DC's Digression

Refusing Vaccination Makes You An Enemy of the State....Apparently

2009-10-27T19:12:00.000-07:00

most of you probably know you should get the H1N1 vaccination. And as most of your probably know you shouldn't get the H1N1 vaccination. Kind of confusing isn't it? At least I think so. While I think doctors and healthcare professionals can provide us with useful information on what a person should do, I say this as a generalization. I point this out because I have come across an "Opinion" in the Globe and Mail written by Juliet Guichon and Ian Mitchell. Guichon has a L.L.D., and works in the Office of Medical Bioethics at the University of Calgary (UofC). Mitchell on the other hand is a professor of pediatrics and bioethics at UofC.These two professionals present an article that is pure opinion.

In their article I find three things quite disturbing:

1) When I first read the article I did not like the idea of fear-mongering people into getting the H1N1 vaccination.They state, and I quote:

Mass H1N1 vaccination refusal similarly might destroy (at least temporarily) our health-care system, with the threatened 100,000 people in hospital.

Might destroy our healthcare system! Really? Well, although I agree that H1N1 is very serious and it is important to be informed, people should be free to make their own decisions. Like many people have argued, the seasonal flu kills many people each year, but the popular media has chosen to focus on the H1N1 related deaths to the point that this all that gets reported. We don't get to hear about the hundreds of people that die from other strains of the flu because media has become saturated with H1N1.

2) The second point I find distressing is their comparison to the cod stocks crisis that closed the fishery on the Atlantic coast in the early 1990s. While the article insinuates that Atlantic fishermen were unable to recognize that their overfishing was destroying codstocks, this is simply not the case. Fishermen in Newfoundland for instance, were cognizant of the environmental effects of the fishery as early as the 1900s. Fishing off the coasts had been going on for hundreds of years, so it is not as 'spur of the moment' as Guichon and Mitchell make it seem. What were fishermen to do? Were they to lay down their livelihoods overnight and give up fishing? It is not an easy thing to answer. It may have helped the codstocks, but then again it might not have. Even today, with the fishery being regulated the codstocks aren't back up to normal. So on this comparison, I give them a big thumbs down. People face just as hard a decision over whether to get the vaccine or not as the fishermen did in the 1990s.

3) My last point is to argue against one of their last statements:Moreover, lay people can be confused by publicly available scientific information because they don't understand the scientific method or conversations scientists have among themselvesOh, I'm sorry I guess just because I'm not a doctor I will be easily confused by jargon and acronyms. I have found that the general public, when given the right circumstances to understand something are not as "lay" or dumb as some people like to think they are. If you break the largest, most complicated problem down, it becomes composed of commonsense problems. Give people enough time and energy and they can produce a commonsense answer to a problem (this is in general I might add, there are always extreme cases). We, as non-medically educated people may not be scientists, but I am pretty sure they are using a language of some sort which people have experience with. They may not initially be able to comprehend complex concepts, but they can discern what is important and what is not. ALSO, if Guichon and Mitchell believe the "lay people" to be so misinformed it might have been very helpful for them to actually address some of those issues more explicitly, rather than labeling people that do not get vaccinated as destroyers of healthcare.

People are able to make their own informed opinions, and they should not be guilted into something by either the mass media, government or professionals that present a one-sided opinion. H1N1 may be quite serious, but it still does not change ones individual rights to choose the best course of action for themselves.

George Orwell's 1984 Wasn't Fiction?

2009-10-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

Over the past couple of years I have noticed as many companies, organizations and adminstration have tried to control more and more aspects of people's lives. It is getting to a point where everytime I check out Digg.com or Reddit.com I find numerous articles that link to some form of oppressive behaviour being carried out by any number of groups. While they may argue that it helps the public in general, the reaction that I have seen online tends to point out that people are outraged by these actions!

For instance, today I read an article about how the LAPD is trying to implement a program called iWatch. Allisson Kilkenny from True/Slant, rightly points out that:

These kinds of anonymous hotlines are ripe for abuse, and there exist endless possibilities of innocent citizens being reported by their neighbors for the crime of “Living While Being Arab.”

It is just appalling that the LAPD and the adminstrative figures who helped get this program up and off the ground thought it would be a useful "tool." Turning each citizen into a sort of cctv camera that is trained to spot "suspicious" activity and report it is not going to work. While it may work by flooding the LAPD with an overabundance of reports, it will almost certainly fail at destroying the fabric of democracy. People should be allowed to live their lives without fear that if they don't act "normal" (whatever that is) or fit into a societal norm, they will be reported as suspicious.

ALSO, people aren't trained informants. I am sure that everyone would have a different definition of what is reportable and what is not. There is bound to be prank calls, and the odd-ball that will report something about his/her neighbour just because they don't like them. I think this system is a low point for society and I applaud people like Allison and the Huffingtonpost who have highlighted this program so that it can be scrutinized.

To formulate your own opinion check out the video:

One of Allison's commentators makes a very astute observation that in the video there are no Muslim people depicted, which therefore leads one to wonder: is this about focusing on the Muslim population? It is a very BIG oversight by the iWatch folks... or is it?

___________________________________________

Another form of 1984ism that I have noticed recently is the proliferation of cases the various groups involved with the Record Industry trying to curtail how people interact with their music. Two of the most blaringly obvious cases of their bid for control of how YOU use your music are:

1) The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) tried to argue that cellphone ringtones that could play songs were essentially mini-concerts and therefore were copyright infringement. However, thanks to a levelheaded judge this case was dismissed.

2) A woman in Clackmannanshire, United Kingdom was threatened by the Performing Rights Society (PRS) to be sued if she did not stop signing songs while she worked at a local A&T Food store. However, the group has since rescinded its claims and formally apologized to the woman and sent her flowers.

I just cannot believe that organizations believe that they can enforce such controls over people. It is becoming ridiculous. If we all lived by their rules I think their would be NO music to listen to and you would have to have numerous liscenses before you could play a note. It seems like we are heading for a surveillance society more and more each day as stories like the ones depicted above are becoming more numerous. Big Brother is watching...

Graduate Uprising 10/20

2009-10-22T08:14:00.000-07:00

While many of you may be asking yourselves: "What uprising? There was nothing on the news!" I am referring to a particular incident that occurred in one of my graduate school lectures this past Tuesday. Essentially, the Dean came to our class to get an understanding of how the students were responding to the new redesigned program. While in the back of his mind he probably thought, I'll go in and say my typical speech "We have a plan!" and then people will nod, and respond with neutral remarks about how the courses are "going okay." (for a detailed recap of what happened visit Chasing the Muse) HOWEVER, what resulted was far from a lukewarm-rebuttal. The students had become very distraught over the way the courses were being taught, their size and the sheer lack of interrelatedness to what THEY wanted to learn. The Dean was, to sum it up, verbally destroyed. I don't think he was expected such flak from the students over the new program. The uprising had begun.

People should be able to voice their opinions on a topic that has direct ramifications to their lives. This particular incident helped to make the problems, that probably are not visible to the faculty because they are too engrossed in their work, more explicit. The problem I think harps back to one of the problems someone voiced at the Dean's lecture: alienation. In a graduate program you would think intimacy with your faculty and students would be a keystone. When I completed my previous graduate degree I knew my professors VERY well, and we would even have the occasional get-together-for-drinks social event. But most importantly, we as graduate students were asked our opinions on what the curriculum should be for future graduate students. The opportunity to influence what courses were relevant and how others could be improved. I am proud to say that WE actually had an effect on what was decided. One of the courses that we felt was redundant was cut and the program was extended, as we requested, to allow for more research. What I am trying to get at here is that I never felt alienated there. In this program, I agree with the people that said they felt alienated. Since the Dean's address was the only time students had been able to voice their opinion, many tempers flared and criticism of all sorts came out. But, what can you expect? People did not feel they had any say in what was happening to them. When people feel powerless in situations that deeply affect their lives, it is not a healthy environment.

I am not sure if students were consulted about the changes that occurred with the program prior to this year, but I think if anymore changes are to happen it is Absolutely necessary! We may all have various programs with how the courses are taught, the overlap, and the content, but a sense of community that includes the faculty is a must in a graduate situation. Without it, we may as well be sheep herded by the shepherd.

"Socialized Medicine and Me" (With introduction by D.C.)

2009-08-16T15:16:00.000-07:00

As most of you know, the whole issue of medical care in the United States is erupting into a big debate over whether to adopt "socialist healthcare" practices (for instance, like the system we have in Canada) or retain their "pay as you go" system. I have already touched on this issue in a previous blog post, but recently, while checking my Facebook, I came across a note that one of friends (who is a philosophy PhD candidate) had something (which I thought was very interesting) to say about the "powder keg" which is the debate surrounding this issue. Here is what he had to say:

Since I've had experience of the British health care system now, I thought I'd throw an anecdote on the pile. Given all the nonsense in the US health care debate right now about death panels and rationing, it seems apt.

I've always gotten headaches, but this April I started having a different kind - the pain was different and in a different location than the ones I used to have. I had a really bad one, and then kept having little ones for about a month. Eventually, I got fed up with being too distracted to read and went to the doctor. I made an appointment for the next morning, a Wednesday. The GP ruled out some of the big scary things (stroke, aneurism) and suggested we consult a specialist. I made an appointment for that Friday. The specialist re-ruled out the big scary things, and was 99% sure about his diagnosis, but figured we should get a MRI just to be safe. If I was still in pain, he said, we'd have done it right then, but since I wasn't, I was on the lowest of the low priority list. I was put on a list, and within a couple of weeks had an appointment for 2 months after my initial visit. When I went in to get the scan done I was actually finished before my scheduled start time. The needle was a pain, but that was it. The doctors confirmed that there is nothing unusual in my head (as for my mind, well, that didn't come up on the scan) and that I'm just susceptible to more than one kind of migraine.

If there were rationing, I wouldn't be getting an MRI at all. If there were serious wait issues, I would still be waiting on the scan. If I was in serious trouble, the scan would have been done right away. Since I'm an international student, I'm covered by the NHS and paid a grand total of £4.80 in bus fare for the whole thing. I'm told I could have gotten an NHS shuttle for free, but couldn't be bothered.

Anyway, I want to go on a nice preachy rant right now, but hopefully the facts of my experience speak for themselves.

P.S. My head's fine, thanks. Well, as fine as it ever was.

(Raymond G. Critch, PhD Candidate, University of Edinburgh)

I will let you, the readers, form your own opinions of his text, but I think it speaks very highly of a "socialist healthcare" system. there are many benefits of being able to walk into a hospital and be treated for your ailments without having to mortgage your house. Also, I don't Stalin will be delivering you your flu shots if it is adopted (just thought I'd point that out).

'Down With Socialism Healthcare!' Is It Really That Bad?

2009-07-29T13:12:00.000-07:00

Universal healthcare to all! Doesn't seem like a bad plan does it? We Canadian's seem to be getting along pretty good with it. Then why is it such a terrible and unspeakable idea for most American Republicans?

President Obama's idea for a healthcare system reform, I thought, was admirable. He is REALLY trying to change things and not just gloss over the problems while he is in office like... well....GW -cough- However, Republican's aren't prepared to let Obama help thousands of people that have to wait for service or have to pay hefty fees for medical procedures... oh no, they have pulled no stops in their criticism. For instance:

On Denverpost.com they report that during a Colorado rally against Obama's healthcare reform a person was quoted as yelling:

"Obama care is sicko" and "our troops did not fight and die for socialism."

And then you have Republican 'tall tales' like the one about Shona Holmes, from Canada, who supposedly received horrible healthcare service for her supposed cancer. The GOP has made her into their spokesperson against the healthcare reform. She has turned into the one example for the whole of the Canadian healthcare system. However, Video Cafe ran a nice story which debunks the whole story, and shows what lengths Republican's are going to discredit the healthcare reform.

What I think really gets the public is the link the Republican's have drawn to socialism (Although the Times provides some very good reasons as well). For many Americans, socialism is what they fought against in wars, and it was deemed a taboo during World War II and the Cold War. People associate it with Hitler and the U.S.S.R. communism. They do not see that they are giving in to stereotypes and how they have been conditioned to respond to concepts such as socialism.

Like Dean Baker points out in his article , referring to the proposed healthcare system:

"The program's huge price tag is equal to about 0.5 percent of projected GDP over the next decade. The Iraq war at its peak cost more than 1.0 percent of GDP."

So what do you think seems to be the more productive move? Support a system that will eventually help people receive the health services they desparately need because they cannot afford them in the present system OR fund a war that is sending troops needlessly into harms way where they are being injured and killed? I don't really think this is a hard decision. Republicans need to look at the long term 'big picture.'

Does Twittering Make You a Twit?

2009-07-23T06:34:00.000-07:00

I, like a lot of bloggers, have joined Twitter. I am not sure what to call myself now that I prescribe to expressing myself in 140 characters or less (am I a tweet? a twit? a twitterer?), but I know that this small amount of space to express yourself causes you to condense your earth-shattering comments into a sentence (or a couple of words).

While I usually agree that shortening and editing what you have to say helps produce better material, I am not sure that this medium (Twitter) is conducive to that. When you are forced to edit your 10 page paper to make it 8 pages it generally causes you to cut out things that are otherwise useless, and you don't normally realize this until you have to go through such editing. However, Twitter only gives you a sentence to state something. This is usually not long enough for anything, and for the most part people post links to articles or other media. Aside from webpage links, most people state something about what they are doing or how they are feeling. In essence, I do not think it is a good medium to replace blogging. You may be able to quickly type something and post it on twitter in a matter of seconds, but that doesn't mean it will be worth while to read (really... do I need to know if you spilled coffee on yourself or you just bought a doughnut?).

Aside from the usually trivial and useless material that Twitter (sort of) forces people to post, it is useful in one sense: marketing. Yes, if you are a member of Twitter you've probably been "followed" by a few people who are really just spamming 'bots.' But besides these annoying people, it is a good medium to get other webpages (where good content can be posted), such as a blog, news website, videoes, etc. I personally like to use it to pose questions. I find this one of the best uses (besides posting links to informative material) of Twitter because a question promotes people to think about an issue, which you can most likely convey in a sentence. People then usually take a stand on said issue, and will more often than not try to communicate their opinion (usually through a messageboard, comment box, blog, etc.) Not only does it make people think, but it promotes them to react, which is the lifeblood of blogging.

In conclusion, I think Twitter is like owning a gun. Anyone can own a gun, but it takes a skilled person to know how to use it properly.

(for a discussion of lowered attention spans, see my earlier blog post on this)

Eco or Econ?

2009-07-11T09:26:00.000-07:00

I was watching a documentary today (Toxic Imperial Valley) and the commentary in the film was interviewing a group of desert racers who flocked to the Salton Sea area to drive their bikes and offroad vehicles across the desert dunes. In the interview the driver of one of the vehicles argued that one volcano released more carbon dioxide than all the people in the world combined. His conclusion was that therefore he should do what he wants because he argued that the world was here for people to use and do with what they please (he also did not believe in global warming). His final few comments were most interesting though because he told the commentator to look around. In front of him were two dune buggies and a bike. He said that what you see before you is about $90 000 worth of equipment. He continued by stating that what the dune racers were doing was important because they were supporting the economy by spending all that money.

This comment made the gears in my head turn, and I began to think...so essentially this man is arguing that despite the fact that he is contributing to the destruction of the desert ecosystem (and the general polution of the Salton Sea area) his justification was that he was supporting the economy. This caused me to pause and wonder if more people justify destructive behaviour, like this, because they believe they are helping the economy. My next thought was... just how important is the economy anyways? I began to try and analyze this...

the economy is important because when he buys a vehicle, or upgrades for his vehicle, he supports a company....

because he supports a company, people are able to be employed...

because of this families are able to support themselves from the money gained from the employment...

then these same people buy more things, and thus completing the cycle of the employee-consumer....

This was all fine and dandy, and I began to understand his point of view. Hey, by buying his vehicles he was sustaining our world! But wait there are more factors:

although he may have been supporting a company, which in turn, helps a family... the money ends up back with the company and not with the families that REALLY need it. The executives end up with the money in the end because they have created this illusion of freedom when in reality the majority of people help sustain a select few. We are free... free to spend. As soon as we get our money we spend it.

The second notion that entered my mind was that I don't think the economy is more important than the environment. Sure, the economy can collapse and we can rebuild it (as we have seen over the past year)...the environment is not as forgiving. We need to be conscious of our decisions and how they affect the environment. If we didn't have an economy. No money. No banks... we would survive. Without the forests, rivers, plants and animals... where would we be? You can't survive on a chequebook!e

The Original Thriller & The Media

2009-06-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

First I would like to start off by saying that although I was not Michael Jackson's biggest fan and I thought he was a little crazy at times (msot of the time) it is sad to see him go. He brought us music during his early life and in his later years he brought us entertainment. Whatever people say about him they cannot deny that he was entertaining.

This brings me to my next point. While I was watching all the various media coverage of Michael Jackson's cardiac arrest and eventual tragic death I began to notice something. Each news channel was presenting the story that was unfolding and seeking the opinion of an 'expert.' While each channel provided a different 'expert,' they were all from various backgrounds and people I had never heard of before. They purported that he had a drug overdose, and began to speculate on every aspect of the story. It made me question how the title of 'expert' can be carelessly attached to anyone by the media in a situation like this. They find someone that they believe will be controversial and believable by the public. So they have them give a spiel about the 'breaking story,' in this case Michael Jackson, and instead of giving informed opinion they seem to just spread gossip.

This made me think of how much power people provide the media with and how much people rely on the media for their supposed 'facts.' Scientists and researchers spend years studying events and situations before they feel confident enough to come to conclusions. In the media, this is done in the matter of seconds and if they are on a slow day, maybe minutes. I think people really need to assess the information that is provided by supposed experts and ask questions.

The other side to this story is that while the media may not always be reliable, and sometimes it presents pure gossip (for instance, like TMZ), it can be very beneficial in situations like that of Iran, where the media is being blocked from covering the event. Through the internet videos and twittering of the Iranian people we are able to find out about the tragedy that is unfolding there.

In conclusion, it is always best to be critical of any source of information. And even though news agencies can sometimes have alterior motives for presenting a piece of information, they are sometimes the best source (if you block out the insignificant parts).

Here's Johnny!

2008-12-03T18:04:00.000-08:00

Hello all,
I know you haven't heard from me in a LOOOONNNNGGGGG time and most people have probably started to stop making visits to the site because I haven't updated it in many months... BUT, I am writing to let you all know.. (whoever is listening) that I will be starting to post again just before Christmas Day! I know you all must be pretty excited...so I'll let you take a moment...

***intermission***

Okay, back? Alright! Seriously though, I will be back to my old posting habits... and I have all this pent up article writing to let out (although, I have done my fair share of writing/reading these past couple of months) I hope that you will enjoy reading my upcoming articles as much as I love bringing them to you.

Take care all.... I'll e-see you all later.. (do you see what I did there... huh-huh... I made an Internet joke... ...yeah, I know it is pretty lame... but it made you smile a little bit... right?)

:S

Google's Polished New Toy

2008-09-02T16:56:00.000-07:00

Just a short little post for today. Google has officially released Chrome (Beta), the first web browser from the Internet Tycoon. It is relatively simplistic, and stylish at the same time. It doesn't really do anything spectacular, but it does get the job done. Lee Matthews over at Download Squad makes some good comments about it.

I don't think Google is trying to corner the browser market with this gem, but they are sticking their nose into the field that has been dominated by Firefox and Internet Explorer. I agree with Matthews in thinking that moderate internet surfers may switch over to Chrome, but I don't see people that are enthusiasts (per-say) switching to Chrome. I guess we'll just have to wait to see what the competition comes up with, and what Google thinks up to 'one-up them.'

As for right now, Google has entered the ring with the big players, and for the first time in a long time, Google is actually the underdog (but that doesn't mean that they can't create an upset).

Georgian Cyberattacks Raise Important Questions

2008-09-01T08:11:00.000-07:00

I have been following the Georgian conflict, as I am sure many of you have, and aside from the actual physical conflict there has been little attention paid to the cyberattacks that occurred prior to the Russian invasion. Tech analysts have stated that it does not appear to be sponsored by the Russian government even though it originated from somewhere in Russia. It has been pegged as an amateur attack because if Russia had wanted to stop the Georgian government from communicating they would have attacked their radio and television broadcasting capability. Instead, only websites were targeted which makes experts believe the attacks were carried out by 'paramilitary or militia-like organizations.'

While it is unsure whether this attack was sponsored by Russia or was done by independent entities, the fear of far more sophisticated cyberattacks has been heightened. In a recent Reuters article The U.S. Air Force General, Gene Renuart, asked what kind of cyberattack would lead to war:

"Is it degree? If you affect so many millions of people or so many millions of dollars or so many organizations, does that constitute a legal act of war?"

Renuart poses a very interesting question that high-tech countries such as the United States and Canada have to consider. Since most necessities are ran on computer systems, such as power grids, banking systems, air traffic and telecommunications (I have to use Live Free or Die Hard as an example here). But, what wouldconstitute an act of cyber-war? It is not an easy question to answer because it can often be very hard to pinpoint where the attack is originating. An attacker could make it appear that a cyberattack was occurring within one country but actually coming from a totally different one.

Aside from pinpointing the attackers, Renuart's original question is also noteworthy. What amount of damage would be designated as enough to go to war over? It is not an easy question to answer, and if warfare is soon to take to the cyber-battlefield rather than the physical battlefield, it would be important to specify the 'acts of war.' At this point it seems that we are still unsure of how to approach this new type of cyber-warfare, and so I think more attention needs to be paid to cyberattacks such as the one on Georgia. What would be the minimum damage from a cyberattack that you think a country should go to war over?

Source

Prominent Newfoundland Historian & Personal Influence Passes Away

2008-08-31T08:07:00.000-07:00

Dr. Leslie Harris passed away August 26th, 2008. While he may be a relative unknown person to some people, he has greatly influenced my university career. I was not always a history major, as I dabbled in other departments before I settled on history. Reading articles written by Dr. Leslie Harris not only made me want to be able to do that some day, but his writing has also influenced the way I perceive Newfoundland history. Late in my Undergraduate career, in researching for my dissertation, I have used Dr. Harris' articles as a background to my topic. I never knew Dr. Harris personally, but I am sure he was well loved by all that knew him.

Not only has he influenced me, but his legacy at Memorial University of Newfoundland will never be forgotten. He was the head of the History Department, President, and even has a centre within the university named after him.

He will be greatly missed, but will live on through his legacy, and for me, through his articles.

DR. LESLIE HARRIS: October 24th, 1929 - August 26th, 2008
(see his official obituary here)

Inciting Change: Mass Protest Is The Way To Go

2008-08-31T07:09:00.000-07:00

What incites political change? Public outrage key issues usually has something to do with it. But, that is usually not enough to cause politicians to flinch over changing their policies. Invisible public outrage, that is, when opposing opinions are held but not voiced, tend not to provoke government officials to do anything. It is only when people with a common goal are united under a cause that they become noticed, and then, and only then can change become a possibility.

On August 30th, 150 000 protesters marched through the streets throughout Mexico. The marchers were protesting the rising number of murders and kidnappings in the country. The main purpose of the march was to force President Felipe Calderon to crackdown on the increasing criminal activity.

It is unsure whether this protest will cause the President to scramble to please the public, but if the South Korean protest over U.S. beef is any indication, then at least SOME action should be taken in Mexico considering the South Korean government was willing to resign over the beef controversy.

In Canada, I hate to say it, but we hardly have any massive protests. For the most part, the only media covered protests we have are when G8 conferences are held here. I think if we had massive protests for a common cause we'd get more out of our governmental officials. If they can physically see with their own eyes that people are 'together' on an issue, they will almost surely have to take some action to alleviate the problem(s).

"Seeing is believing," and that is something we really lack. The only way that politicians make changes is when they are forced into doing so. They were elected by us, and unless we come right out and voice our opinions nothing is going to change. Now, while I am pushing for massive protests as a way to get our voices heard, there are also other avenues to explore. For instance, making petitions, writing to , and etc. The only caution about large protests is that they are best done peacefully. When violence enters the equation, that is when the focus gets taken away from the issues that started the protest and is put on the violent actions.

If Mexicans and South Koreans can unite under a just cause, there is no reason why everyone else cannot. While I state that Canada needs to unite under a common issue, I think the U.S. is in more need of this same sort of objection to their government (ie: the Iraq War, protecting their personal rights, Guantanamo Bay prison rights, overseas foreign policy, the economy, etc.) What do you think?

The Russian-Georigan Conflict: Behind The Scenes

2008-08-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

I have no doubt that most people have heard about the Russian invasion of Georgia. The 'official' reason for the Russian invasion has been said to help South Ossetia (a state that recently split away from Georgia, and which would like to join Russia) repel Georgian forces who invaded to take back control of the area.

The part that has garnered much international attention to be focused on Russia is that even though there has been a ceasefire negotiated between Georiga and Russia, Russian forces are not evacuating Georgian territory, instead they are increasing their presence under the guise of peace-keeping. I think that Russia's official reasons for invading Georgia are a clever excuse. Russia is a semi-major influence on the Asian continent, and what do most powers want to do? They want to retain the equilibrium of power on the continent. It has been this way since even before World War II.

If you carefully take a look at a map of the Middle East you will notice some interesting things.

What I notice when I look at this map is that Iraq and Iran are very close to Georgia. Internationally Iran is now viewed as a loose-canon, to say the least, but even more importantly U.S. controlled Iraq is very close to Georgia. As far back as the days of the British Colonial Empire, major powers have wanted to keep other major powers at a distance (if at all possible). I see this as a possible reason why Russia has decided now to invade Georgia. If Russia controls the Georgian state then they have a buffer between themselves, Iraq and Iran.

Another important aspect to look at is the fact that a major gas-pipeline runs through Georgia. If you take a close look at this map, and then take a look at an excellent article by Michael Economides' on Energy Tribune, you will notice that an important pipeline that runs through Georgia. The scramble for oil is well on its way, and Russia is most certainly not being left behind in the dust.

Although, there can be no definitive answer to the question: Why did Russia invade Georgia? The evidence is leaning towards protection and oil as the incentives. With Russian-U.S. relations at a relative low over the Polish agreement, and Georgia being a 'roadblock' to Russian oil production expansion, it seems very plausible that this invasion was not over nationalism.

Stress Relief

2008-08-25T07:35:00.000-07:00

I have just finished the second draft of my major research paper, and now my brain is certifiable mush. To relieve the wear and tear on my brain, I decided to play some mindless-online gaming, but I came across an interesting puzzle game called Fantastic Contraption.

This game lets you build (sometimes crazy looking) machines. These 'contraptions' are used to move the 'pink gamepiece' from the white start zone to the pink finish-area. Some of the beginning levels are easy to finish, while the later ones are very... well... complicated. If you need any encouragement to complete the harder levels or some enlightenment check out youtube. There are various videos of people's creations. Some are fantastic, while others are duds.

Here is my favourite contraption on Youtube:

So stop what you are doing for a little while, and build your own crazy contraption. Who cares if it works, it's just for fun. I've built some interesting machines that have went nowhere, but it made me laugh just looking at it.

How Would You Like Your News? Filtered Or Non-Filtered?

2008-08-23T20:18:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty interested in oil prices recently and the way oil refining companies have been charging whatever they want for gasoline, but when I came across a story about an abundance of oil in Iraq I was intrigued. I found the article on Forbes.com, but I noticed that it had originally been reported by Reuters. So, with my ever-curious spirit, I looked up the article over on Reuters.com and found something interesting.

The article on Forbes reads like this:

The Reuters article reads like this:

What you will find in comparing the two articles is that the Forbes article takes some creative licensing, and cuts out the last section of the original article. In the last part of the Reuters' article an oil deal with China is discussed, and then it states:

Foreign oil companies are keen to get access to Iraq's vast and largely untapped oil reserves, but high world prices are allowing Baghdad to drive a hard bargain.

It is almost as if the Forbes article purposely leaves this fact out of the supposed reprint of the article. Why would this information be left out? What agenda is Forbes trying to push? Personally, I do not think it was a mistake, and my gut instinct tells me that Forbes doesn't want the fact that a deal with China is being made and the fact that the Iraqi oversupply will give Iraq (and I am thinking most likely the US) an upperhand in the market.

As Seth Godin states, the news is not written to inform the public, it is written to sell newspapers or create controversy. This seems true in this case, as Forbes does not provide the whole truth and the real story is provided through a filter which is imposed on the public.

The point of this story is not to defame Forbes, but to warn people about sources of information. You must always be critical of where you get your facts. There is always some sort of filter which is imposed on information, and it is imperative that the person knows how to pick out what is relevant and what is not (Also, more importantly you should be able to pick out if the information is credible, like in the Forbes-Reuters example I mention in this article).

Be Critical. Be Aware. These are two ideas to live by.

Academic Sidenote: Are Female Professors Viewed As Mother Figures?

2008-08-20T13:41:00.000-07:00

Yet again there is another good article on CrookTimber entitled 'Herr Professor Daddy? I Didn't Think So,' which raises some interesting questions about how female professors are viewed compared to male professors.

The article states:

First of all, students demand much more emotional work from female professors than they do of male profs. If the women don’t provide it, they are often viewed as cold bitchy profs that don’t care about students. Although I don’t know of any systematic studies of what types of topics students bring up during interactions with professors by gender, I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that female profs get approached much more by students wanting to talk about life issues than male profs.

I would argue that (and so does the first commenter on CrookTimber) that it all depends on the way the prof interacts with their students. If a prof portrays a personality that is more approachable I think that students will be more willing to approach them, despite their gender. I have had female professors that I have found approachable and unapproachable, and I have had male professors that were approachable and unapproachable.

If a professor answers students questions with respectability and offers themselves as a person that can relate to a student, they will be more likely to have students express 'issues' with them. While female profs can be viewed as 'mother-like figures' I believe that male professors can also be viewed in a similar way. Males and females can have personality traits that are very similar, and it is not gender so much as personality that can affect how students relate with professors.

The idea that you cannot mix caring and compassionate traits with academia is, in my opininon, an axiom that is accepted without actually being considered. I think it is just that people are very comfortable with academia being cold and uncaring, but does it really have to be that way? Can there not be a mix of the two? Educational teachers find a way to combine the both of these facets, why can't professors? (I do realize that 12 year olds are not the same as 20 year old university students) but some level of caring and compassion can be incorporated in teaching at a university level.

Update: I never realized when I was posting this article, but I made it seem like Eszter Hargittai, the author of the CrookTimber article, was arguing that female professors were seen as nurturers. Her article argues that women professors are not seen as authority figures. What I should have stated at the beginning of my article is that my posting is a response, not to Eszter's article, but to the debate that rises from the article comments. Thanks again for Eszter bringing it to my attention.

Texas Town Wants To Arm Teachers

2008-08-19T18:17:00.000-07:00

A while back in April I wrote an article about the idea of allowing students to carry guns on campus. My personal opinion is that students should not be able to carry guns on campus because I think it will only increase violence on campus, not decrease it.

Well, a small town in Texas has ignored the problems of letting guns into an educational environment. click here for the video.

They are allowing teachers at a local school to be armed. The Superintendent stated that it was to protect students from 'psychopaths' that might enter the town through the highway. He argued that in the grizzly killings that are reported by the media they always start out with: "It was a small town where no one thought anything like this could happen..."

My opinion is that guns never solve violence problems. Did the Superintendent ever think that the story may now read: "local teacher accidentally fires weapon in classroom..." I do not believe in weapons of any kind being allowed in a learning environment, or an environment which is the home to children. The parents of the young people that attend school in this small town have to wonder which is more likely to happen: A psychotic killer entering the school, or an accident with a firearm?

Guns do not negate violence. In this situation you cannot really fight fire with fire. The lives of children are at stake here, it is not like guarding a convenience store in a hard neighbourhood, care must be taken with young people's lives.

Social Inhibitions: Bad or Good?

2008-08-19T17:26:00.000-07:00

I remember when being someone that respected others actually meant something. What I mean is that lately, I find that people seem to negate obligations (yes I think it is necessary) to treat people like they would like to be treated.

I don't know if it is the way media influences people, but people in general seem to not care how they treat others, or stop to realize how their actions actually HAVE consequences.

When I was younger, I was told by my parents to always be courteous to others, and treat them like you would want to be treated. This stuck with me, and I always showed respect for others. I mean, I open doors for women (it's the way I grew up), and I try not to offend people when I am talking to them. It seems that now, people have grown up without these notions, and they do not respect others. They say what they want, do what they please, and do not consider anything inbetween. What happened here? (insert article on this)

Personally, I just think people think they are being 'cool' or 'try to fit in.' Usually they are influenced by each other, and where do you think this all comes from? I think it comes from the media. Most figures that you see on TV or whatnot do not care about other people's feelings, they say what they want (ie: House from House M.D., and Bam Margera from Jackass). I think it is now becoming commonplace to view these stars as role models, and people growing up think it is right to act this way.

If you think about it, people think they are being very clever when they act without boundaries, but if you think about it, they have already played into mass media. They are acting like they are being influenced to do so. People that show humility and respect others are viewed as 'uncool.' In reality, the people that show respect for others are much more free than those that are mindlessly following trendy-social constructs.

It is time that we really looked at our popular media and realized that it is not just 'there for our entertainment,' because 90% of the time we are either being sold something, or being influenced to act a certain way/view a certain perspective (ie: the blocking of Ralph Nader in the SuperDelegates Open Debate)

Sidenote: While I argue against 'no bounds' interraction between people in this article, that is not to say that I do not think people should speak their opinion. There is a thin line between voicing your opinion and mindlessly harassing another person. When the line is crossed, that in particular, is what my article deals with.

I also would like to say that I do not think violent games/violent movies cause people to act violenting. Accordingly, I do not think that TV stars such as 'House' or 'Bam Margera' directly cause people to act with inhibitions, BUT they give those people, which are easily influenced, an example of how it is beneficial.

Fadel Shana's Tragic Death

2008-08-16T17:53:00.000-07:00

There is a memorial to Fadel Shana, the tragically killed Reuters Cameraman, on Facebook.

There is also footage of the tank shell that killed him and eight others here. (warning: the video may contain graphic images)

I also urge people that want to see this sort of killing to end, to visit this site and sign the petition.

Tragic Death of Journalist By Israeli Tank Shell "Was Sound" Decision, Says Israeli Official

2008-08-13T05:55:00.001-07:00

A while back in June, I posted an article regarding the tragic death of a Reuter's Journalist in the Gaza Strip by IDF forces. I had also hoped that, even though Fadel Shana's death was an atrocity, it would cause Israeli soldiers to question their "shoot first, inquire later" attitudes. It seems that my positive thinking regarding this story was a little too optimistic.

In a recent article by Reuter's, the tank crew that killed the Journalist and eight other Palestinians from age 12 to 20, were cleared of any wrongdoing. The lawyer for the Israeli military dismissed the fact that Shana had been in the area all day using his camera, he was wearing a vest that said 'PRESS' on it, his van had similar markings, and he had been filming the tank crew for a few minutes at least. Israeli military officials stated that Shana's camera and tripod could not be discerned and were thought to be a mortar, anti-tank missile, or camera. They also could not identify that he was 'Press,' and said that the vest he was wearing were commonly used by Palestinian rebels.

I think that the tank crew's actions were deplorable and inexcusable. Using this tank crew's response as an example (since they did nothing wrong according to the Israeli military) the use of any camera equipment in Gaza, to me at least, seems to be lethal. If IDF forces cannot correctly identify a camera from a missile launcher, what is to say this will not happen again? I think Journalist's in conflict zones should be able to have more protection than what Shana was shown.

Joel Campagna, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, stated:

It's difficult to believe ... that the IDF took the necessary precautions to avoid causing harm to civilians -- as it is obliged to do under international law

I tend to agree with Campagna. If IDF forces were really concerned about the lives of people in Gaza, or Journalists, I think they would have shown a little more precaution. There is no place for trigger-happy soldiers in conflicts which concern combatants and civilians. There is no justification for Shana's death or the death of the eight other Palestinians.

The Sine-Wave of Society

2008-08-12T05:23:00.000-07:00

Has anyone noticed that in fashion (I know, you are probably asking yourself "why is he talking about fashion?" but don't worry I'll get to a point here) trends tend to follow a standard deviation pattern (like a sine-wave)? What I mean is that, for instance, now in 2008 the fashion trend for women is towards skin-tight clothing, skinny jeans, etc. etc. In the eighties and early nineties, clothing was much more loose fitting and baggy (Grungy).

The interesting point is that before the Grunge-Era, clothing in the seventies was very similar to what it is now. It seems that society follows a pattern in that department, and it is a pattern that shows societies boundaries. Clothing will never come to the point of everyone wearing nothing, and it will never go to the extreme of wearing 10 or more layers of clothing (for sheer heat control purposes).

It seems that society has certain extremes that it will not cross into. Society is limited by factors that we do not even perceive sometimes. Even though we would like to think of ourselves as free to do what we please, we have certain deviations from the norm that we will tolerate, but there is a limit. Beyond our limit are what we would classify as "different," or "unusual." Personally I do not see anything wrong with people that want to be different and act outside the norm, but others find it necessary to classify these people as "weird," and what-not.

For instance, a person that refuses to wear any clothing are called Nudists. They are beyond the cultural/societal norm, and are deemed as outside the realm of acceptability by society as a whole. That is not to say that some people are perfectly okay with them, but that in popular culture, and media they are portrayed as outcasts. The same can be said for people that dress in Gothic-style clothing.

But why are there limits to what is acceptable? We live in a free democratic world where everyone should be free to do what they want, without harming others, but we have these restrictions. Some imposed by laws (such as being nude in public), but others are just reinforced by our perceived notions (such as discriminating against Gothic people). It is definitely an interesting question that should be considered more carefully.

How Oil Companies Make Record Profits And Get What They Want With Lack Of... Well... Oil!

2008-08-06T13:25:00.000-07:00

Warning: May Contain Comments Which Are Unproven and Purely Theoretical.

Oil Companies, Oil Suppliers, Oil Prices... they are all on the minds of almost everyone. Oil is used in every facet of society. The hamburger you just ate, or the T.V. you just bought were connected to oil in some way. Most commodities, foods, and services rely on transportation somewhere within the chain of events in between the creation of something and the consumer receiving it. So, since oil is so important the recent price increases have gotten us common folk (people who aren't heads of Oil Companies) in a frantic panic trying to cope with spending extra money on everything.

In recent news Exxon-Mobil's fourth-quarter profits were a record for the company (and an overall record of profits for any company... ever!). MSNBC states:

Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.

When I saw these numbers, I was plainly shocked. Personally I thought that due to the lack of oil in the WORLD gas prices had increased to astronomical prices, but according to Exxon-Mobil's Quarter profits that seems to be wrong. If oil reserves are low, and price is high, that makes sense to me because of 'supply and demand.' What doesn't make sense to me is that: if oil is low, to buy the crude oil is expensive, so gasoline prices in turn are expensive, but this should even out so that the company refining the oil should make similar profits to what they made before crude oil was expensive. I think that is very logical thinking.

So why is it that Exxon-Mobil has made the largest profit of any company ever? Well in a New York Times article, Kenneth Cohen, an Exxon Vice President stated:

oil companies needed the profits to search for more oil and gas. He also challenged Congress to open up waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts to drilling, as well as other federal lands where drilling is prohibited.

Well, well Mr. Cohen. Exxon needs the profits to search for more oil, even though they already hold oilfields in the Angola, the United Arab Emirates (which I have already blogged about having an abundant oil supply), Kazakhstan (which, in 2006, had 13 billion barrels of reserve oil), Libya, and Venezuela. These areas are not little fields that are running dry, they are some of the biggest oil producing areas in the world. What is Exxon's goal here?

Let us turn to the second part of Mr. Cohen's statement: opening up the Pacific and Atlantic coasts to drilling. I believe there lies our goal. Exxon-Mobil and other large oil companies have concessions to drill oil all over the world. They are producers and refiners of the world's oil/gasoline supply. So how do you get what you want in the 'Oil' world? You tell everyone there is a shortage, jack up the prices, and then tell governments you need to drill in new areas. That way you gain more profits, because you have your original oilfields, and new ones. Governments are worried about shortages, because oil runs everything, so they give in to demands. Thus, the profits that Exxon has recently published will be a sign of things to come if the oil companies get their own way.

There is one thing I just don't believe in business and that is when one group controls demand and supply, to me that just isn't playing by the rules.

Mystery Makes The Movie: The Dark Knight Review

2008-08-02T17:08:00.000-07:00

Now that The Dark Knight is a few weeks old and most critics have either called it a masterpiece or garbage, I think it is a good time to review the movie again. The movie has had time to saturate into the minds of the public, and most people have already seen it, so how did the movie do?

The Guardian reports that the Dark Knight (DK) may overtake 'The Titanic' (which grossed 600 million) but that is probably unlikely (but not totally dismissible). Right now DK is set to gross 380 million dollars by the time it leaves theatres, which would place it smack-dab in the top ten movies of all time. But why is it such a popular movie?

The first Christopher Nolan adaptation of the Batman franchise, Batman Begins, was a fairly good movie but the story was similar to a teaser. It introduced the 'new' Batman and we got to see how Batman became... Batman. The villains were rather shallow, although they were portrayed rather well, but they lacked something the audience could latch onto. DK changed all this.

What makes people want to see The Dark Knight one, two and even three times? What makes it so successful? I will tell you what I think it is. DK shows a developed Batman character. We know his parameters, and what he is all about. We know that he doesn't kill villains because he believes in justice. We think we know that the villain is someone who is trying to accomplish some greater goal (like obtaining money, revenge, etc.). We know that the good guy is going to win, and the bad guy is going to lose.

What DK does is turn those notions on their head. The Joker is the epitome of the arch-villain. He is not trying to rob a bank, he is not trying to seek revenge, he is not trying to kill Batman, he just purely wants to create chaos and destruction. He wants to kill for the sake of killing, and expose the worst in people. What makes this movie so good is the fact that Batman has to fight a villain that is simple, yet complex at the same time. He is simple in the fact that all he wants to do is cause mindless destruction and chaos. He is complex in the fact that we know almost nothing about him, and he must be above-average intelligent to think of the plans he does.

The Joker creates an air of mystery, which also makes the movie great. When he kills someone in the movie you don't see it. It may happen in an instant (like with the pencil), or happen off-camera. His life is also a mystery because we know nothing about how he became to be so evil, why he has those scars, and who is real identity is. In one scene he edges on a cop to attack him while in the interrogation room, where he is lying on the floor after being beat up by Batman. In the next scene he comes out of the room with a knife to the cop's throat and we do not know how he overpowered the policeman. Things like this make the movie so addictive. It is just like in older black and white films where the scariest things were left up the imagination. That is what the Joker is in this movie, a ghost, he is there... but not really. He is almost pure evil.

It is Batman who must face this pure evil. All the Joker needs is gasoline and dynamite and he can cause the city to crumble (or so he believes). While the city of Gotham stands after the onslaught by the Joker, we find that Batman has been reduced to the scapegoat of the city's problems. Batman becomes the pinnacle of good because he does what is needed of him, and that is whatever is needed to save the city, even if he is turned into the villian. This movie incorporates all the aspects that make a good story:

We have a perfect antagonist (The Joker)
The Symbol of Good (Batman)
The Fallen Hero (Harvey Dent/Two-Face)

While many critics have said the movie had too many explosions, and jumps from idea to idea, I believe those critics do not see the bigger picture. The movie needs to do those things. The Joker, the main villain, cannot be summed up in a single sentence. Batman tosses between the choice between doing the right thing, and doing what he wants. The movie is so disjointed because the storyline is. What I mean is that the destruction is needed because that is what the Joker is. The fragmentation is needed because that is the crux of the story, choosing the right path to take. These decisions are never easy and it is revealed through the layout of the movie.

Personally, I think Heath Ledger played the Joker to perfection. He took the main concept of the Joker's character, twisted it, and made it his own. The voice was perfect, the mannerisms were perfect, and the facial expressions were spot-on. Chrisitan Bale was also very good in his role, as he was in the first movie. The movie does not disappoint.

The only question I have for the critics of this movie (those whom say The Dark Knight failed to be a good movie) is 'Why So Serious?'

Sentence Fragments Are Not Names

2008-07-28T05:01:00.000-07:00

Haven't been.... I am starting to resemble a broken record when I say "Haven't been around for a while," so I decided to scratch that intro. I will just cut to the article I am wrote:

"Fish and Chips" and "Number 16 Bus Shelter," what would you call these? sentence fragments? Things? Objects? If you guessed any of those answers you would be dead wrong, because they are names for children chosen by parents! I'll let that sink in... ... ... Yes, that's right, the names of children.

In a recent Yahoo news story, the use of absurd and ridiculous names for children has angered a New Zealand judge to take action. Judge Rob Murfitt, of family court in New Zealand, renamed a young girl who had been given the name Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii (No word of a lie, that was her real name). She has been renamed, but the court is keeping her new name confidential to protect her privacy.

The court is profoundly concerned about the very poor judgment which this child's parents have shown in choosing this name. It makes a fool of the child and sets her up with a social disability and handicap, unnecessarily.

Personally, I do not understand what could be going through the minds of the parents who agreed to name their child this-I-won't-even-repeat-it-because-it's-so-ridiculous name. Some people just do not seem to have the sense to raise children. I believe that these two parents fall into this category. I cannot understand how they would think that this name would be a suitable name to give to someone. Were they high on drugs? People like this do not deserve to have children.

No parent in their right mind would cause greater burden to be placed on their own children by giving bullies and such an easy target. On the other hand, I also would like to know if Talula, and the other children, had their names registered on birth certificates. If they did, I think it should be illegal to name someone in such a way. I am all for open expression, but in the case of a child's name, since they have no say about what they are called, the parents should show some restraint in 'expression.'

Some of the names in the Yahoo story and just plain pitiful. 'Sex Fruit,' is an actual name given to a child. If a parent could not comprehend that this name would provide a hard life for their child, then they do not deserve to have a child. If they debated between "David, Peter, and all the other names in the English language" and thought Sex Fruit was the most fitting, then they should have a psychiatric evaluation. Even Gweneth Paltrow's daughter's name, Apple, is a more fitting name than 'Sex Fruit!'

If people are looking for fame and fortune, or looking to get on the Jerry Springer show, at the expense of their child, they really need to re-evaluate their priorities. If they actually thought, at the time, that the name 'Talula does the hula in Hawaii' or 'Fish and Chips,' were proper names then they need a straight jacket. There are too many people out there that find ways to belittle people that have absolutely nothing wrong with them. By giving them a clear target such as a 'unusual' name, the child's life would most likely result in ridicule. In the case of Talula, her lawyer stated:

The girl had been so embarrassed at the name that she had never told her closest
friends what it was. She told people to call her "K" instead