circumcision. Circumcision, the practice of cutting off a piece of a child's penis, is given in Genesis as a commandment of God. If I don't become circumcised, God says I "shall be cut off from [my] people (but not the tip of my penis)". My parents, through the nonact of avoiding my circumcision, have condemned me to isolation. Perhaps this is why I am unable to walk the lands freely.<br />
<br />
Genesis places a lot of significance on continuing your family line.
There is, however, not much emphasis placed on the value of family in itself;
rather the emphasis is that the family is a possession and the sons and
daughters are your continuation. Abraham is extremely stressed over not
having a son, and impregnates his slave girl at the risk of ruining his
marriage. He ultimately pleas to God, whom grants Abraham's wife (who no
longer has womanly flows at her 90 years of age) a pregnancy. Yes, the son, poor Isaac had to suckle 90 year old nipples. In another example of the
importance of the continuation of the family line, the two daughter's of
Lot, desperate to have children, get Lot drunk and have sex with him. This
focus on the family is consistent with the Bible's religious focus on
property. In order to maintain hold on property one must have a family
to pass it down to. God isn't concerned with the incest and the sex with
slave girls, but he is concerned with Abimelech taking a married woman, but only to the extent that a married woman is someone else's property. God also takes no issue with
Abraham owning slaves, firmly suggesting that Abraham mutilate
their penises. <br />
<br />
The Abraham sacrificing his son story is possibly
the most important story in Genesis. Faith occurs when you give
resignation, absolute resignation, to God. Abraham is either a murderer
or a hero of faith. Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling analyzes this story
in an interesting and rewarding way. It gives a meta-commentary to the
story that the Bible is sorely lacking. The Bible gives a very literal
account of the stories; this supports St. Augustine's assertion that one must have outside help to understand the book. This outside help, however, would allow the ability for people to distort the 'truths' of the Bible.<br />
<br />
God, as an abstract concept, is used numerous times by characters in Genesis to achieve their selfish ends. The name of God is used by Jacob to deceive his father Isaac into blessing him instead of the brother Esau. Later,
the name of God is used to make sure Jacob doesn't "take any wives
besides [Laban's] daughters". Laban states, "though no one else is
present, remember, God is witness between you and me! May the Lord look
out between you and me when we are out of each other's site". This is
one of the reasons, I wager, religion was used by statesmen and property
owners: it allows laws to perpetuate without surveillance (something
that is not as relevant modern times, as statesmen have infrastructures
like the NSA).<br />
<br />
I remember when I was a teenager I fell into depression; the type of depression that most teenagers must go through, and I sought out help in a few places. One of the places that I was going to turn to was religion. I picked up the Bible, but was uninterested in the creation myth so I put it away. And I'm glad I did as I don't believe that reading this would have helped me see value in existence in any way. I learned that one must submit to a being more powerful than one's self; that I must be initiated through bodily mutilation; I must never question its authority; and that I must spread my seed in order to maintain and grow the kingdom of my possessions. The surface of the story of Genesis and my non-literal interpretations reveal nothing that is useful; it contains no moral guidance, no advice, and no justification for life. Perhaps, it is as St. Augustine asserts; we must seek guidance in experts to understand the significance of the stories; or, perhaps, I end up regretfully agreeing with Richard Dawkins who claimed of the Bible: "Why bother with it?". This statement, given during a TV show panel discussion, was responded with indignant cries from the other panel members and the studio audience. But, if one must seek assistance in interpretation, one must submit to the authority of antiquity and the genesis of knowledge will never be revealed. <br />
<br />
Andrew Anson<br />
Still seeking a meaning to being in Kelowna, BC<br />
June, 2014 Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-18827902307000382642014-07-25T06:33:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:25:11.456-07:00The Ethical Duties of "Corporations" by Kirk JacksonA corporation, dealing with it as an abstract entity, has two main duties: the first, to seek a profit; the second, to obey the
law. The second duty is problematic with large corporations due to
various phenomena. Firstly, corporations have the ability to bypass the
law when paying the fines associated with their infractions is lesser
than the benefit of breaking the law. Secondly, a large corporations
have an influence on the law, either through the importance to the
economy by its size, or its political ties concerning key employees and
shareholders directly holding important government positions or
possessing the ability to affect those who do. Because corporations can
break the law (or alter it, which is, in effect, the same thing) moral
philosophers deem it important to draw up an ethical system to govern
corporations. <br />
<br />
Deontology is a normative ethical principle that sets out to judge one’s actions based on its adherence to a set of guidelines or rules. It is a duty based ethical system. This is strongly contrasted to consequentialist ethical principle such as utilitarianism where the outcome is the basis for judgment. Kant utilizes deontology to create his ethical system; he states that a man must act in a morally right way and from duty, and that the consequences of the actions do not make the actions right or wrong but rather the intent and motives of the man who does the action. In opposition to utilitarianism because Kant does not believe that morality should be given a purpose outside of itself. A moral act is moral regardless of the consequences.<br />
<br />
Kant does not encourage acting in order to obtain happiness, as is one of the founding guidelines of utilitarianism. Acting upon a categorical imperative is more fundamental than acting in order to achieve happiness. However, Kant also said, “A man even has an indirect duty to seek happiness. The more he is troubled by the burdens of anxiety and need, the more he may be tempted to fail in his duty. Even apart from duty, everyone has the most fundamental urge to be happy, since the idea of happiness more or less sums up in our minds the satisfaction of all our desires, cares, and needs.”<br />
<br />
Kantian Deontology which is often summarized with the following statement by Kant: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”. Kant did not intend to say that one should never be used as a means to end but that one should never be exclusively a means to an end.<br />
<br />
Kant went further to claim that a party is not necessarily being ethical if they are only doing the right thing out of prudence. The essence of morality according to Kant is derived not from what the duty may have prescribed but from the concept of law (not to be confused with a nation’s law). In today’s highly regulated business environment this has a large impact. Many corporations, it may be assumed in example, only act in an outcome that is considered ethical because they are forced to by forces such as the law. If it does not act this way it may be fined, leading to less profit than acting in accordance to the law (atleast this is one of the purposes of fines, it may appear to some that the fines are insufficient to produce the best possible outcome for society). In Kantian ethics this behavior is deemed reprehensible. A corporation should act ethical out of duty and obligation not simply because it is prudent to do so. Kant worries more about the motives than the consequences. In the increasing globalization of large corporation this idea takes on an even greater weight. Many developing countries still do not have the legal infrastructure necessary to prevent unethical corporations from taking advantage and its citizens are left to the moral whims of corporations.<br />
<br />
This subject takes us to Kant’s categorical imperative. He states it as follows, “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” A corporation should not take advantage of consumers of developing nations because that would make for a lousy imperative. Kant believed that the man should act as if the principle were to be set as a law in the “kingdom of ends”.<br />
<br />
The categorical imperative gives us a necessary but not sufficient criterion of virtue. For example one of Kant’s categorical imperatives is to not commit suicide. He offers no reasons as to why one should not commit suicide. In order to practically use the categorical imperative one must look at the consequences of the actions undertaken. Kantian ethics has been criticized for not providing a concrete application in various ethical dilemmas. For example, I jump into my car in the morning to go to work, but if everyone in the world were to do the same thing the Earth would choke to death; so should I not drive my car to work? Most people may be able to accept the former imperative; that of treating man as the ends and not merely the means; this could be taken as a form of human rights put into ethical law, but many circumstances require a more rigorous ethical platform.<br />
<br />
I stated earlier that Kantian ethics has its foundation in the idea that ethics is based on adhering to a set of obligations and duties. But where do these duties come from? Do they come from the state? That’s hardly a satisfactory answer as ethics would be highly subjective to time and culture. Do they come from a greater power? In this modern business environment of numerous different religious beliefs it is hardly prudent for society to base its ethics on the guidelines associated with a divine creator. Some philosophers defend the view that a common morality exists and is the foundation of all theories of morality. This could explain why people accept Kant’s statement of treating people not exclusively as means to an end. Modern biochemical science has attempted to isolate a brain chemical that scientifically explains this phenomenon of human compassion. These finding may have a drastic impact on theories of common morality. Many ethical dilemmas are simply caused by differing interpretations of the event and not so of the principles governing the conclusion.<br />
<br />
Kantian ethics also raises numerous questions about the ethical treatment of things outside of human kind. What kind of treatment to lesser creatures such as dogs, cattle, chickens etc. deserve? How should humans treat Earth and nature? Using Kant’s categorical imperative could possibly provide numerous divergent and impractical answers.<br />
<br />
Modern thought places much more emphasis on empirical facts and purports that very little can be proved a priori. This poses a problem when a society attempts to convince a corporation to act ethically and not simply by the law. Ultimately, however, it is up to society to define what it believes is ethical and have these beliefs reflected in law. These ethical laws provide the concrete framework for corporations to follow that is lacking in Kantian ethics. Perhaps, all we can expect of corporations is for them to be prudent. A corporation has a duty to its shareholders to deliver a profit, and to society to operate within the boundaries of law. For example, a corporation treats it employees ethically because (a) its the law and (b) it has a positive effect on the bottom line.<br />
<br />
I was surprised when I first heard the idea that corporations are not affected by Kantian ethics because they are not technically humans, although legally defined as a separate legal entity. I put corporation in quotations in the title of this post to highlight that a corporation is not a thing in the world but a construct of human relations. <br />
<br />
Humans within a corporation may be completely indifferent to the actions of the corporation. For example, I worked at a casino a few years ago. I felt that the casino was taking advantage of many gambling addicts. But, I wasn't the casino. I wasn't in charge. So I just let it go. However, a corporation is people and people need to be aware of their actions, regardless of their orders. A member of a corporation is not absolved from the ethical implications of his actions simply because he was following orders. The "blame", if you wish to call it that, falls upon all members involved. A corporation involved in ethical decision making needs to remove its veil and the people involved need to truly feel involved in the actions undertaken. When a corporation does something unethical, there needs to be real responsibility by all the people involved from the board of directors and CEO who set the broader strategy, to the people involved in the implementation of the actions, and even to the members of government who need to set appropriate laws.<br />
<br />
At the end of the business day we all go home to our families and friends and we would do well to not lose touch with our individual humanity and empathy while at work. Profits and money are meaningless without the people that we love (especially considering our fiduciary monetary system relies on others). If we wish to enjoy the care and love of our family, we must also enable others to do the same; meaning we should not abuse our corporate power. Obeying the Kantian maxim of treating people not merely as means to an end will have a positive societal, economic and, individual impact. Kantian ethics does not provide a fully applicable ethical principle to be used in all business situations but it is useful in helping us focus on the most important thing: people.<br />
<br />
Kirk Jackson<br />
Admitting that this blog is created by people in Kelowna, BC<br />
October 8, 2013Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-25404878425019595532014-07-11T02:58:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:26:24.486-07:00Property Rights versus Economic Equality by Isaac SnowDistributive justice concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of the goods in a society. Like all discussions on a topic concerning justice, there are numerous basic stances on what qualifies as a just distribution. John Rawls approaches the concept of distributive justice from an egalitarian point of view. A strict egalitarian notion of distributive justice would have everyone in society have the same level of material goods and services. Rawls distinguishes himself from this stance by introducing his 'difference principle', He contends that any just conception of freedom is one that would be agreed upon and accepted by everyone from a fair position. This conception of freedom would theoretically be developed in the concept Rawl’s introduces as the 'original position'. The concept states that the initial negotiations of society's distributions would happen behind a veil of ignorance. Meaning the negotiators, including all in the society, would not be aware of their own individual position. In the end the principle of justice settled upon would be fair. This theory requires that individuals that are in a well-off position agree to a distributive rule that may not be in their individual favor. Rawls believes that a society is well ordered when members of the society agree on and know the principles of social justice and the institutions in the society satisfy these principles.<br />
<br />
Rawls’ distribution theory helps to maximize the position if the most disadvantaged. A redistribution is considered just when it would help to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged. Rawls allows inequalities to the extent that the inequalities make the least advantaged better off then they would be under a strict egalitarian system. This makes the assumption that the possibility of earning greater income gives the incentive to the individual to put forth greater productive effort that he wouldn't under a strict egalitarian system.<br />
<br />
Another American philosopher Robert Nozick, in contrast to Rawls, begins his theory of distributive justice from a libertarian stance and proposes what he calls the 'entitlement theory'. The entitlement theory states that a just situation would allow a person to hold property that he has lawful entitlement to and transfer it at his discretion with no outside interference. This stance necessarily conflicts with Rawls as it would be unjust under the Nozick system to take from the rich and give to the poor. Nozick holds that property rights are non-negotiable and an individual’s personal liberty makes state policies of redistribution illegitimate.<br />
<br />
Rawls introduces two principles of justice. The first is liberty wherein each person has a right to the extensive schemes of standard civil liberties such as freedom of speech and voting rights. The second principle is the difference principle. This second principle has less priority than the first. The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities need to meet two conditions. They must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantages and be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair opportunity. The difference principle is a maxi-min principle and a legitimate constraint on the liberty principle.<br />
<br />
Rawls does take into account the economists notion of incentive. The overall economic wealth of a society would be reduced – and therefore the worst off left even worse off – if incentives are taken away. Inequalities can constitute incentives that increase the overall economic pie can make everyone better off. Rawls states that society must redistribute income up to the point where the wealth of the representative poorest individual is maximized. Rawls makes a few statements concerning redistribution. He believes that society should equalize the prospects of those whom were not born in to wealthy families by redistributing the undeserved gain of children of rich families. Rawls wants to try to equalize the inequalities created by society and historical circumstances. Rawls also does not see the reason to allow distribution of wealth to be allowed by natural endowments. A man’s natural endowments are not considered his own property, but that of society’s. Rawls subscribes to the Kantian theory of equality in moral dignity. Nozick as well agrees with these Kantian ideas. Rawls’ Kantian theories help to prevent the individual ignorance of utilitarian principles but also prevents libertarianism’s inability to account for arbitrary inequalities of fortune. Rawls’ goal is to put individuals in the position they would have been in if not for undeserved circumstances. Rawls contends that his theories are political and not metaphysical in that the theories do not require agreements in morality. His theories demand democracy and prior agreement – so that disagreements are resolved not by force.<br />
<br />
Nozick approaches property rights from a different point of view than Rawls. This difference is the main elements of the two philosophers’ disagreement. Rawls’ theories include a personal property right that is defended in terms of moral capacities and self-respect. Nozick approaches property rights from a libertarian point of view that is similar to the classical liberalism of John Locke but diverts on a few conclusions. Nozick believes that the distribution of goods is just if brought about by a free exchange among consenting adults and from a just starting position. He argues that the term distributive justice is inappropriate as there is no central distribution and all distribution was made by individual decisions. This remains just even in the face of large inequalities that may arise from the process. Nozick argues that property rights are non-negotiable and that personal liberty makes state policies of redistribution illegitimate; whereas Rawls sees no reason why the greater gains of some shouldn’t compensate for the lesser losses of others. Differences in wealth are mostly due to arbitrary matters and are not justified. Nozick fears a reduction of wealth creation that could result from a coercive redistribution. Nozick seems to have a greater fear of this than Rawls. Rawls sees his redistribution as resulting from prior agreements and in a non-violent and non-coercive manner.<br />
<br />
Nozick believes that justice in holdings is historical and depends on what has actually happened. Injustice in past holdings is an issue that he approaches as well. Redistribution of holdings could be considered just if it is a rectification of a past injustice. This introduces another of the core differences in the two men’s philosophies. Nozick approaches the idea of distributive justice from a historical point of view. The current position of individuals is justified by the legitimate acquisitions and transactions of the past. Rawls looks at distributive justice from a “current-time slice” point of view. The current position of individuals is all that matters. Any redistribution that can help make the worst off better is considered and could be considered justified.<br />
<br />
Nozick’s entitlement theory may not be fully adequate when explaining why a person is more deserving than another for getting more goods or social status but it is a better explanation than Rawls gives. What claim can an individual make under Rawls philosophy to be more “deserving” than another? That he has more urgent need or a more significant need? Individuals made the original acquisitions and voluntary transfers and these individuals have a legitimate entitlement to the goods that I do not think should be overridden. Rawls theory faces the problem that it would be difficult to get a well-off person to accept that he should have less in order to help the worst-off segment. On what basis is worthiness decided? Rawls might say, urgency of need and significance of need.<br />
<br />
Nozick comments on the concept of patterning. Where the distribution is a society is hypothetically composed by patterned distributions (such as by IQ). Nozick’s entitlement theory is not a patterned system due to liberty – which allows freedom in transaction. Rawls end-state ideas may require constant governmental intervention to maintain the specific pattern that is (perhaps arbitrarily) considered to be preferable. Nozick diminishes the importance that Rawls puts on the worst-off segment of society. Nozick also criticizes Rawls tendency to group individuals into social classes when an individual in the “original position” would not be concerned about groups but about himself.<br />
<br />
Comparing the two philosophers to the current Canadian stance we can see that with progressive tax rates Canadian law has adopted a philosophy that may be agreeable with Rawls. Wealthy citizens have a smaller need with each marginal increase in wealth; thus, a dollar to a poor person means more than another dollar to a wealthy person. With this in mind, Canadian law attempts to redistribute wealth with significance in mind.<br />
From an economic point of view, Nozick holds a more persuasive position. His theories are in line with modern economic thinking, namely that the free operation of the market will lead to the greatest amount of wealth in society and that transactions arising from liberty are justified. However, Rawls current-time slice view is ideal in helping all members of a society enjoy life. It is fully in line with Kantian deontological ethics.<br />
<br />
However, I argue, with economic theory in mind, that a redistribution of wealth under Rawls principles will do more harm than good for society because it violates an individual’s right to property and reduces private incentive to create more utility. Nozick holds the position that has the least issues even if it may not be compatible with many notions of justice as it may not adequately treat everyone as moral equals. I believe that the entitlement theory is a better alternative than the insecure contract Rawls proposes.<br />
<br />
Isaac Snow<br />
Distributing this paper justly from Kelowna, BC<br />
September 2013<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif; line-height: 20px; text-indent: -33px;"><b>Further Reading: </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif; text-indent: -33px;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif; line-height: 20px; text-indent: -33px;">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/</span>Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-81282804268100285902014-06-27T02:56:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:26:48.803-07:00My Eyes Burned With Anguish: The Joycean Epiphany by Thomas TomasJames Joyce knows how to write a short story. In “Araby” the narrator tells a story of himself as a young man developing his sexual awareness and social role as an adult. The story concludes with the young man experiencing, in the form of a literary epiphany, what he considers to be an insight into the essential meaning of his infatuation with Mangan’s sister. The narrator states that he “saw [him]self as a creature driven and derided by vanity” thus ending his idealized, heroic, pseudo-religious conquest for her love. I believe that the narrator recounting his story tries to integrate his current ideology concerning lust with his boyhood daydreaming. The diction used by the narrator shows a conscious effort to highlight the foolishness of his infatuation. He states that Mangan’s sister’s name was “like a summons to all my foolish blood”, and the narrator criticizes himself for thinking “little of the future”. After telling Mangan’s sister that he would bring an item back from the Araby the narrator states, “what innumerable follies laid waste my waking and sleeping thoughts”.<br />
<br />
The young man’s epiphany, which strengthens his general negative attitude to his own unrestrained sexual and romantic urges and desire for the exploration of life’s possibilities (which was realized in part, albeit unpleasantly, by going to the Araby), was influenced by both his family and his education at the Christian Brothers’ School. Upon simply entering the Araby the young man experiences anguish brought about from his Catholic upbringing as he sees “two men . . . counting money on a salver”. This brings to the young man’s mind Matthew 21, “[Jesus] said to them, ‘my house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers’”. The very act of exploring different social paradigms has been predeterminately condemned by the young man through his social and cultural upbringing. The young man’s abandonment of love is consistent with his social environment, as there is no appreciation of love and sex by the adult figures. In addition, the young man occupies a space that once belonged to a Catholic priest, a position that requires a vow of celibacy. The narrator may say that he was foolish but the anguish and anger he experiences is a result of the hopelessness he feels in his social situation. Joyce employs an unreliable narrator who mistakes the true reasons why he gave up his quest for Mangan’s sister. The narrator internalizes the ideals instilled upon him, and during his epiphany believes them to be his own thoughts. The inauthentically internalized morality of his society restricts the young man's emotional freedom. The epiphany experienced in the end is an epiphany in the true sense of the word: a divine manifestation; furthermore, a divine manifestation of the religious ideology.<br />
<br />
This epiphany is a religious manifestation. The passage into adult hood for a young man of lower-middle class in Dublin at the time was not a pleasant passage. The young man attempts to go to the Araby but arrives when it is closing down. This could be interpreted as the end of the fun playfulness of childhood, when the children would “play till [their] bodies glowed”, into the serious and loveless world of adult life. The narrator unfortunately defends the sexual and exploratory repression that he experienced as a youth.<br />
<br />
Thomas Tomas<br />
Sexually deprived in Kelowna, BC<br />
May 2014<br />
<br />
Read the story online at http://fiction.eserver.org/short/araby.htmlAndrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-73236553192077838912014-06-13T01:42:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:27:00.205-07:00"I'd Eat Healthy If It Were Affordable": Government Policy Regarding Healthy Living by James Thumb“What You Eat is Your Business” is an article written by Radley Balko and published by the Cato Institute in May 2004. Balko argues that government intervention in the food industry is not the correct way to go about improving the diet of citizens. He suggests that the government should put the financial responsibility of health on the individual. Its important to note that Cato states that it is a "public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace." So what does Balko suggest the government do and how do I feel about these ideas?<br />
<br />
Balko suggests some very sensible policy changes to create incentives to induce individuals to make better health choices; however, he is too polemical in his condemnation of the current government policy. It is true that more responsibility should be placed on the individual. This makes sense from an economic incentive point of view. Without the private financial incentive to lead a healthy life style individuals are more likely to become obese. With a private incentive, due to higher health insurance premiums, individuals will theoretically make better health choices. Yet, Balko appears to be against such government interventions such as the “fat tax” on high-calorie foods that some politicians are calling for. This tax would represent that private financial incentive to make better health choices. Balko, in his fear of government intervention, is making a grave mistake. Despite what Balko says, Government should attempt to go, in the words of Balko, “between you and your waistline”. Government should introduce policy to the point that the benefits outweigh the costs. The costs of introducing new bicycle trails and sidewalks may very well be less than the money saved on health costs; as citizens are hopefully getting more exercise. Its not an issue of invasion of one's choices but rather a proactive attempt to save on expenses. Very few people would suggest that traffic lights, which are an invasion of one's choices, are a poor policy decision because they reduce the number of accidents and eventually turn to a positive financial decision. Reducing obesity not only reduces the social costs related to health problems but also increases everyone's enjoyment of life. Balko specifically criticizes policy that requires the removal of junk food from school vending machines. I went to a highschool that had no junk food in the vending machines, and I really don't think any of the students missed it - in fact, it was a benefit to have fruit available at reasonable prices.<br />
<br />
Balko should analyze the current trends in the health movement to discover what is working. For example, it is extremely important to reduce the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. Children are unable to make rational decisions as an adult should be expected to do. He does suggest, to my pleasure, that "government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being". I just don't see the issue in such dichotomous terms. I think that public school education should teach students about proper health and nutrition (parents have a responsibility as well), but government should also give incentives to eat healthy; just as they tax cigarettes and liquor.<br />
<br />
A major issue that Balko brings up is the control of health insurance. He complains, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s.” The government has prevented health insurance from charging higher premiums to obese clients. As obese people are more prone to needing health insurance this cost is then reflected in higher premiums for all members, including healthy clients that are less likely to be at risk for certain common illnesses related to obesity. I do not know enough about private health insurance companies in the USA to comment on this issue but it does make sense, as Balko suggests, to "reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones".<br />
<br />
The fear of government interference in the free market is a major theme of Balko’s paper. He fears that the government will take too much control of what food is available to the general public. Balko believes that government should not intervene in issues of obesity; in fact Balko states that, “the best way to alleviate the obesity ‘public health’ crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health". Obesity occurs for numerous reasons outside of free choice of diet and exercise. There could be numerous other reasons for obesity; in which some cases it may be wrong to blame the individual. It may be prudent to blame the macro-culture of the country, or, in other cases, over-eating can be viewed as a mental illness. I mentioned earlier that spending money on new bicycle trails in the city could help reduce obesity. It may not be correct to fully blame policy, but a city that does not offer places for activities will have a higher obesity rate.<br />
<br />
Balko raises a few concerns that are relevant when making normative health policy statements. He should, however, allow the possibility that government policy, if used correctly, can bring about situations that have a net benefit on society. Government has the right to spend money wisely to save money in the long run.<br />
<br />
James Thumb<br />
Socializing your diet from Vernon, BC<br />
March 2014<br />
<br />
Link to the article: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-you-eat-is-businessAndrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-71811647123142706062014-05-30T00:36:00.000-07:002014-09-23T21:27:08.977-07:00Planned Obsolescence<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This essay examines the struggle at the heart of the planned obsolescence struggle; summed up in two contrasting quotes:<br />
<br />
1) "Anyone who believes that infinite growth is compatible with a finite planet is either a fool or an economist" (Kenneth Boulding), and<br />
<br />
2) "Any professor who revises a textbook but still makes it so students can use the old version is a fool"</blockquote>
<br />
Planned obsolescence occurs when a manufacturer of a product designs it in such a way that it becomes obsolete in a set time period. The product can become obsolete due to mechanical failure, or more complicatedly, from it's becoming unfashionable (see bottom for full list of planned obsolescence strategies). The purpose of a planned obsolescence strategy is to have the consumer replace the product with a new one. A never ending gobstopper, although a great product, won't make a company any money because the child would only ever need to buy one. Planned obsolescence can become a dangerous business practice as consumers become resistant to repurchase if the product becomes obsolete to quickly. For example, the gobstopper that only last a couple seconds won't be repurchased by the child as he will choose a competing product. Planned obsolescence has negative effects on consumer welfare and the environment, but is not a conspiracy and can be combated through increased industry competition, consumer value of product durability, and public policy.<br />
<br />
A longer product life time is seen by consumers as an advantage, therefore a longer lasting product will, all else being equal, be more competitive than the shorter lasting product. In a competitive market, if consumers value a long product life, manufacturers will deliver that feature. This defense of planned obsolescence, unfortunately, relies on the premise that consumers have an understanding of the product life span during the purchase decision making process, as well as value that factor in their decision. The success of planned obsolescence strategies can be curtailed by consumer education and fair disclosure of expected product life time. There are many other factors that consumers will take into account when purchasing a product, and it is completely reasonable that even will full knowledge of the durability of two products, at the same price a consumer may opt for the less durable product in light of superior product attributes in other areas. To reduce planned obsolescence Consumers should place more value on the eco-efficient and sustainable attributes of products.<br />
<br />
Planned obsolescence is often viewed as an evil conspiracy on behalf of the manufacturers and marketers, but it should be viewed as a competitive force compatible with capitalism. The later notion is more compatible with a sober view of the market. The defenders of the conspiracy notion need maintain that the main manufacturers in the specific industry have entered into a pact to maintain an obsolescence scheme. This claim only works if the industry is monopolistic or oligopolistic because they are more sensitive to industry agreements. A pact of this kind is illegal under most national business laws, so no new policy would need to be created, but simply enforced.<br />
<br />
Other critics of planned obsolescence claim outright that it is a market failure; therefore it demands government intervention to reduce it. For example, Apple has designed its iPods in such a way that the battery is irreplaceable. This practice should be unacceptable. Government could enforce certain manufacturing practices to ensure fair play. It should work towards introducing standardization of some elements in products such as printer tone cartridges, shavers, and batteries. This standardization gives more control to the consumer, increases competition towards supplying the product at a lower cost and reduces the ability for an individual company to have control over the product life. We saw this type of intervention recently with cell-phone chargers, and I don't think there is a cell-phone owner out there that can claim this was a bad idea.<br />
<br />
Government can also reduce planned obsolescence problems by introducing taxes. There are two methods that it can employ: a tax that effects the sellers, or a tax that effects the buyers. The latter takes the form of environmental fees that the consumer pays when he makes the purchase - this in effect internalizes the value that consumers should have for eco-friendly products that they may not have. In an educated environment, where consumers value their environmental footprint, this would not be necessary. The method that effects sellers takes the form of sellers being forced to take back expired products and recycle them. This increases the cost of the product to the sellers, and will be reflected in higher product pricing. Both have the same effect on pricing, but I argue that the latter has a more efficient result.<br />
<br />
Planned Obsolescence if left unchecked may diminish consumer welfare and may have unsustainable effects on the environment. Planned obsolescence can be controlled through competitive market forces, consumer education, and government policy. There are numerous things that you can do to help prevent the effects of planned obsolescence. During the purchase decision, put emphasis on the longevity of the product and choose products that are repairable and up-gradable. Don't replace products simply because they look worn-out or are no longer 'fashionable' - make it fashionable to be eco-friendly. Boycott companies that don't support its old products. Demand government regulations on planned obsolescence. Each one of the six strategies listed below can be fought against by consumers and pleas to government. It is up to us to shift the consumer paradigm to one that values long lasting, eco-friendly products.<br />
<br />
Isaac Snow<br />
Replacing yet another iPod in Vernon, BC<br />
May 2014<br />
<br />
(Appendix) Planned Obsolescence Strategies:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Limited function life (ie iPod batteries die after 2 years)</li>
<li>Limited opportunities for repair (ie iPod batteries can not be replaced)</li>
<li>Design aesthetics (ie iPod gets scratched easily prompting disposal)</li>
<li>Fashion (ie new iPod is hip, old iPod is super lame)</li>
<li>Technological updates (ie new iPod holds more music - new iPod is better)</li>
<li>Technological incompatibility (ie old iPod doesn't work with new iTunes)</li>
</ol>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-55054216673216877082014-05-16T02:29:00.000-07:002016-01-26T08:47:15.296-08:00Girl Archetypes in Entertainment by Sandra TurnerThe feminist essay "Construction of the Female Self: Feminist Readings of the Disney Heroine" explores the makeup of the female self as portrayed in Disney films. The writers demand that Disney create female characters that are driven out of their comfort zones and find their own unique voices. They demand that the female characters develop a "sense of self in a culture other than the dominant Anglo culture" with a destiny that is not simply that of "heterosexual romantic fulfillment". As with many of my critiques of feminist literature, I believe that these issues exist with all types of people; furthermore, I believe that everyone has the right to define their own persona even if it is one that is not typically acceptable for their gender/race/class etc.<br />
<br />
The essay purports that most classic Disney heroines are not very heroic; most needing to be rescued by a male love interest. The male characters typically have complex and numerous goals and aspirations; the female characters have a more simple goal of the "happy ending", which is typically marriage to the male. However, as "Construction of the Female Self" explores, Disney has been creating more complex and rewarding female characters in recent years. Even modern films have, however, fallen into the trap of creating narrow-minded, stereotypical characters. Although not a Disney film, "Brave" is a recent film that stars a young female heroine named Princess Merida. One of the complaints that I have personally heard is that she was rendered on film to be more pretty that she should have been. The character has complexity in that she defies a long standing (presumably male created) custom for the better of her kingdom. She must fight a curse with only her own physical prowess. However, the film studio still decided to make her into a fairly typical pretty girl (with red hair to mix it up).<br />
<br />
One of the key issues, I think, is the influence that Disney has on the perceptions of young girls and the general public. I do not think that Disney has any special ethical or social obligation when creating its female characters in its films. Disney has been creating more complex characters because that is what the viewing audience wants to see. Disney simply reflects the general consensus of what a female should be. "Construction of the Female Self" does not explore the general template used for character other than female heroines. I am sure that a study done into the other characters would show that even the male heroes follow a set pattern. Most of the males are interested in restoring order and finding a woman to marry. If it is demanded that film makers should create complex female characters, it should also be demanded of them to create complex male characters (and, I suppose, we should add in non-binary sex types too).<br />
<br />
Disney creates character archetypes that its young viewers see as models of people, behaviors and personalities. These archetypes are artificial reflections of reality. As a young girl I not only believed authentic the motivations of Disney heroines, I aspired to mimic their personalities and assimilate them into my persona. It is not, however, the case that all young girls will be greatly influenced by these characters. A young boy can choose to mimic the princess too. A young girl can choose to mimic the masculine hero. A feminine trait doesn't necessarily only appeal to females. The writers of "Construction of the Female Self" fear that girls will develop narrow-minded, Disney heroine ideologies; but I conclude that that is a narrow-minded fear. In society today, it is more acceptable for a girl to dress in a masculine manner (jeans, boots, shirts, short hair) than for a boy to dress in a feminine manner (long hair, make-up, skirts). This seems to suggest that young girls have the ability to adopt the personas of the male characters more easily than a young boy can adopt the personas of the female characters.<br />
<br />
Females had over many centuries of male domination lost power both economically and politically. For this power to be restored females must make an active attempt at reclaiming it, and one of the first steps is to regain confidence in their own individual selves. Disney, in this age of movie watching, has inadvertently been giving a key role in the development of the female psyche. Young girls watching the films see what they can do with life. With the recent improvements in the female construction, I believe that this internal power can be applied to all genders. Currently everyone is trapped inside an androcentric society, but I believe the age of gender roles is coming to a close, and the future is one where the individual defines his own character and role in society without gender bias. <br />
<br />
Sandra Turner<br />
Adopting masculine traits in Vernon, BC<br />
May 2014Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-49494232077337334012014-05-02T15:46:00.000-07:002016-01-26T08:41:34.552-08:00Confessions of a Canadian Torrent-User by Isaac Snow<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqMSRo5VFdCyDySb_xDldRK4mNBWY7a61zO-BfTBhF2M7KjyMJlYFgfph71UwiD7_PbSQny7grxnZxLJRXQQ9G4O-dfapIGPhh3MR2A1h5jx08eHH8kbKObHUtYC36DNXuBVsEmlOpr6w/s1600/1452545_10151668451081058_964901548_n.jpg" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , "lucida grande" , "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.359999656677246px;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , "lucida grande" , "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.359999656677246px;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , "lucida grande" , "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.359999656677246px;">
</span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"The Pirate Bay </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Universal access to human knowledge is in our grasp, for the first time in the history of the world. This is not a bad thing."</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In Canada we have little to fear about torrenting. In years of using peer-to-peer networks, I have had no issues with any legal matters, and I have yet to hear any personal accounts of personal issues concerning the legality of sharing copyrighted material. This essay seeks to understand the moral issues concerning digital piracy.<br />
<br />
The internet is a glorious place for sharing knowledge and accessing knowledge. Websites like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and even the better pages of Wikipedia allow people access to a wide range of topics that is only matched in good libraries. But purchasing a computer and getting an internet connection, or even simply having a shared computer, can be much more economically reasonable than building a library for people to go to. The City of Kelowna has three different libraries, including a huge one downtown. It even offers intra-library loans, where I can request to borrow a book from another library and the library will get it shipped to my location. I once ordered a book from Ontario... they shipped a book to me from over 3500 km away. Torrenting is like living right beside amazing library, like having a friend with an enormous record collection, like attending a school with advanced computer software.<br />
<br />
Torrenting is a specific method of sharing and duplicating media through the internet. Instead of shipping a book from Ontario I could go onto one of numerous websites and torrent an electronic version of the book. If the book is unrestricted, without copyrights, I could often go to a hosting site such a Project Gutenberg and receive a direct download. Torrenting is an alternative method from direct download in that it uses peers from around the world to download from and is the method often used to share copyrighted material that sites like Project Gutenberg would not host. A torrent tracker uses a specific code to receive information concerning a media file. It then proceeds to download the file from information hosted and sent from peers (other people around the world that have the torrent file and the media file). Essentially, the computer is creating a duplicate file of a file numerous people from around the world currently have.<br />
<br />
Pete Townshend of The Who fame, in a talk on torrenting, related pirating his music to going onto his property and stealing his daughters bicycle. This is irrational and a fallacy. Torrenting is not stealing because to steal is to take. In this case nothing is being lost; as a download I have not stolen his daughters bike, I have been given the blueprints and my computer recreated the bicycle. A torrent, in effect, creates a second bicycle. His daughter gets to keep hers, and now I can give my daughter one too. There is no theft as there is no object of thievery. Torrenting Townshend's rock music is illegal because it breaks his copyright on the music. A copyright is the the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. Because I have not received permission from Townshend I am illegally duplicating his music, but not stealing.<br />
<br />
This conflation of stealing and duplicating is perpetuated by the confusion that by torrenting you are 'stealing' by (possibly) taking away the potential that you would have purchased the media. I would have bought The Who's album but why bother? I just grabbed a digital copy for free! I put 'possibly' in brackets in the first statement because I could always go out and purchase the album after I've downloaded it. In fact, its quite possible that I would have never heard the album, or given it a chance until I downloaded it; this has a greater potential with lesser-known bands - which is probably why the main critics of torrenting are big name bands, people who take it for granted that they won the career lottery when they were able to create music for a living.<br />
<br />
Duplicating copyrighted media has always existed. However the computer age has complicated things. Computer media, in relation to traditional forms of media such as vinyl, fall under a different category of good due to its form. In standard economic terms, digital files are public goods being non-excludable (anyone can get it) and non-rivalrous (there is an unlimited quantity). Traditionally these media types have been private goods, excludable and rivalrous. Anti-torrentors, if they do not use the term, refer to the free-rider market failure when they claim that media will cease to be produced if torrenting becomes the norm.<br />
<br />
An obvious criticism of torrent sites is that the statement above, "Universal access to human knowledge is in our grasp, for the first time in the history of the world" is thoroughly misleading as Pirate Bay and the majority of torrent sites have a lack of educational material relative to the mass amounts of entertainment media on display. This however is no fault of the system but rather displays the interests of the users. If torrenting becomes a more popular thing we should expect to see an increase in educational material.<br />
<br />
One of my favourite comic strip sites <a href="http://thedoghousediaries.com/">The Dog House Diaries</a> operates under a "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License". Which means, as the website states, "you may share, copy, reprint, or publish [the] comics as long as you provide the source." I look forward to more creators using this method. Other creators operate under advertisements and donations for their income (<a href="http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/">The Partially Examined Life podcast</a>, <a href="http://redlettermedia.com/">Red Letter Media</a>, etc.) New funding techniques such as those employed by <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/">Kickstarter</a> enable creators to get the funding they need to create these projects. Often times, in the case of computer media creations, the funders simply get first dibs on the media and credit as producers.<br />
<br />
I look forward to the day where musicians and producers aren't paid millions for creating pop songs. True musicians will pursue their love without the promise of a well-paying career. And with modern recording technology creating a high quality album is possible on a budget. I look forward to the day when software is designed openly and programmers build upon each others work. The future is friendly, and one where people who work in entertainment and computer coding do so for the love of the craft and survive on charitable contributions and/or a second job.<br />
<br />
<b>Update June 12:</b><br />
<br />
Tesla Motors have removed their ownership of all their patents so anyone can use them.<br />
<br />
Taken from: <b>http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you</b> <br />
<br />
"When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a
good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good
long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress,
entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the
legal profession, rather than the actual inventors"<br />
<br />
This is the same attitude that I have long held towards all intellectual protection. The world would be better off without it. Creators will still create. Innovates will still innovate. And all will be more effective with the ability to access, to use, and to build on past creations.<br />
<br />
<b>Update June 21:</b><br />
<br />
Record labels are now claiming that legally purchases MP3's are too long-lasting and convenient to allow consumers to resell them. <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-used-mp3s-too-good-and-convenient-to-resell-140422/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29&utm_content=FeedBurner">Link</a>. So now the record companies don't even want us to have a product at all. When a consumer purchases a digital music file they are in reality simply purchasing the right to listen to the song. The consumer owns nothing. It would follow then that a 'pirate' is also 'stealing' nothing.<br />
<br />
Isaac Snow<br />
Busy working at his day job (and totally not duplicating copyrighted material) in Vernon, BC<br />
March 2014<br />
<br />Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-73428600261475805252014-04-18T02:38:00.000-07:002016-01-26T08:52:40.415-08:00TV as Mental Nourishment: It’s All in the Attitude by James ThumbSteven Johnson makes the daring assertion in his essay "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?_r=0">Watching TV Makes You Smarter</a>" an excerpt from his book <u>Everything Bad is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter</u> (2005) that TV is getting more intellectually challenging. According to him, modern TV now challenges the mind in ways similar to reading. He argues that even "trash" TV has improved over the years. If one compares the "trash" of today to that of thirty years ago, he asserts that current TV shows are more complex than older shows. TV has introduced more complex narratives, interweaving plot threads, and more complex character schematics. This complexity, he claims, makes TV watching a rewarding and mentally healthy activity. He further states that a parent should “encourage '24' over 'Law and Order'” for his or her child because 24 is a more intricate show. Johnson concludes that parents should judge their children's TV viewing not by the violent content or moral depravity but rather by the complexity of the show.<br />
<br />
I argue that TV watching is not mentally healthy solely because it is now more complicated. If TV watching is mentally healthy now then it would be true that it has always been. Intellectual stimulation can occur in all facets of life. The stimulus does not matter to the intellectual for the intellectual can sometimes gain more from the back of his or her eyelids than from a complex novel. Johnson makes a logical fallacy when he assumes that complexity will lead to mental nourishment. When it comes to TV watching it is not what you watch but how you watch. A parent cannot justify allowing his or her child to watch numerous hours of TV because the TV show is complex. I am not arguing here that TV is not complex and intricate. I am not comparing TV to literature as that would be comparing two completely different mediums of entertainment. TV can be mentally stimulating, but that is not because it has multiple plots and more subtle narratives. It is not because it has complex character networks or uses technological jargon. All media types can be compatible with learning and any TV show can be compatible with learning.<br />
<br />
Johnson is right that TV can be very content heavy but he overlooks a critical problem: TV takes more time to watch. One of the benefits of TV that Johnson points out is that often times the show will have plot lines that continue through numerous episodes. I am a fairly active viewer of the TV show Doctor Who. I've seen how that show has been able to combine a single plot each episode with a longer plot that typically gets started and resolved within a season, or about 12 episodes. The seasons themselves have plot lines that weave through. Often times a character that the viewer hasn't seen in quite a while will come into a new episode and deliver a critical plot development. I, as a viewer, enjoy this; it rewards me for my show loyalty. Johnson points out that TV is now often sold as anthology collections on DVD. I can now buy the last season of Doctor Who to watch again on my own time. Both of these developments, the long plot lines and the DVD sales, have clear economic incentives. TV producers make money off my now intense loyalty. Johnson critiques simple TV shows that follow a similar plot format every episode. But the beautiful thing about those simple shows is that the viewer does NOT have to watch every episode, or re-watch episodes. I can sit down and watch a single episode of, for example, “Friends” and enjoy it and then never watch another episode ever again. This is not possible with many modern TV shows; if I was to watch a single episode of “The West Wing” I would be lost and confused (I assume based on how complex Johnson says it is). Modern technology has given TV the economic incentive to become more complex, but it also demands consumers to be more loyal to their favorite shows. The viewer needs to balance his or her time watching TV with other activities. I have a friend who told me in great detail the overall theme of the works of Woody Allen. I’m a big fan of Allen’s movies and I was agreeing with my friend’s statements. It turns out he had only ever seen one of Allen’s movies, and only the first half of it! He had given it enough thought that he was able to discover Allen’s themes, recurring elements, characters, symbolisms, and so on . The viewer shouldn't have to spend hundreds of hours watching “Doctor Who” to get mental stimulation from it.<br />
<br />
Johnson assumes that viewers will exercise their minds due to the complexity of modern TV. I do not think this is a fair statement. Just because modern TV is harder to follow does not mean that the viewer will put more effort into the show. I am sure that there are a lot of very attentive and active viewers of TV but I am not alone when I say that I typically put on the TV to relax. TV gets turned on at the end of a long day of school or work, it’s a mental spa. The viewers that follow this behavior would be wrong to claim, in any way, that TV is making them smarter. It is up to the individual to participate in the story and to decide whether or not the TV is beneficial. The issue with children watching TV is in the hands of the parents. I would allow my child to watch Doctor Who with me, if afterwards we discussed the plot and the characters; thus proving that the child did pay attention and analyzed the content. It’s the discussion and the thought after the watching that makes the difference between being a passive TV slug and an intellectual mental live-wire.<br />
<br />
TV can be an intellectually stimulating activity, Johnson is correct in that regard. The viewer must still be cautious about the amount of time spent watching TV. The viewer should take action as to not become a modern day Don Quixote. By this I mean that even healthy activities, like reading or watching TV, can be harmful if they take up too much of your life. The viewer also needs to be a good judge of the amount of cognitive thought going in to the activities. Literature has an advantage in that regard, it’s much harder to sleep through a book than a TV show. In conclusion, TV watching is a nutritious activity if the viewer has the right attitude.<br />
<br />
<br />
James Thumb<br />
Watching smart people TV in Penticton, BC<br />
December 2013<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html?_r=0">Read Johnson's essay here</a>Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-47791439970122563822014-04-04T02:55:00.000-07:002014-04-04T02:55:00.509-07:00Positive and Negative Freedom, an Introduction by Isaac SnowThe classic notion of negative freedom comes from Hobbes and means that a person is free when he can do what he is able to do without human interference. Outer blocks that arise as a result of human arrangements take away this freedom. Isaiah Berlin uses Hobbe’s notion of freedom with some added elements to create a definition for negative freedom. He believes that there is more to freedom than Hobbe's freedom; for example, coercion, which is allowed under Hobbe's notion, is not compatible with Berlin's negative freedom.<br />
<br />
Berlin defines positive freedom as concerning the question, “what, or who, is the source of control or interference, that can determine someone to do, or be, one thing rather than another?”. Positive freedom only occurs when the individual takes control of his life and realizes his fundamental purpose. This definition of freedom actually allows for some restriction to negative freedom; for example, a child can be restrained from doing something that may hurt him by an adult assuming that the adult is helping the child to achieve his true will. The child is now acting the way he would if he were in full control of his mind and the scenario.<br />
<br />
Berlin believes that positive and negative freedoms are in direct conflict with each other. Positive freedom in Berlin’s sense can lead to external control being compatible with freedom. Freedom can be made to mean whatever the manipulator wishes. Society can be ruled in a totalitarian way based on the idea that a doctrine can be written that gives the power to the people in control to determine the way the individual should live his or her life. The interests of the individual, in this society, are no longer related to the individual but to the society as a whole; individuals are free in the positive sense if they are coerced into acting out these interests. Ultimately, what is best for the child in our example is defined by the parent.
<br />
<br />
The Canadian Philosopher Charles Taylor has a slightly different understanding of positive and negative freedom. He defines negative freedom as an opportunity concept of freedom; freedom is a matter of what we can do. He examines two countries, Albania and England, using negative freedom and comes to the disagreeable position that Albania is more free than England due to England's mass amount of traffic lights; thus concluding that negative freedom is an indefensible view of freedom. Alternatively, positive freedom contains an exercise concept; freedom includes the idea that one needs to be able to realize himself in his own way, thus the free man exercises control over his life.<br />
<br />
Taylor believes this later concept of freedom is superior because it allows the discrimination among motivations. Taylor's positive freedom also takes into account the fact that humans experience some desires and goals as intrinsically more significant than others; negative freedom does not allow for any notion of significance. A man is not free if he is motivated by fear, inauthentically internalized standards, or false consciousness, as these elements serve to thwart his self-realization. Taylor does not allow positive freedom to lead to justified totalitarianism because the individual is the final arbiter on his self-realization, and no rulers can define what is best for the individual.
<br />
<br />
In the end I believe that Taylor does have the stronger argument. I definitely believe that the notion of freedom is much more than simple external blocks. For example, I do not feel free if I am psychologically forced to fuel my drug addiction; even if I have plenty of money to afford it. I think that freedom can be compatible with governance. For example, The British Columbia Lottery Corporation offers a voluntary self-exclusion program. This program gives addicts an opportunity to restrict their own freedom of gambling. The man who joins this program willingly restricts his opportunity to go into casinos, but he gains freedom from his addiction. The man is more free than he was before. Ultimately, the concept of freedom needs to move away from the allowance of instinct into the allowance and drive towards self-realization. Defenders of negative freedom need to be more willing to adjust their views in order to take into account higher order desires, motivation, and significance. Freedom consists of the absence of external blocks caused by human intervention and the absence of internal mental blocks that prevent the man from realizing his potential.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
“There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail”</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
Erich Fromm</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Isaac Snow<br />
With the freedom to publish in Vernon, BC</div>
<div>
January, 2014<br />
<br />
<b>Further Reading:</b><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
The Stanford Encyclopedia has a nice article discussing these two types of freedom. I recommend reading it for a more thorough discussion than what is presented here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-19103196805553171292014-03-14T11:30:00.000-07:002016-01-26T08:52:00.556-08:00Homeless People and Empty Churches by Sandra Turner<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNlVeMwhVM008aLsiW3-udM-Z0Nq3ubbgnDuy9xqAZMwcGzZkX36LTfhT5Y3bZ072BgguJ5GxOcnx4f2b3qxJyOatTWvBycXdx2d7q1W37DHNyS0JfRb5qa8K7Jx-ELGfpGDvBjmL8yeA/s1600/575892_10150884076121058_1320575272_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNlVeMwhVM008aLsiW3-udM-Z0Nq3ubbgnDuy9xqAZMwcGzZkX36LTfhT5Y3bZ072BgguJ5GxOcnx4f2b3qxJyOatTWvBycXdx2d7q1W37DHNyS0JfRb5qa8K7Jx-ELGfpGDvBjmL8yeA/s1600/575892_10150884076121058_1320575272_n.jpg" width="278" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Painting by <a href="http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/05/comics-college-jason/">Jason</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
People sleeping out on the streets and numerous large empty buildings with crosses on them. This seems like an odd combination to have in a city. There are many <a href="http://www.kelownabc.com/churches/">churches in the Kelowna area</a> with large, open areas that seem suited to housing homeless during the night. Homeless shelters face <a href="http://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/234250841.html">high demand</a>, especially in the winter months. Churches should open their doors in times of high need. Churches could also work with local fire departments in times of evacuation to provide shelter to those affected.<br />
<br />
Of course simply allowing homeless people to sleep in churches won't work for many reasons.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Additional liability issues regarding housing people</li>
<li>Community issues regarding increased homeless populations, as any incentive will bring in homeless people from neighboring communities</li>
<li>Churches will need to acquire special permits to get legal permission</li>
<li>The users of the facilities could abuse the privilege in a number of ways including drug use and property damage</li>
<li>There would be an increased expense for the church to provide sleeping materials and heating during cold months</li>
<li>There is an incentive for non-homeless people in the community to use the facilities - for example, I may use the church instead of paying rent on my own place</li>
</ol>
<br />
Each one of these issues will need to be addressed before churches can open their doors.<br />
<br />
In the mean time there are other ways to address the issue of homelessness, such as raising money for organizations that provide shelter and other resources for the homeless.<br />
<br />
<div>
A local homeless shelter, Inn From the Cold, promotes fundraising programs such as <a href="http://innfromthecoldkelowna.org/events/push_registration.html">"Push to End Homelessness"</a>. In this event, well-to-do people organize teams that decorate shopping carts (probably not stolen) and race them through the city. Each team is expected to raise at least $1000, which supports one homeless person to go to the Inn from the Cold for one and a half months. This program seems to be just a fair bit patronizing to the people it is trying to help. It'd be like living in a trailer park and the rich guys down the street organize teams and decorate trailer homes and proceed to race them down a hill... and then give an organization a thousand dollars to help you buy groceries. Of course, no one presumed to get the involvement of the homeless.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi71Wo-fGBMO_wcVi4OZjO1QXtuLdu_f_6srB54KL4-0J_8-HYtl7Kn9_Bl0XEomt5mk6iFOxqlOf42IDEPGG2DoGNnjDP6_Xmj_GbrdN24a_F8wOlL_awFds1Y8WPrjCMkaSspHEYUxcE/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi71Wo-fGBMO_wcVi4OZjO1QXtuLdu_f_6srB54KL4-0J_8-HYtl7Kn9_Bl0XEomt5mk6iFOxqlOf42IDEPGG2DoGNnjDP6_Xmj_GbrdN24a_F8wOlL_awFds1Y8WPrjCMkaSspHEYUxcE/s1600/Untitled.png" style="cursor: move;" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">How pissed would you be, as a homeless man, watching these ladies run past you?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
I'd propose an event or activity that includes both well-to-do people and the homeless. There seems to be an arbitrary gap of association between the two groups of people. This event would have the goal of bridging this gap and creating communication between the groups.<br />
</div>
<div>
In the end, I believe members of the community should work together to help to worse off members. This help should not simply be voluntary donations or even non-voluntary taxes (and subsequent government spending on the issues), but rather it should be addressed in a personal manner. By engaging with homeless people in a personal matter we can discover the true causes of their situation and be better able to help them instead of simply throwing money at the matter and buying them a month out of the rain here and there.<br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">"Broadly,
homelessness is viewed as either the result of individual choices
and/or a poor work ethic, or as a symptom of, or response to more
complex social problems." Research Starters Sociology, 2009</span> <br />
<br /></div>
Sandra Turner<br />
Writing from her home in Penticton, BC<br />
June 2014</div>
Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-35532623531093095002014-02-14T03:02:00.000-08:002014-09-23T21:30:11.940-07:00Ethics: A Possible Origin by Samuel BuckerEthics and morality are rules or guides on what is right or wrong; good or bad. In this essay I would like to examine the origin of the dominant morality in our society today.<br />
<br />
Morality is a type of ideology that is developed over time since birth and comes from a variety of sources including parents and society (teachers, friends, the media). As such, it is not a concrete concept; it changes over time and varies between different cultures and societies. For example, even within Canada some believe it is immoral to have extra-marital sex, and other believe that this kind of activity is perfectly fine. Anyone that has studied history knows that morality changes over time, and anyone that has traveled extensively knows that it changes between cultures. Morality is not law, although some laws do reflect the dominant morality of the society it governs. Morality is defined by the society that you associate with. If you are a church goer church will form a major basis of your morality. Your career, the friends you associate with, and any other influence you allow forms your morality. Morality as such appeals to no logical system, it just simply exists and can provide illegitimate reasons for action or inaction.<br />
<br />
Ethics, to make a distinction from morality, is something that should be more applicable throughout various times and societies; it takes the form of a system. Ethics appeals to some sort of logic; an explanation of its reasoning. An example of an ethical system is utilitarianism, which states that which is acceptable is that which provides the most good for the defined society. These broad-form systems often do not provide a practical guide in everyday life; no one is expected to measure the impact of each of their actions throughout the day. Another system of ethics is to determine the best action by reference to a 'rule-book'. The most obvious example in our society is the Bible. This is also unsatisfactory because there are situations that are not covered at all by the Bible, and people can interpret the Bible differently. Our dominant morality originates from appeals to ethical systems and cultural tradition.<br />
<br />
One theory on ethics is that ethics is sourced from biological desire mixed with intellectual evaluation. To illustrate what I mean by this let us imagine a single agent: A man alone with himself trapped on an island. The man may have numerous desires but foremost in his mind right now are fatigue and hunger. It would be considered 'good' if he were able to satisfy any of these desires, but his intelligence will tell him that he should post-pone rest in order to catch a rabbit because he knows that if he sleeps now he may starve to death (Russell, 1927). We see this kind of dominance of desire take place between two agents as well, I may very well want to murder a man but society has a stronger desire to have me not commit murder. The origin of ethics is in this internal as well as external judgement. The external judgement, over time, is internalized by the original agent. I believe that it is unethical to commit murder because my society has convinced me it is.<br />
<br />
This brings the discussion back around to the legitimacy of morality. The original ethics was sensible, but morals are extraneous and possibly destructive. A young man has the desire to have sex, and decides that this desire can be overcome by masturbation. But, if the young man is a Christian he has been taught that masturbation is "immoral" and he internalizes this opinion and it factors into his internal evaluation of desire. Thus, when our young man does decide to masturbate he can not help but feel 'bad' about his actions.<br />
<br />
So where do these seemingly irrational moral values, such as the "no-no" to masturbation, come from? A possible answer is that these values are illegitimate; they have been implanted in our social consciousness as a form of control. Nietzsche's analogy of the lambs and eagles could help to support this hypothesis:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
…That lambs bear ill-will towards large birds of prey is hardly strange: but in itself no reason to blame large birds of prey for making off with little lambs. And if the lambs say among themselves ‘These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is as little of a bird of prey as possible, indeed, rather the opposite, a lamb – should he not be said to be good?’, then there can be no objection to setting up an ideal like this, even if the birds of prey might look down on it a little contemptuously and perhaps say to themselves: ‘We bear them no ill-will at all, these good lambs – indeed, we love them: there is nothing tastier than a tender lamb.’ To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a will to overcome, overthrow, dominate, a thirst for enemies and resistance and triumph, makes as little sense as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength.</blockquote>
In this analogy the lambs want to assimilate the birds of prey into their ideology and to take control of their actions by denoting them as 'evil'. Once the birds of prey accept that their actions are evil, when they internalize the judgment, they will either cease to commit the actions and become lambs or despair in their inability to. This type of morality argues that birds of prey can become lambs and blames the birds of prey for failing to do so. In our on-going example, the man is wrongly told that masturbation is bad, and then is further demonized for his inability to curb his sexual desire. The judged person could, however, be more like the contemptuous bird of prey who refuses to admit the legitimacy of the lambs' claim.<br />
<br />
We should govern our actions by listening to our higher order desires (the one that tells us to put off sleep to chase that rabbit), which requires dedication and self-control. Society restricts our actions by putting in laws that reflect its higher order desires; which is, hopefully, to increase the welfare of its people. Unfortunately, often one of our higher order desires is to simply fit in to society and have social relations; unfortunate because it often requires conforming to pre-existing moral values that may interfere with our other desires, such as the religious boy who desires to follow his church and fulfill his sexual desires. The bird of prey, with all of his strengths, will be forced to not express them and assimilate into society.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
Samuel Bucker<br />
Reconsidering his values in Kelowna, BC<br />
April 2014<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
References</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Bertrand Russell, Outline of Philosophy<br />
Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-85980734849718984122014-01-31T01:44:00.000-08:002016-01-26T08:49:35.343-08:00A Little Chat on Feminism and Democracy by Sandra TurnerDemocracy started in ancient Greece where it was able to thrive due to a homogeneous voting public and a small population. In modern times, with larger populations, democracy as it is traditionally known – that is, the rule of the people – needs to be redefined. Direct rule is not possible in large populations so representative governments have been designed. A representative government seeks to allow every person voting rights. The people rule not by gathering and devising policies but by electing a controlling policy. What representative government really is is hard to pin-point. Many philosophers have different interpretations of it. What decision criteria one must use when voting is also hard to agree on, and it can be assumed that in practice different people use different criteria. However, even in theory its hard to elect a governing principle. Many of the varying opinions on the subject of feminism may stem from differing views on the function of government. In my opinion, government should be put in place to benefit society in general.<br />
<br />
There are also disputes on why democracy is even the standard political framework at all. Typical justification theories point to the fact that democracy helps to distribute political power and maximizes the satisfaction of the voters’ desire. This theory leaves out a critical question though, namely, how desirable are these goals? Susan Mendus, a feminist philosopher, does not believe that it concludes in just laws and policies for everyone, especially not for women. A good system would allow each different class to have equal voting power. Representative states should not allow various sectional interests to become influential enough to defeat truth and justice and other sectional interests. There is a fear that the “rulers” will try to benefit a certain class due to the ruler’s own selfish interests. In the original democracy the voting population was mostly male and similar in biological factors. In the modern conception of democracy the voting public has much more heterogeneity. Some contemporary philosophers see no trouble with this heterogeneity. This is because they believe that democracy sways in the favor of popular rule and that can be held even if a portion of the population differs from the representatives.<br />
<br />
Susan Mendus is saying that equality should not be about removing the differences among people but rather to embrace the differences. She is also saying that differences should not be perceived as disadvantages. One of the issues present is that the democracy of the past, the rule of the people of the past, has been dominated by men. Legislation, building on itself, has left woman at a natural disadvantage. The enacted functioning of society is created by legislation passed and culture built on the past. Mendus fears that ignoring differences at the inclusion level may lead to minimizing differences when forming social policies. The world is predisposed to male needs and male capabilities. Women are at a disadvantage due to some of the gender’s biological differences from men. Woman are being held to a standard that is male-orientated. Differences in individuals are typically explained in terms of differences in social and economic power. Feminists argue that women are different in more ways than just that; they are different because they have been excluded historically from being citizens.<br />
<br />
Mendus points out that some differences can never be removed. Some differences, such as the lack of social and economic power can be but differences such as the differences that arise from the biological differences inherent in gender can never be removed. So even if there is a desire for society to have a homogeneous population it is not possible under the modern conception of democracy. Mendus seeks to render these differences to make them compatible with equality. Mendus does not seek a world where woman are considered equal because they are no longer different. Woman should not need to accept and adopt masculine values. The second part of Mendus’ statement concerns the assimilation of females into male values. She does not like the idea that society should ‘assist’ women.<br />
<br />
Many ideologies of perfect states presented in the past, in the form of hypothetical “utopias” such as Moore’s Utopia and Plato’s Republic have missed a key point; that is, society needs to accept and embrace diversity (also, they all seem very dull to live in). The ruling theory must also be designed to progress and not be a static state. Society is not made up of indistinguishable individuals. I believe that there is an intrinsic value to differences. One fear (of many) that I had with Plato’s utopia was that it allowed no room for creativity, no room for individual expression, no room for progress. Diversity, I believe, helps create progress and progress leads to a better world.<br />
<br />
Democracy, if it does in fact discriminate negatively against differences, will eventually cause assimilation and reduce diversity. One of the key ways that business people get ideas for products is to hold focus groups and conduct interviews in that manner. The key benefit of this process is that numerous ideas come up and participants can bounce ideas off of each other. The main concern that focus group conductors have is a concept known as “group-think”, wherein the participants cling to the loudest member of the group or contrasting viewpoints are not brought up as outside participants assimilate to the majority. Democracy could potentially run the risk of causing a similar thing to happen on a grand scale.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, equality should not mean to remove the differences among individuals. A difference should not be considered a disadvantage, as people should not be held up to standards that do not reflect their own capabilities. A pregnant woman should not be seen in the same light as a sick man. Women, and other groups that are different from the “norm”, should not be compared to the “norm”. Society should be shaped in such a way that differences are not disadvantages. Historical progress has shaped modern democratic society into one with a male-centric atmosphere, and current democratic theory will not allow this to change with the simple inclusion of women as full-fledged citizens. More drastic and pro-active measures may be needed in order to change society to one that embraces differences and diversity.<br />
<br />
However, and this is a big 'however', it escapes me why Mendus decides on the bi-gender split and only shoe-horns in other groups that are not in the norm (males, in her opinion). Even considering the dominant group there exists numerous critical divergences in opinion as to social choices - not all men want the same thing. First-wave feminism fought for the right to vote, a noble cause, and second-wave feminism fought for equal opportunity in the work force and the end to legal sexual discrimination. Modern feminism has no unifying goal, unless the goal is to bring these measures to countries that do not yet have them. It runs the risk of swinging the pendulum in favour of females. For example, one of the goals that has been brought forward for feminism is to reclaim certain words, such as bitch. I guess my husband can start calling himself an asshole, or a dickhead when he's being stubborn or mean, and its fine because he's 'reclaimed' the word to empower himself. A new protest popped up recently called the "SlutWalk" in response to a comment a police officer in Toronto made, "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." Apparently its a world-wide phenomenon for women to dress up as "sluts" and go for a walk to reclaim the ability to wear what ever they want. It is my interpretation that the police officer made a fatal mistake of terminology, but he may have been giving sensible advice: Don't dress seductively while walking in a dangerous area. Once again, that's not the final solution it is a preventative measure to be used while society attempts to reduce rape.<br />
<br />
I feel that, ultimately, it all falls flat, and the assistance that Mendus wants to not need will have to remain for many of the demographics that fall out of the norm. I created the analogy that women are like cars, and men are like trucks, with society being the rules of the road. Currently, the rules favor trucks, and the pavement is designed for trucks. But even after we make roads that are suitable for both vehicle types we still have to consider whether the road we go down, the destination, is even desirable. Whether society is able to provide us with a meaningful existence or not is a topic for another, broader, and longer discussion.<br />
<div>
<br />
Sandra Turner<br />
Assimilating bras in Penticton, BC<br />
March, 2014<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/about/why">http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/about/why</a></div>
Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-45217789670560138742014-01-17T01:55:00.000-08:002014-09-23T21:30:36.631-07:00Societal Acceptance of Surveillance by Andrew AnsonThe surveillance age is upon us, and it has been rising steadily with the progress of technique and technology. Privacy can now be removed in areas once thought to be secure, such as telephones. For example, in the past a government would be considered totalitarian if it were to monitor letters sent in the mail; now it appears to be completely acceptable, and economically feasible, for a government to monitor our phone conversations. And this is happening in some places, if not here in Canada; for example, the U.S. government has been surveilling its citizen’s phone records since it enacted the USA PATRIOT Act back in October 2001(Cassata, 2013). Technology has enabled the economic feasibility of mass surveillance and societal acceptance of surveillance is leading to a state of law where governments are able to monitor its citizens. Laws are often defined by the collective rules of society dictating what is right or wrong; these ‘rules’ are referred to as societal norms. When frame-working a practical way to defend privacy in a legal manner we must analyze societal norms; if people in the aggregate demand privacy this demand will be reflected in law. Culture and its norms are derived from an accumulation of shared messages, rituals, and traditions; all of which can be influenced by mass media such as Reality TV (Hofstede, 2001). Reality TV includes such popular shows as Survivor and Big Brother. Currently, society still has the choice to defend its privacy but it must still believe in privacy’s importance. ‘Reality TV’ with its negligent attitude towards surveillance is having an impact on the Canadian attitude towards privacy.<b> If surveillance becomes a socially acceptable practice privacy will be lost. We must begin to appreciate the value of privacy and have that value be reflected in new anti-surveillance law.</b><br />
<br />
<b>The Value of Privacy</b><br />
<br />
The common argument for surveillance is that it provides greater safety for people, as was the justification for the USA PATRIOT Act. Surveillance effectively reduces privacy; so in the argument against surveillance it is important to justify the value of privacy. I believe that it can be shown that the benefits of privacy outweigh the costs of increased risk. Governments and private corporations have a bias to defend surveillance because it provides valuable information for them.<br />
<br />
Jeremy Bentham noted the power of surveillance; he introduced the concept of mass surveillance as the “panoptic gaze”. Bentham stated that mass surveillance; the type of surveillance being realized now, is capable of giving its user “power of mind over mind.” This means that the observer can have a drastic influence in the lives of the observed (Bentham, 1995). Surveillance is an essential part of discipline. Michel Foucault discusses "disciplinary power" which is a form of surveillance which is internalized. The goal of disciplinary power is to produce a person who disciplines himself and eventually becomes docile. <b>A person under surveillance necessarily governs himself in order to avoid punishment. This self governance internalizes the values of the watcher and is ultimately a form of coercion.</b><br />
<br />
A common misconception concerning surveillance is captured in the phrase “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about”" (Cassata, 2013). It was spoken just recently by the American Senator Lindsay Graham concerning the phone surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA), an agency of the United States Department of Defense. Graham stated, “If you're not getting a call from a terrorist organization, you've got nothing to worry about". This is an illogical excuse to dismiss privacy concerns for two reasons. Firstly, it does not take into account the problem of administrative information error. This type of information error made up the narrative hook of the popular movie Brazil (1985) wherein a small typographical error led to the imprisonment of a man named Buttle, instead of a man named Tuttle. This type of error is certainly not reserved to fiction. Secondly, the statement does not allow for the progress of law and social acceptance. In a world of no privacy, power of autonomy is lost; the individual is no longer able to make illegal decisions. And often times illegal activities become legal through common adoption and acceptance, such as laws prohibiting homosexuality. In a world where people are not able to practice illegal activities prohibition laws will remain for longer. Under constant surveillance, people will fear to challenge the law. There is no freedom without the freedom to fail.<br />
<br />
A recent article, published by UK News, demonstrates that the technology to conduct an economically feasible type of panoptic surveillance is not reserved for science fiction; the European Union is developing a program that can hunt the internet and CCTV images for abnormal behavior. An example of the application appears in the article: a fight at a shopping mall can be stopped before it even begins if the program can identify the behavior that occurs before a fight, such as arguing and pushing. The program will alert security who will go to the area of the fight and possibly prevent it from taking place (Johnston, 2009). I believe that having autonomy is more important than potentially stopping fights. People sacrifice safety for other goods in everyday situations. For example, people drive cars at 60km an hour instead of a safer speed of 20km an hour because they value the benefits of speed over the potential benefit of increased safety. When it comes to surveillance, the government claims that it is protecting its citizens, as is the case with the US government and the NSA incident; yet, the value of privacy for millions of those citizens is more valuable than (potentially) saving the lives of a very few. With this logic of safety over privacy a government could justify putting cameras in private homes to prevent domestic violence. Furthermore, people often do legal activities that would result in embarrassment, or some other harm, if observed by a third party. For example, activities such as watching pornography are acceptable by legal standards, but they are often not acceptable by certain social standards. A person will, presumably, refrain from an activity that they would otherwise enjoy, such as watching pornography, if the person had knowledge (or even suspected) that he or she was being watched. An environment observed by a panoptic gaze lacks basic human freedom of autonomy. A free citizen should not live in a prison environment. The restriction of autonomy becomes even more alarming when discussing basic democratic rights. In a society oppressed by surveillance basic political functions are jeopardized as ruling powers can use the panoptic gaze to control the votes of its citizens (Johnson, 2008). Privacy is also an important factor in the control of personal information giving. Some argue that personal information control is integral to the definition of interpersonal relationships (Rachels, 1975). In conclusion, the importance of privacy should not be overlooked.<br />
<br />
<b>The Impact of Media on the Societal Norms that Concern Privacy</b><br />
<br />
Television is a system of storytelling which bring images and messages into the home; these stories help build a shared national culture. These television programs, in the aggregate, build long-term exposure to a system of messages that ultimately cultivate “stable and common conceptions of reality”(Gerbner, 2002). Reality TV, with shows such as Big Brother, displays a ‘reality’ of being constantly watched, which will lead to a society that accepts surveillance as a norm. Steven Reiss states “the message of reality television is that ordinary people can become so important that millions will watch them. And the secret thrill of many of those viewers is the thought that perhaps next time the new celebrities might be them”(Reiss, 2001). In summary, Reality TV glorifies that act of being watched.<br />
<br />
Other factors have been at work in the creation of a culture that is accepting of surveillance. These alternate factors generally focus on fear based rationales. The most important component of fear-based surveillance acceptance occurred with the World Trade Center attacks in September 2001. These attacks created an atmosphere of fear where the culture accepted the notion of safety over privacy (Pyszczynski, 2003). The brilliance of the Reality TV influence on this cultural shift is that it does not rely on fear-based stimuli. Reality TV is creating a culture where people enjoy being watched, as can be demonstrated with the recent popularity of random webcam based chat websites such as Chatroulette (Koskela, 2003) (Braiker, 2010).<br />
<br />
<b>The Protection of Privacy</b><br />
<br />
Many people heavily fought against the introduction of closed circuit television surveillance technology. The new forms of surveillance that are more effective, subtle, and economically feasible, appear to have had less opposition. It seems that even with people that remain against surveillance the fight for privacy has become fatiguing. A recent leak from NSA reveals the mass amount of private information collected by the US government (Greenwald, 2013). The average person feels hopeless in the goal of remaining anonymous (Duncan, 2011). Users of smart phones often allow applications to track them (apparently even the app for Dictionary.com wants to have access to your location) (Cohen, 2010). And online it is seemingly impossible to remain anonymous for the non-technical user. Even shopping stores gather personal information with loyalty cards, and the practice is getting increasingly popular.<br />
<br />
There are, however, steps that people can take to protect their privacy and websites that will help you, as a user, measure your privacy protection (Hasemi, 2012) (Purdy, 2010). The consumer through demand channels can accomplish privacy protection with concern to corporations. For example, one can stop using the Google search engine and opt for a search engine with a no-track policy such as the Duck Duck Go search engine. If the consumer market demands privacy businesses will provide those options in the search for profit. Protection from government intervention is more difficult but not impossible. A recent article published by The Globe and Mail outlines some reasonable actions to promote a more private political landscape (Foust, 2013). A significant number of voting citizens can elect a government with strict privacy policies. If society acknowledges the value of privacy, it can begin to fight for its protection.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
Back in Bentham’s age to lack privacy was to lack a room of one’s own; now privacy can be removed even within areas once thought to be secure. The impact of surveillance is already being felt: in modern cities most public and semi-public areas are monitored by CCTV. You can’t pick your nose without feeling self-conscious. Reality TV pushes an acceptance of surveillance; it makes surveillance seem fun and exciting. But being observed has negative consequences. The panoptic gaze of both corporations and government accomplished through the use of modern surveillance technology restrains individual decision making and autonomy. Society has two options: it can accept being watched as a social norm or it can take an active stance against being watched. We cannot rely on any supposed “right to privacy” to protect us, but by taking an active stance the voting population of society can vote for policies that restrict surveillance and create laws that protect privacy. If surveillance becomes a social norm, privacy will disappear completely. Society today has a duty to prevent surveillance for itself and for following generations of people.<br />
<br />
Recent events have shown that certain members of society still care about its privacy. For example, Edward Snowden, the man behind the NSA leak, cared enough for Society’s privacy to ruin his career, and possibly his entire life, to expose the mass amounts of surveillance the NSA does. But, the fight for privacy cannot be accomplished by the actions of individuals. The fight for privacy must have Society’s full support.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hell is other people - Sartre</blockquote>
<br />
Andrew Anson<br />
Being monitored in Kelowna, BC<br />
July 2013<br />
<br />
<div id="123" style="display: none;">
References<br />
Bentham, J., (1995). The Panopticon Writings. Ed. Miran Bozovic London: Verso. 29-95<br />
<br />
Braiker, B. (2010). Chatroulette: talking to strangers is cheap and often racy. ABC News. Retrieved <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>from:http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/chatroulette-talking-strangers-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>internet/story?id=9822879#.UbY8Cue1HTo<br />
<br />
Cassata, D. & Benac, N. (2013). U.S. government sweep of millions of citizens’ phone records ignites fresh debate <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>over surveillance. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-government-sweep-of-millions-of-citizens-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>phone-records-ignites-fresh-debate-over-surveillance/article12397464/<br />
<br />
Cohen, A. (2010). What you cell phone could be telling the government. Time USA. Retrieved from: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2019239,00.html<br />
<br />
Duncan, G. (2011). UAE a new frontier for growth of loyalty cards. The National. Retrieved from: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/the-life/uae-a-new-frontier-for-growth-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>of-loyalty-cards<br />
<br />
Foust, J. (2013). With NSA’s internet surveillance, we Americans got what we asked for – unfortunately. The <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/with-nsas-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>internet-surveillance-we-americans-got-what-we-asked-for-unfortunately/article12414399/<br />
<br />
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Shanahan J. (2002). Growing Up with Television: Cultivation Process. In <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (p. 43)<br />
<br />
Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E. (2013). NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others. The <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data<br />
<br />
Hashemi, M., & Malek, M. (2012). Protecting Location Privacy in Mobile Geoservices Using Fuzzy Inference Systems.<br />
<br />
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 5-9.<br />
<br />
Rachels, J. (1975). Why privacy is important. In Philosophy and Public Affairs. 4 (4) pp. 323-333.<br />
<br />
Johnson, D. (2008). Information and the world wide web. In Computer ethics. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Saddles, NJ.<br />
<br />
Johnston, I. (2009). EU funding ‘Orwellian’ artificial intelligence plan monitor public for “abnormal behavior”. <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html<br />
<br />
Koskela, H. (2003). ‘Cam Era’ – The Contemporary Urban Panopticon. Retrieved from http://www.surveillance-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>and-society.org/articles1(3)/camera.pdf<br />
<br />
Purdy, K. (2010). Panopticlick shows how easy your browser is to track. LifeHacker. Retrieved from: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>http://lifehacker.com/5458513/panopticlick-shows-how-easy-your-browser-is-to-track<br />
<br />
Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror. American <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Psychological Association. Washington, DC<br />
<br />
Reiss, S. (2001). Why America loves reality tv. Psychology Today. Retrieved from: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv<br />
<br /></div>
<button onclick="if(document.getElementById('123') .style.display=='none') {document.getElementById('123') .style.display=''}else{document.getElementById('123') .style.display='none'}" title="Click to show/hide content" type="button">Show me the references!!!</button>Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-73078360433768684132014-01-03T02:29:00.000-08:002016-01-26T08:39:52.766-08:00Report the Facts: Late-Victorian Criminology in The Hound of the Baskervilles by Thomas TomasThis was an essay I originally did for a literature class I took as an elective in college. As the title states, it concerns the novel The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I didn't really enjoy reading... I have however in the past few years developed a fondness for the Victorian age, I think because of Alan Moore's From Hell which partially examines their dated criminology tactics (I should do an essay on that book instead...) Anyways, this is the essay, I hope you enjoy it.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Report the Facts: Late-Victorian Criminology in The Hound of the Baskervilles</b></div>
<b><br /></b>
Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles illuminates the Victorian-age constructions of criminology through its characters’ actions and character archetypes. In the Victorian age great emphasis was placed on the physical traits of a person; some criminologists, such as Cesare Lombroso – who had an influence on British criminology, believed a criminal could be detected through the use of physical analysis (Sabbatini, see works cited at bottom). In the novel, Mortimer is a phrenologist and believes he can detect character traits by observing the construction of one’s skull. The two criminals in the story are the escaped convict Selden and the disgraced Baskerville Jack Stapleton. These two characters are of different criminal types. Selden represents the typical degenerate criminal of the time, while Stapleton represents the intelligent, hidden criminal. The characters in Doyle’s The Hound are often misled by their misconceptions of criminal detection while Sherlock Holmes rejects certain constructs of criminology and uses his rationality and theories of deduction to detect the true criminal.<br />
<br />
Watson, the primary narrator of the story, is affected by the tale of the curse of the Baskerville Hound and is more willing to accept a supernatural explanation than is Holmes. In the opening chapter of The Hound Holmes is able to observe Watson examine Mortimer’s walking stick while looking the other way by the use of a “well-polished, silver-plated coffee-pot” that mirrors Watson’s actions. Yet, Watson is initially confused by Holmes’s observation, and claims, albeit in a jesting manner, “I believe you have eyes in the back of your head” . This quip shows the potential of Watson to examine the supernatural in order to explain a scenario instead of trying to discover the rational way that Holmes was able to observe him; Watson leaps into an irrational explanation. This incident foreshadows Watson’s fear of the Hound of the Baskervilles curse and Holmes’s disregard of the supernatural elements of the story. Holmes’s true interest in the curse lies in the effect and power that it has over others and how it can be used in a criminal way – such as Stapleton does use it. Holmes claims that they “are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses [to explain Sir Charles Baskerville’s death] before falling back upon [the supernatural explanation]”. Holmes is able to investigate past the curse and into the true cause of the crime.<br />
<br />
Mortimer’s interest in phrenology is quickly ridiculed by both Watson and Holmes. Supporters of phrenology, a theory of the brain, purport that the shape of the skull reveals character traits. The practice of phrenology had diminished in popularity in Britain in the 1850s (Wyhe). Holmes is unwilling to use physical character traits to detect a criminal – he is more interested in looking for incriminating evidence, not faulty evidence of criminal potential. In Holmes’s mind everyone has the potential to be a criminal, to Mortimer’s chagrin. Mortimer; a writer: papers include such works as ‘Is Disease a Reversion?’ and ‘Some Freaks of Atavism’, is portrayed in the first chapter as a “strange visitor” and Holmes disregards Mortimer’s observations of his skull. Mortimer’s hobby is ridiculed further when Watson uses Mortimer’s obsession of craniology to distract Mortimer from his interrogation of the reason of their journey to Coombe Tracey. This ridicule of Mortimer and his phrenology, an element of criminal detection through the analysis of physical features, represents another element of Doyle’s critique on the popular criminal anthropology of the Victorian age. Holmes recognizes that Mortimer is “an enthusiast in [his] line of thought”, as Holmes is in his, only Holmes obviously believes that his “line of thought” is more effective at detecting and apprehending criminals.<br />
<br />
Late-Victorians put great emphasis on the physical traits of a criminal. In the context of The Hound, Jack Stapleton is viewed with less suspicion than other potential suspects by Watson due to his intellectual pursuits and well-being. In Stapleton’s entrance in the novel Watson describes him as a “small, slim, clean-shaven, prim-faced man, flaxen-haired and leanjawed”. Selden, in direct contrast to Stapleton, is described in beast-like, degenerate terms: Watson states that Selden has an “evil yellow face, a terrible animal face, all seamed and scored with vile passions”. Watson allows a false correlation between a person’s appearance and his or her criminal intent to bias his investigation. The elements of being a gentleman by the Late-Victorians included social class and occupation as well as a strong moral code (Cody). By being perceived as a gentleman, Stapleton is assumed to be moral person further misleading both Watson and the Late-Victorian readers of Doyle’s novel. Doyle further examines his reader's bias by using Barrymore, a man of lesser social status than Stapleton, as a red-herring.<br />
<br />
In the climax of the novel Sherlock Holmes discovers a portrait of the “wild, profane, godless” Hugo Baskerville that reveals a striking resemblance to Jack Stapleton. This similarity alludes to the idea that not only did Hugo’s physical features reappear in Stapleton, but also his character traits. The idea of an evolutionary throw-back of Jack Stapleton to Hugo Baskerville is another element of Victorian criminal anthropology: that some people are criminals by hereditary elements and that criminal behaviour is an evolutionary diminishment of man. Holmes is not interested, however, in the potential of Stapleton being a hereditary criminal, he is interested in establishing that Stapleton, being a Baskerville himself, has motivation to eliminate the remaining Baskervilles and inherit the estate.<br />
<br />
In Lombroso’s theory a criminal like Selden is viewed as an evolutionary mistake. Yet Selden’s sister, the wife of Barrymore, claims that Selden’s becoming a criminal was a product of the way that he was raised and the influence of his social interactions. She says “[w]e humoured him too much when he was a lad” and then Selden “met wicked companions, and the devil entered into him”. Mrs. Barrymore herself claims that she is “an honest Christian woman” and there is no criminal history hinted at in Selden’s family’s past. This explanation of Selden’s criminality is in direct opposition to Lombroso’s atavistic criminal theories and hints at the theories concerning environmental factors in criminal development.<br />
<br />
Victorian criminology used invalid techniques such as phrenology and held a bias based in false-correlations between criminal activity and social status, or lack thereof. Doyle, in Holmes, helps to illuminate modern techniques. Holmes avoids prejudiced assumptions concerning a suspect’s appearance and instead relies on the development of probable hypotheses and indications of a suspect’s involvement in a crime. He uses the portrait of Hugo Baskerville not to prove that Jack Stapleton is an atavistic return to the character traits of Hugo but to help support his hypothesis that Stapleton has probable motivation to kill Sir Charles and Henry Baskerville in order to inherit the wealthy estate. Holmes is able to look beneath the surface of the suspects, rely on the facts of the case, and solve the crime.<br />
<br />
Thomas Tomas<br />
Telegram from Kelowna, BC<br />
February, 2014<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Works Cited</b></div>
The Victorianweb.org is a really good source for lots of information on the Victorian age. The novel can easily be found online.<br />
<br />
Cody, David. “The Gentleman” Victorian Web, 2011. Web. 23 July 2013. <http://www.victorianweb.org/history/gentleman.html><br />
<br />
Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Hound of the Baskervilles. Toronto: Random House, 2002. Print.<br />
<br />
Sabbatini, Renato. “Cesare Lombroso: A Brief Biography”. 2000. Web. 25 July 2013. <http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n01/frenolog/lombroso.htm><br />
<br />
Wyhe, John van. " The History of Phrenology." Victorian Web, 2000. Web. 23 July 2013. <http://www.victorianweb.org/science/phrenology/intro.html>.Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-33375585650067378352013-12-20T16:04:00.000-08:002016-01-26T08:38:22.950-08:00The Massacre of History and its Consequences: Historical Accuracy in Guy Vanderhaeghe’s The Englishman’s Boy<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Massacre of History and its Consequences: </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Historical Accuracy in Guy Vanderhaeghe’s The Englishman’s Boy</b></div>
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Guy Vanderhaeghe’s The Englishman’s Boy explores elements of truth and deception in the telling of history. Damon Chance, a film producer, attempts to create an American film masterpiece by retelling Shorty McAdoo’s experience of his involvement in the Cypress Hills Massacre. McAdoo and Vincent retell and manipulate the story in numerous ways before Chance ultimately rearranges the story completely. Chance deceives Vincent into believing that his intentions are to create an accurate portrayal of McAdoo’s story on film, but he eventually makes clear that he is uncaring about accurately recreating the history. Chance believes that the most significant aspect of the film is to capture the spirit of McAdoo and to advance his ideologies. Each retelling of a historical event affects the story as it contracts the teller’s unconscious bias and intentional manipulation. The medium places limitations on how the story can be portrayed. However, tellers of history have a responsibility to avoid, wherever possible, extreme bias and intentional misrepresentation of the parties involved as shared stories have a significant effect on society’s values.<br />
<br />
Whether truth is something that can be objectively proved or even achieved is an important issue when discussing the accuracy of written (or filmed) history. Statements concerning the past, such as historical events and stories, lack the ability to be proven by empirical evidence; at least they lack enough evidence to prove beyond a doubt that the stories are an accurate representation of the truth. Historians can analyze the stories, compare them to the evidence available, and rely on the probability of their occurrence.<br />
<br />
The inability to prove historical truth shifts the study of history away from the pursuit of absolute certainty into the realm of probabilities. Historians are able to gather information from texts based on the probability of the texts being factual. For example, a historian could investigate the existence of Solomon by relying on The Bible, but it would be improper for a historian to prove the existence of the Homeric gods by studying The Odyssey; nevertheless, a historian could use The Odyssey to learn about ancient Greece. Any theories based on knowledge gathered from these texts should be supported by other works considered factual and physical evidence, such as archeological digs in the locality where archeologists consider Ancient Troy to be.<br />
<br />
Storytellers and historians use words and sentence structure to convey information about the past, but whether the medium of speech and literature is capable of presenting truth is questionable. The viewer of the incident in question converts the events into ideas in his or her mind and then converts these naked ideas into words. The listener or reader then converts the words back into ideas in his or her own mind. People’s use of the traditional process of information exchange allows the story to become distorted. Stories become distorted because as Stanley Fish, a professor of law, states a sentence “necessarily leaves out more than it includes, whether you write a sentence of twenty words or two thousand” (Fish 37). McAdoo, in the telling of his story, could have stated much more things than he did as “there is always another detail or an alternative perspective or a different emphasis that might be brought in and, by being brought in, [alters] the snapshot of reality presented” (38). Fish states that the ultimate goal of a person writing a sentence is to communicate “forcefully whatever perspective or emphasis or hierarchy of concerns attaches to your present purposes” (38). In this case, Chance is the most effective storyteller in the novel as he clearly knows his purpose. McAdoo only reveals his story to Vincent after they've negotiated a payment. Ultimately, McAdoo’s only purpose in telling his story is to get peaches and cream and a few bottles of whiskey.<br />
<br />
<br />
Film can be used to manipulate and assimilate people as Chance attempts (Hofstede 5). Vincent is aware of the power that storytelling has on people when he states that Charles Dickens, though his stories, had made cripples “touching and lovable” (Vanderhaeghe 33). Dickens, with his novels and short stories, has the power to influence cultural acceptance, just as Chance has the power with his film Besieged to influence its viewers’ understanding of the Cypress Hills Massacre. More importantly, Chance is able to influence his viewers’ opinion and acceptance of Native Americans and the possibly reprehensible actions of the white settlers. Chance is correct to say that film can be described as the “great educator” of the 20th century, especially concerning the assimilation of the American spirit by new foreigners. Vincent states that “everybody goes to the movies” (Vanderhaeghe 181), whereas not everyone is able or willing to read novels, and movies are able to make everyone “feel the same thing” (181). Chance would like everyone to feel the way he does about the American people. In order to accomplish his goal, Chance must portray the white people in the story as the heroes. Chance’s interpretation does not necessarily align with the truth as he disregards McAdoo’s telling of the events of the story to focus on portraying what he calls the “psychological truth”. This “truth” is not a reality, but an ideological concept created by Chance as manipulated by his racism. Chance’s “psychological truth” is the behaviour and the psychology that predicts the behaviour that he wants to be true.<br />
<br />
An accurate retelling of the massacre could allow Americans to learn from their past mistakes; in this case they could revisit their ways of dealing with Native Americans and perhaps atone for the atrocities they committed. Hardwick instigated the original massacre because of the hatred he holds against the Natives. Chance has a racial hatred similar to Hardwick’s and chooses to further the potential of hatred to become a part of the American culture with his films. Chance wants to destroy the most significant part about the Massacre, namely it taught “the law ought to concern itself with persons, not with races” (Goldring 102).<br />
<br />
The accurate presentation of history using film is an impossible task. Research into the Cypress Hills Massacre will show that history is shrouded in a mystery that can never be fully unveiled. Numerous contradictory statements from witnesses marred the reliability of any one story about the Cypress Hills Massacre, and thus little can be said to be undeniably true (Goldring 82).There is no realistic way to portray the past without biases and mistakes. The original observation of the event itself holds numerous problems. Two people can see the same event and retell the story later in completely contrary narratives. When creating a historical film the creator must be aware of the bias that they are imposing on the story, and the viewer must be conscious of the bias the creator. Even the most innocuous films contain the ideology of the creator, even if unconsciously; and these films have a felt effect on society’s values. Its left to the whims of the producers and artists to share beneficial values with society and up to the viewers to digest the stories with caution.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Thomas Tomas</i><br />
<i>Distorting your reality from Vernon, BC</i><br />
<i>March 2014</i><br />
<br />
<div id="123" style="display: none;">
References<br />
<br />
Fish, Stanley. How to Write a Sentence. New York: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.<br />
<br />
Goldring, Philip. “Cypress Hills Massacre”. Saskatchewan History 26:39 (1973): 81-102. Print.<br />
<br />
Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. New York: Sage, 2003. 5. Print<br />
<br />
Quine, W.V. Pursuit of Truth. London: Harvard University Press, 1992. Print.<br />
<br />
Vanderhaeghe, Guy. The Englishman’s Boy. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1997. Print.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<button onclick="if(document.getElementById('123') .style.display=='none') {document.getElementById('123') .style.display=''}else{document.getElementById('123') .style.display='none'}" title="Click to show/hide content" type="button">Show me the references!!!</button>Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-5489610322509707012013-11-22T06:19:00.000-08:002016-01-26T08:46:31.068-08:00Man is Social, Man is Weak: The Need to Be SocialSociety is the man's most extraordinary biological weakness. I am nothing alone but I am proven nothing when with others.<br />
<br />
Society does not make us weak, but rather it is us. The statement in question posits the man in relation to the society to which he belongs. A single man finds his greatest weakness in his attachment to his society. Society dictates the way he thinks, believes, loves, and so on. All his major psychological functions are influenced (if not dictated) by his society. Society taught his mother and his mother taught him. Society gives him the values in which he judges himself. For example, our capitalist society forces me to value myself in terms of things that I "have". My job, my car, my girlfriend all contribute to my overall worth, and this worth gives me hope. Society is man's greatest biological weakness because although the intelligent man can clearly see that this material evaluation of his life is silly - that life shouldn't be valued; life is beyond any type of measurement - he is unable to escape. Man it is true, in a sense, is greater in numbers, but greater only to the extent that the numbers work towards a goal that is beneficial to the individual men involved. Society helps us achieve goals, yes, but it goes a step further and tells us what the goal is. The man is not his own. Society does not make us weak, but it is a weakness as it is a barrier to our ultimate goal; namely to love and experience happiness.<br />
<br />
<br />
Should society be held up as the reason for my unhappiness, after all it is the cause of many kinds of human achievements. Public sculpture and art. Music. Gardens. Even language itself is a cause of society. But, society seeks to take too much in return for its favours, and if I try to break away, as a few do do, I am judged as 'sick; and must be retaught how to function in society. Society goes so far as to restrict my liberty when I reject it.<br />
<br />
Society helps to facilitate my preservation and perseverance. Alone, I would gather my own fruits and hunt my own food. With society, I am able to specialize and hoard my labour through the use of a monetary system. This system causes me stress and worry, no doubt, but is this anything in excess of what I would experience on my own? Is there much a difference between counting one's dollars and counting one's hoard of food? Perhaps not.<br />
<br />
<br />
Yet, society is a barrier to what I think should be a human's goals - an individual will decide his own goals. It is a biological weakness because the weakness is birthed from our upbringing; namely, one of reliance on an Other (my mother, for example). The weakness is not from a societal standpoint but from an individual standpoint. Man is afraid to be an individual (meaning not psychologically reliant or unduly influenced by Others). Man is inclined from childhood to submission to an outside force, in this case the norms of society. Submission may in fact be the greatest way to achieve certain goals, such as stimulating products and power/sex; but, it must be a willing and consensual submission, which it often is not. It is most often a submission birthed out of the inability to not. Our current society is not necessarily a good strategy for the sustainment of life (as an aside - sustainment of life itself should not be taken as a self-evident good). And it would appear that society is a self directing beast that we are incapable of changing. - by saying that is it man's weakness I am negating but not positing any alternative. It would be vain to for an indoctrinated man to posit any alternative.<br />
<br />
Isaac Snow<br />
Hanging with his bros in Vernon, BC<br />
January 2014Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-83074582024213495282013-11-08T05:11:00.000-08:002016-01-26T08:48:29.346-08:00The Absurdity of Multiple Sects: Religious Incompatability <div class="_1x1">
<div class="userContentWrapper">
<div class="_wk">
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_53a7564896d279f61752154">
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">It would seem to most people who are not indoctrinated into a certain religion and who have no ulterior motives for promoting a specific sect of religion we can all agree that religion is good in so far as it promotes good. This is a silly tautology that is nonetheless worth explicating. As a denier that any text contains ultimate truth, it is easy to criticize those who claim that the Bible contains such a truth. It becomes even stranger when we realize that multiple religious sects have different 'interpretations' of that truth. In other words, the Bible, to these religious groups, contains the truth, but they can not agree on what that truth is. When the average person is unable to garner truth from the text alone, he must seek the guidance of a professional. It's not ridiculous to expect this person to do this, after all, if I am ill I seek the guidance of a doctor. It only becomes ridiculous, and allows one to adopt a certain skepticism, when the professionals begin to give you a variety of different answers. In the doctor example, perhaps one doctor misdiagnosed you, or perhaps they have a different opinion on the proper treatment. Their judgement is also affected by their temperament. In the end, this is excusable, because the doctor does not claim to propound the truth. A doctor gives his advice based on logical speculation coming from his interpretation of your symptoms. Religious speakers, in contrast, do pretend to give out truth-isms. The truth can not be inconsistent; therefor, only one, if one, of these speakers is correct - just as only one of the doctors has given you a correct diagnosis.</span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><br /></span>
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">Jehovah's Witness, a specific sect of Christianity - to the extent that they purport the Bible to be the truth, publishes a periodical called 'The Watchtower'. This pamphlet typically contains a series of short articles of advice giving, and interpretations of the Bible. In a recent issue there was an article on interfaith movements. The writer quoted the Dalai Lama as saying, "All major religious traditions carry basically the same message: that is love, compassion and forgiveness." One subtitle in this article carried the text "Is promoting good good enough?". The writer wanted to say that simply doing good things isn't good, to do good we must follow the dogma of the Bible. This obviously goes against my judgement of what a good religion is: once you say that religion is only good if it propounds truth, we enter into a strange world; who is to say what truth is? The Bible can't say what truth is, if it did we wouldn't have multiple sects all in disagreement. </span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><br /></span>
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">The Jehovah's Witness seems to enjoy its ignorance of this fact, as do many sects, and they firmly admit of only the truth of their interpretation. The article even cites a survey that described 89% of people as saying religion divides us. But, even if it does divide us, Jehovah's Witness does not care: it is in the belief that they are correct. "Jehovah is described as 'the god of truth', and he said of himself: 'I do not change.' About God Jesus said 'your word is truth'. The truth is in the divinely inspired Scriptures, the Bible." Even ignoring the fact that Jehovah's Witness spits in the face of all the other religious types (it disallows the legitimacy of the Koran, Buddhist Writings, etc.) it doesn't acknowledge that even if the Bible is the truth, there are different interpretations.</span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><br /></span>
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">The Jehovah's Witness has almost no self-awareness. In the very same article it draws up an analogy to the international space station. The interfaith movements won't work because they are not using the same 'blueprint'. The space station was the result of 15 nations working together, "could you imagine the project being accomplished if the participating nations did not agree on what blue-print to use?". But, the interfaith movement has declared a blueprint, namely "love, compassion, and forgiveness". This blueprint seems less convoluted than the open-to-interpretation Bible. The Bible, to continue the blueprint analogy, doesn't state which measurement system it's using, it is not explicit in its commandments. We can't, as the writer suggests, "build our lives on what the Bible says", because I have no clue as to which biblical line (let alone chapter or book) to use, and I don't know how to convert that line into a call to action. The Bible tells me to circumcise myself, but it is impossible to see a logical link between that and my goals - I don't even know what my goals should be based on a reading of the bible.</span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><br /></span>
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">The Jehovah's Witness places "building faith" above the reasons that faith should be built to begin with. It places the means above the ends. If the 15 nations building the space station each brought its own blueprint, it would make sense for the nations to sit down and rationally choose which is the best blueprint, or to piece together a blueprint using ideas from each one; the best blueprint would obviously be the one that the nations agree will help them build the best space station. Yet, the nation of Jehovah's Witness would reject the 'blueprint' of every other religious sect in favor of their own, in complete disregard of which one will lead to the best results; in complete disregard to what the best results even look like.</span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><br /></span>
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">You can be an incredibly caring person, who tries to get along with everyone, but if you don't follow the specific dogma of a specific religious sect, you are an imbecile in their eyes. Jehovah's Witness, and any other religious sect that demands the same submission from people, have completely missed the point of the interfaith movement, they have complete disregard for the value of human life. They commit an absurdity of gargantuan proportions. Jehovah's Witness is a kin to a doctor who ignores the methods of its peers even if the foreign methods proved effective.Until you can quit this absurd ignorance, I would appreciate it if you didn't knock on my door.</span><span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"> Unfortunately, Jehovah's Witness relies on the intellectual and spiritual weakness of its members to persevere; it is a vampiric practice that is sadly not exclusive to this one sect. </span>
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"> </span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">Isaac Snow</span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">Valuing the outcome regardless of the method in Vernon, BC</span><br />
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">January 2014</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259283601665559876.post-69490381662725407302013-10-25T02:39:00.000-07:002016-01-26T08:39:06.305-08:00The Pursuit of Happiness and Its Lies by Isaac Snow<br />
The pursuit of happiness seems to be an oxymoron. Happiness is not a stable state that we can capture and bottle; it is rather a fluctuating state of mind. Happiness to me is a feeling of contentment, a moment in time where nothing needs to be changed or adjusted. I have moments of happiness everyday even when my life in general is not going so well. It can be sparked from an external stimuli, such as receiving gratitude from a friend, or from an internal source such as satisfaction in myself for doing something great. If this essay turn out to be informative and entertaining, I will feel joy. Happiness in this sense is a reward. This is the type of happiness that is unsustainable and fleeing, but it is also the happiness that is desired by many people in society. From birth I'm rewarded with external items such as candy or gratitude for performing certain actions, and this reward creates joy; eventually, however, joy itself replaces the reward and becomes the reward. The interaction of reward-er and reward-ed becomes internalized. We develop the opinion that we get rewards for good action; this eventually creates the situation where happiness becomes the reward. Through habit, we reject happiness if we deem our selves not to be worthy of it; we need to achieve something in order to reward ourselves. Our definition of successful actions (actions that are worth of the reward of happiness) come from habit and not from reason; hence many actions of this type are irrational and potentially damaging. If we want this behavior to be changed we need to address the issue in society, with special attention to how we raise our young. <br />
<br />
The disciplinary method predominately used in the education system has a negative effect on the young and their development into adults. The use of punishments and rewards for good behaviour leads to adults who are unable to enjoy happiness without it being in the form of an abstract reward for 'good behaviour'. In the classroom, what constitutes 'good behaviour' is defined by the school system and the teacher; often the type of behaviour wanted goes against a child's natural physiological wants. For example, good behaviour in a student in a classroom situation may be 'sitting still', but this behaviour is in direct opposition to a child's natural, and legitimate, tendencies to want to be active. I do not seek to find a solution to classroom 'discipline' here, but to point out that these wide-spread methods affect us for the rest of our lives. Later in life, we internalize the good behaviour - reward system; only granting ourselves happiness when we perform good actions. These good actions, just as in the classroom, are defined by others than ourselves; often in the form of what society at large deems it. What constitutes a good action, also as in the classroom, may be in opposition to our natural tendencies and may have no rational grounding whatsoever. Happiness has a relationship with underlying values and beliefs, the general ideology, of society.<br />
<br />
Happiness is measured by sociologist using objective or subjective techniques. In order to do any form of objective measurement, the scientist must first form an operational definition of what happiness is. These objective techniques are usually in the form of proxies; the scientist may assume that happiness has a positive correlation with wealth, and will measure a person's wealth to estimate his/her happiness. Objective techniques are inadequate because it ignores cultural and individual differences and often equates wealth with happiness. Ultimately, personal happiness exists only within the person and can be gained in infinite ways and measured in none. Every society naturally has its own idea of what happiness consists of. In Canada it is very often thought to occur with wealth and stability in finance. But that is not true. Happiness is discussed as a subjective well-being that one does not merely enjoy but pursues. It is not simply a state of mind that one can passively achieve but an end-state reward for action. This is justified by saying that happiness comes from the "satisfaction of innate needs for self-determination". Happiness is the "enjoyable anticipation of hedonically valuable outcomes". It involves the care of worldly utility streams. However, I argue that happiness is not an end state. Happiness does not necessarily come with prosperity and progress. It is a thing that the individual gives to himself. Happiness is a reward for success and often it is conflated with the success itself.<br />
<br />
Happiness can only be achieved by self contentment. And self contentment often occurs as a result of external achievement. Achievement is, unfortunately, often defined by those other than yourself. In Canada achievement is defined by financial/career success. A person ends up valuing himself based on his value on the market place. Happiness should not be an end goal or a fleeting moment; it should be continuously present in a healthy mind. There are moments and periods of time when life feels to drag or bad things occur and stress builds, but contentment should always be present in a lesser or greater form. It is this type of happiness that should be instilled in our young, not rewards and punishment. <br />
<br />
Isaac Snow<br />
Smoking a doobie in Vernon, BC<br />
Summer, 2012<br />
<br />Andrew Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920453883505563551noreply@blogger.com0