free the fly

Going Green

2007-03-03T10:42:00.000-05:00

An article was published recently in CBC News titled, “Gore’s power usage an inconvenient truth, think tank claims.” The article goes on to attack Gore’s power usage in his mansion. Defenders of Gore claim that he balances out his usage by investing in renewable energy sources. This report was released after Gore won an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. At the Oscars, in an attempt to seem less hypocritical awarding Gore for bringing environmental awareness to the world at an awards show known for its excesses, the presenters claimed that the “Oscars were going green” this year. However, after investigating these claims on the official Oscars website, all I found were tips on how one could decrease their negative impact on the environment. There was little about what the Oscars organizers actually did (if they did anything.)

I’m not sure what to believe when it comes to these stories. Perhaps Gore is betting set up, as some have alleged, and this is a smear campaign. Maybe the Oscars did ‘go green’ and I just didn’t find the evidence I was looking for. I can imagine a case where Gore uses an entire coal power station to keep his entire estate lit up all night long. He could be the spokesperson for a lifestyle he doesn’t live. I just wonder if this matters.

What is the purpose of the think tank that, allegedly, exposed Gore’s hypocrisy? Are they showing that even someone in Gore’s position can’t live by the rules he set out in An Inconvenient Truth? Are they showing that no one is really concerned about the environment? Perhaps the next step will be to argue against global warming altogether. It seems if successful the think tank will discredit an environmental movement that is important. And what is the point to that?

I believe in the importance of critical reflection and analysis. If we don’t question what we are doing, then we end up moving blinding through this world. But if just seems that a think tank could do something more useful than trying to discredit Gore. Perhaps they could come up with a more plausible way for people to live by these environmental standards? They could work on a solution, instead of attacking the only plan we have so far.

The End of Blackness

2007-02-25T12:47:00.000-05:00

On the Colbert Report a few nights ago, Debra Dickerson, the author of “The End of Blackness,” was interviewed. Despite the fact that I completely disagree with her, I have to say she makes an interesting point, and was a fantastic sport on the program.

Barack Obama is rumoured to be intending to run for President. (I’m not sure if this is confirmed yet.) Dickerson’s problem with this is that he would not be the first black president, but the first African-African-American president (not first African-American or Black president.) For her, to be black is a cultural distinction. If you are black your ancestors were Africans brought to American in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Obama does not have the correct lineage.

This raises many concerns. What is it about having the particular black culture that is important? Is it the simple fact that their ancestors were slaves? In much the way I could make claims to Scottish culture, simply because, by blood, I am of Scottish decent. Or is it something more? Something like the way your life is now, because you have ancestors that were slaves, and are still living in the country that emancipated them, a country that is still racist, and thus leads to a disadvantaged life for those of the minority? This, rather long-winded expression, is what I associate with black culture. But, if this is true, then any person who is perceived to be ‘black’ by the majority, will suffer the disadvantages of being ‘black’ in this society. So, in some sense, will share in the black culture, necessarily.

Being Scottish isn’t really something that shapes my life, or my perception of the world. It’s this neat fact about history, but it’s not my culture, and doesn’t influence me very much. I wouldn’t want to think that ‘black’ culture falls into this same category. I want to say it is something more, because there are struggles currently going on. But if it’s about this current struggle, than Obama, is black. And the fact is, if he was the first ‘black’ president that would be a huge step forward, and would work towards decreasing old school racist tendencies in the US.

Academically, I think Dickerson is making an interesting point. Politically and culturally, I don’t find it to be an important distinction.

The View

2007-02-05T23:10:00.000-05:00

I was watching The View today (I blame this on the fact that I only get one station.) Every time I watch this show I get a new reason to stop watching it. Anyway, the topic for today was that in Texas, I believe, they are moving to make HPV vaccinations mandatory for young teen girls. The HPV vaccine is to stop the STD that ‘has been strongly linked’ to cervical cancer. The HPV vaccine is especially effective in young girls. Once you’ve been exposed to the different strains that this protects against, it is less effective. Young girls, presumably, have had few, if any, sexual partners. When I heard of this vaccine I was happy. Yay, many young girls vaccinated against cervical cancer.

The response on The View? A: parents should get to decide if their kids get vaccinated. I wonder at this. There is an opt-out clause in the regions with the mandatory vaccination. But, much like our Red Measles, and Hepatitis that we were vaccinated against in school, the idea is to encourage it. This seems like a good thing.

B: If we are going to vaccinate against a cancer that rises from ‘sexual promiscuity’ we need to partner it with an abstinence program, so that the kids don’t misunderstand the importance of not having sex.

What?!

I have my tetanus shot, I think I’ll go stick a rusty nail in my hand. Or, hey, I’ve had my hep C shot, I think I’ll go to Mexico and drink out of a puddle.

Once again, the women on The View seem to have completely missed the point. Does anyone else wonder if they actually look into the subjects that they discuss??

Just for Jer

2007-01-18T18:23:00.000-05:00

I found this funny... It's from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

The Apology Paradox

2007-01-15T21:20:00.000-05:00

I was reading an article about apologies, and one of the main claims is that you cannot apologise for something that is responsible for your existence. What this means is that to honestly, sincerely apologise for something, you must wish that it wasn’t the case. So, for me to apologise for breaking your mug, I have to wish that your mug hadn’t been broken (or that I had, at least, not been the one to break it.) This article claimed that it is paradoxical to wish that something that is responsible for you to not be the case, and that we can not wish that, with sincerity. For example, you can’t apologise for your family, your heritage, your country. I couldn't apologise for your broken mug, if by breaking it, I have saved my life. In this case, I'm not sorry I saved my life. Anything that created the circumstances that formed you as the person you are, you cannot sincerely wish was not the case. It is to unwish yourself.

This is particularly important in the case of transgenerational wrongs, i.e. it is paradoxical to apologise for the American slave trade from the point of view of the descendents of the slave owners, but, more interestingly, it is also paradoxical for the descendents of the American slaves to regret the fact that their ancestors were slaves. In both cases, the slave trade is considered a key causal fact that is responsible for who we all are now. Even more counter to intuition, this would mean that if you were conceived during a rape, you could not be unparadoxically remorseful of that fact, because otherwise, you would not exist.

Take, for example, the situation of Clementine. She was 12 when the genocide happened in Rwanda. Her and her sister hid in a tree, hidden from the massacre, but still able to hear the murder of their entire family. Amazingly they escaped, and eventually found their way to America. A decade later Clementine entered an essay writing contest, which she won. She claims her aim is to speak for those who can’t, and tell everyone what happened. According to the paradox she could not regret, sincerely, the genocide and her experiences, because they are responsible for who she is today.

Celebrity Gossip

2007-01-12T09:26:00.000-05:00

I was watching Canada AM this morning, waiting for the coffee to jump start my brain. The entertainment coverage focussed mostly on the world premiere in Toronto of Guru, a bollywood movie. Apparently there have been rumours about a relationship between two of the main actors from Guru, and the belief was that they would announce their engagement at the premiere. But, this never happened.

When interviewed, the guy said something to the effect, “I don’t know why people want to know about my private life, what pyjamas I wear, or what side of the bed I sleep on. I’m happy to talk about my work, but not that.” I thought to myself that this was a good statement, although I’ve heard similar claims from Hollywood before. The dialogue from the news hosts went as follows;

Beverly Thomson: “what we want to know is whether she knows what pyjamas he’s wearing.”
Seamus O’Regan: “I think she does.”

The response of the two news hosts took me off guard. Is the idea of the privacy of celebrities so unaccepted, that the very idea makes us laugh? Shouldn’t we be asking actors about acting, and disregard their personal details? And certainly, it seems that the job of news hosts should be something to that effect. I know that Canada AM is not a “hard-hitting” news show, but this morning it sounded more like E-Talk. Why is gossip so important?

Finding the Cause II

2007-01-06T15:47:00.000-05:00

The previous post was meant, and was successful, at triggering discussion about causes. The main reason for the post was because of the missing cause, the missing party, in the list of those responsible. And this would be the people in Rwanda.

My knowledge of this conflict is sketchy, and I am the first to admit that. But this genocide was internal, one part of the population attacking another. Although they were aware of their differences because of the Belgian anthropologists, it was their media that used the propaganda that created the horror that was to follow. Much like the WW2 media claim that the Germans ate their dead, the Rwandan media was making all sorts of wild claims about the Tutsis, and the danger their existence posed to the rest of the population.

I find it interesting that General Dallaire did not mention the Rwandans in his list of those responsible. And to me, this is to do them a great disservice. If it is possible that everyone BUT THEM caused the genocide, then the Rwandans themselves are unable to control their own lives. And by not placing any blame with them, we steal from them their sense of equal humanity with us.

Finding the Cause

2006-12-13T23:16:00.000-05:00

“Shake Hands with the Devil” is a documentary (or book) which fulfills several goals. It is a story about the truth of the genocide in Rwanda, it is an explanation of the causes of the genocide, and it is the story of a man who was in the midst of the conflict. But before writing about my reaction to this film, I want to identify one aspect of it. Much of the film is about who is to blame. Here are the potentially guilty parties:

The original Belgian colonizers: Besides the upsetting influence of colonization on any society, their anthropologists were also responsible for studying the difference between Hutu and Tutsis, and requiring that this be on your id.

The UN: When the coming conflict and massacre became apparent, they did not send in more troops. In fact, they pulled out.

West: The west should have used its power to act. General Dallaire points out that one reason for inaction is because the Rwandans were black. The West sent troops into Yugoslavia. (Cause, Western racism)

General Dallaire: He had information at the beginning of the conflict, about the location of weapons that were to be used in the massacre. However, he received orders to not pre-emptively take out these supplies. Some argue, had he ignored those orders, things would have turned out differently.

The Belgian Troops: The Belgian troops far outnumbered the other peacekeeping forces. As a result, they were targeted. After 10 Belgians were killed, they all pulled out of Rwanda. Some argue, had they stayed, many more Rwandans could have been saved.

Church: The Catholic Church has great power and influence in Rwanda, and in Rwandan politics. Some claim that if the Church had called the killing of Tutsis a sin, that would have stopped the massacre.

How does this list of guilty look to you?

Victorian Moral Values

2006-12-10T13:10:00.000-05:00

Today in the UK paper, the Guardian, there is an article titled: “Bring back Victorian values says key Tory”. The article starts by identifying the issue of youth crime, and the place of citizens in stopping it. Currently in the UK, and here, you have to be careful when acting to stop a crime, because the criminal could later charge you with assault. When Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General claims we need to change this policy, I feel he is on the right track.

But then he starts to go horribly astray. Grieve says: “You can argue that our Victorian forebears succeeded in achieving something very unusual between the 1850s and 1900 in changing public attitudes by - dare one use the word - instilling moral codes. I don't want to suggest this was an ideal society, but it was one where a sense of moral values and of the responsibility people owed to each other did seem to be pervasive. There was a much greater sense of shame in respect of transgressions.”

Where Grieve is right, there was a greater sense of shame, this was hardly a good thing. It is one thing to feel shameful for stealing, maiming, killing, etc. It is quite another to feel shame for being different from the perceived norm. The role of “bastard children” (a phrase I find horrendous) or the sexually deviant provide evidence of the misuse of this shame.

Grieve is not alone- former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith is on the brink of publishing a report on social justice, wherein he will blame the breakdown of traditional families for poverty, school failure and crime. Thankfully he is not going to take the Victorian stand, instead he is blaming men who shirk their responsibilities, and ignoring the more usual target of single mothers.

In some ways this report will be good – it will start a conversation about the role of family in these issues, and discuss aspects of modern fatherhood. The mistake of the Victorians was to determine the ideal, and then use manipulation to make everyone conform, with the penalty of becoming an outcast if you refused. And there is a chance that these politicians are aiming towards the same goal. If they determine that two parent, heterosexual families that use shame to keep their kids in line is the best way to decrease the problems listed above, would they try to force us all into that ideal?

The Victorians did have a unique moral code. So did Hitler. We have to do more evaluation of such moral codes before even considering them. The world is different now, and forcing society backwards is not a solution.

The Genocide of the EV1

2006-12-08T13:52:00.000-05:00

I don’t have much I can articulate about how this makes me feel – I find myself so angry and so sad all at the same time. I encourage you all to watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” but be warned – you will likely be left in the same state of emotional upheaval.

I use the word ‘genocide’ because this was the systematic destruction of a kind of car based on the horrible values of those with the ability to kill it. It was purposeful, and horrendous.

I am slowly becoming a Global Warming believer – now that I’ve heard the scientific arguments, instead of just the flashy political and celebrity ones. And, at least according to Dr. Archer who did the talk last week as part of the PI lecture series, halving our output of CO2 would go a long way to getting us through the coming crisis. And doing so may be as simple as moving away from coal burning power stations to cleaner technologies. And after watching the documentary about the death of the EV1 I begin to wonder, if the EV1 is a crucial part of the solution.

For those of you unfamiliar with the documentary, the EV1 was a completely electric car introduced in California in early 1990. It was affordable, about the same price as regular, gas-using cars (unlike the extra expense of Hybrids), it was fast, quiet, and could go about 300 miles on a charge. After gaining considerable public interest, the cars were pulled from the market and destroyed. Conspiracy theory abounds as to the causes of this.

But what I am interested in, foremost, is that this technology already exists. An electric car is not a dream, but a reality. If only a car company would sell them.

This leaves me wondering what we can do? In the case of the EV1 the consumer seemed to have almost no power in keeping the cars on the road. No matter how long the waiting lists were, no matter how many protests they had, no one would listen to them. What are our options for pushing through the changes we need to enact in order to survive?

Musings on Racism

2006-12-06T10:45:00.001-05:00

Is it racist when you mistakenly identify one racial group for another? When you misidentify someone’s race? Does it show that you are inherently racist, because you cannot tell the difference? And if this is so, does it mean there is an obligation to be educated about the physical characteristics of different groups, thus teaching yourself to see the difference?

Or perhaps, not seeing a difference it the best way to avoid being racist?

The first description, of racial blindness, describes me. Not because I’ve trained myself to react that way, a certain blindness in life itself is a characteristic I have. But I find myself conflicted about this blindness because although it is bad to group people against their desire into racial groups, especially for the sake of attributing negative qualities to them, your race, in its positive aspects, is important. So perhaps acknowledging someone’s membership in these groups is important, and not knowing, perhaps that is insulting.

And I wonder if this is further complicated by my membership in the non-race of my society that happens to be dominant (in the power structure at the moment.) And that perhaps my obligations will be different from others.

A View from the Other Side

2006-12-01T16:14:00.000-05:00

[This post is related to Flip’s latest discussion. To read his post click here]

In the December issue of University Affairs (yes, I’m a geek. I was looking at post-doc ads) there is an article “Meet the Contrarians” by Leo Charbonneau. Each of the contrarians mentioned could easily provide topics for this blog, but Dr. Tim Patterson, a geologist from Carleton University, has the view I want to discuss here. Patterson is dubbed the “global-warming denier”. He claims the theory of “manmade climate change due to greenhouse gases is incorrect and outdated.” He says, “As a scientist I can only go where the science takes me, and not where someone like David Suzuki wants me to go.”

And Patterson, although in the minority with his beliefs, is not alone. At both universities in Ottawa those climate researchers that agree with Patterson outnumber those who don’t. Patterson says instead of carbon dioxide emissions causing global-warming, it is likely solar variability – changes in the sun’s solar cycle that are responsible. He believes the next cooling phase will begin around 2020. He blames the current alarm about global warming on the fact that the issue has become a political, instead of scientific one.

I’m not trying to claim that Patterson is right. When I first read the article I attempted to read some of Patterson’s official research on the subject. It turns out; my philosophical background was very unhelpful in deciphering his results. But it raises some interesting questions. Say the politicization of the issue is finally getting people to react; curb their driving, lobby for government controls on industry exhaust. Even if carbon dioxide emissions are not causing global warming, there aren’t good. We may not be warming the planet, but it seems we are making it difficult for ourselves – I’m thinking of the increase in smog days each year.

So, if those in Patterson’s camp are right, should we still support the alarmists, because in the long run, acting as if climate change were our fault, will cause us to change in ways that we should. If we were to tear apart the case for global warming, then people might revert to their old ways, and we’d have to start over. Is it all right to use a “white lie” to motivate us into action?

Sexual Liability

2006-11-29T18:55:00.001-05:00

L told me about a case that she heard about concerning the legal liability in cases of STDs. I’m not sure of the exact details of this case, and if anyone has a link to the article, please email it to me!

So the story goes something like this; guy, lets call him Albert, has AIDS and he knows it. He knowingly has unprotected sex with a woman, lets call her Laura. Laura is suing Albert for giving her AIDS.

In the case of AIDS my automatic reaction is that Albert is some kind of monster. How could he do this? A few questions arise that might mitigate his monster-hood: is Laura responsible in part for the lack of protection? Were they drunk at the time? But no matter the details, the fact that Albert knew, and he had unprotected sex anyway, seems to make him responsible.

But this makes me wonder. Most people who get AIDS through sexual contact don’t do so on purpose. I mean, no one sets out to get AIDS, and few people set out to give it to others. (Carelessness is one thing, using it as a way of hurting others is another.) Does it matter that Albert knew? Say Albert didn’t know. He didn’t know, because although he’s had ten different sexual partners, he’s never had any kind of STD test, in fact, he’s never been to the doctor. Is he responsible then? Should he have been more careful?

And then if we say that Albert is responsible for knowing if he has an STD or not, and thus responsible if he passes it on, is his responsibility changed at all by the fact that he likely also got it from someone in a similar position to him? Is his legal responsibility passed on to the person who gave it to him? And so on, tracing the chain of people who are connected by this particular strain of AIDS?

This seems to be a particularly pertinent subject, since any decision about AIDS would also hold for any STD. And since there is no such thing as completely safe sex (not counting abstinence) then it seems to be the case that we all need to visit the doctor before and after each new sexual partner, lest we be legally liable for passing something on. So, while I want to blame Albert, I worry that the implications lead somewhere unrealistic.

Strings of Responsiblity

2006-11-25T13:02:00.000-05:00

Nancy Grace, a TV host from CNN, is being sued for the wrongful death of Melinda Duckett. She interviewed Duckett, a young mother, about the disappearance of her two-year-old son, Trenton. Grace, a former prosecutor, treated the interview like a cross-examination, questioning Duckett about her whereabouts, and potential motives for the disappearance of her son. An interview that Duckett, allegedly, had been told would be about the disappearance, became an accusation and search for the proof of Duckett’s guilt. The day after the interview Duckett shot herself. Now Duckett’s parents are suing Grace for wrongful death.

Do you think that Grace is responsible for Duckett’s suicide? Can one person make another commit suicide? Grace didn’t trick Duckett into thinking death was the only way out, but she did attack a potentially emotionally unstable woman. Duckett was young (early twenties) and, if innocent, likely extremely distraught about her missing son. In such a state, it might not take much of a push to make her commit suicide. But even if this is the case, can we say that Grace was responsible?

If you lose your job, and are no longer able to support your family, you may become depressed and feel hopeless. Some people may even commit suicide as a result. Is the company that fired them responsible for their death? Is the insurance company which put a price on their death, responsible for encouraging it? Was Grace doing no more than her job, and although it is sad that Duckett committed suicide, can Grace no more be blamed than any of the rest of us who promote situations that cause others to feel sadness or guilt?

And further, does Duckett’s suicide point to extreme feelings of guilt? Is this some kind of proof?

Click to see Article here

Sweet Revenge or Out-of-Control?

2006-11-22T18:58:00.000-05:00

A while ago I saw this Dr. Phil episode about a woman who owns an unusual site called, Don’t Date Him Girl. She moderates this site, and women, who have an account, can publish the name, and picture of guys that they’ve dated, and describe what was wrong with them. Common comments are, “arsehole”, “he was a cheater” etc. The website is designed to give other women the heads up. I guess if you’ve been cheated on, the idea is, we gals must band together, so you are getting the inside scoop.

This woman was on the Dr. Phil show because, at the time, she was being sued by one of the guys from her site for libel. They didn’t decide whether of not the accusations about him were true (by his cagey attitude I suspect they were). Regardless, can such accusations be posted? Another women, who had been dumped, admitted creating false accusations against her ex as revenge.

If this were a news site, then this would be libel. But someone’s website? Yes, it’s a commercial website, but it’s not owned by a corporation. If I owned this website, could I post my opinion about people? I certainly can if they’re famous and I don’t know them. But what about the people around me?

There seems to me to be something really wrong with this website, but at the same time, I kind of think, maybe it’s right. Maybe it’s right to warn future girlfriends of past wrongs. And if you’re with someone who has read the site and won’t believe you can be better than that, maybe that’s okay. I mean, the person who wrote those nasty things did date them, and wanted it to work out, so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.

On a further note, this website is being made into a tv show.

Double Standard?

2006-11-21T09:26:00.000-05:00

Lets say a bunch of guys are hanging around some cars they’ve been fixing up, talking their guy talk. Maybe across the street are some women walking some small pug dog with a pink collar, these girls looking the part of the stereotypically attractive. The guys are, somewhat subtly, checking them out, making some comments, but in the end their attention is more on the cars. Then a girl walks down the street towards them. Instead of being dressed in a pink short skirt, and tiny heels, she wears baggy overalls with a little grease on them, baby-tee, pigtails, ball cap. She walks up to the guys, and starts talking to them in their car language. She gets their attention.

Why is it that so much sex appeal is awarded to the girl who acts like the guys? Who takes up their interest? This happens again and again with cars, sports, computers, science, engineering, sci-fic, etc. What is it that is at work here? I know that often the girl is actually just interested in the area, and is trying to be taken seriously. And maybe the guys take her seriously, but all the while they are thinking something else. But why?

If a guy walks into a female dominated area, although I appreciate his interest, I do not find him sexier. Take the male nurse: they are fantastic people doing a great job, but I’m not going to jump them. I do not want a picture of a male nurse as my desktop.

So why does it work the other way? Why?

World of Warcrack

2006-11-17T22:45:00.001-05:00

One my colleagues, M, who is new to the city has been feeling very alone these past months. In order to solve this, he joined World of Warcraft. For those of you unfamiliar with this, it is an online game that is an entire world. All the characters are actually other players, and you can choose to do almost anything. M told me about the vastness of this artificial world, saying, “I climbed to the top of this huge mountain and looked at the world around me, and it didn’t end. It just kept going. And then I tilted my character’s head to see the sky, and stared at the stars. And I realised, that another player far away in the game could be looking at these exact same stars.”

For M this was an astounding realisation, as if it added credibility and reality to this game. And I find myself wondering. This is a game in which you can choose to do any number of professions, including such options as smith, bartender or trapper. You can choose what kind of person you want to be – a good (nice) player, or a mean one. You can choose whom to associate with, or not. And you can choose to band together and fight for a common goal. And although this might sound like the most fantastic game, you have to wonder, aren’t these the choices you have outside of the game?

Okay, there are monsters in this game. There is fantasy and swordplay. It’s not exactly like life. But what is it about this fantastical realm that is so appealing? Expenses include a monthly fee, a fast internet connection, not to mention time lost when you are playing the game instead of doing your work (as M seems to be doing).

I admit that I haven’t played, and am actually avoiding it at the moment as it is just the kind of thing that will cause me to do no work for the next six months. And as real as the game is, my accomplishments in it will do me no good out here. But this raises interesting questions about the validity of this “reality”? Is the person you are in the game the same as the one outside of it? Is it the true you? And if there is a difference, why is there a difference?

Today

2006-11-17T22:35:00.000-05:00

Apparently - I live at the bottom of a hill!

Sexual Peaks

2006-11-14T21:37:00.000-05:00

As I was jogging with a friend, he mentioned, yet again, how male libido decreases with age. He only had lessening libido to look forward to, while I, luckily, was only moving towards my peak. The number I’ve heard is that the male sexual peak is 18 and the female early 30s. But I wonder if this could actually be true, or if it is a socially constructed myth, something designed to encourage young men in their sexuality, while discouraging young women at the same time.

But beyond that question, I find myself with the further problem. According to one website 3 out of 4 husbands cheat on their wives. I wonder at the definition of “cheat on”, but even if my idea is different, the important part is that the numbers are high. And it also seems fair to say that a large percent of these men are over 30, lets say. If their libido is waning, as they are now a decade past their sexual peak, why are they cheating? Is it something other than sexual need that is driving them to do so?

Another thing I find strange is that often older married men are cheating with much younger women. So, this lustful sexual affair of a 30 year old man, and 19 year old woman, would include two people, each a decade distant from their sexual peaks.

So is the claim about sexual peaks a myth? Or is there some other motivation for cheating?

Male Brides

2006-11-13T10:36:00.000-05:00

A young girl wearing a veil, clomping around the house in her mother’s shoes, all the while pretending that she is getting married. This is the stereotype we are led to believe is normal from the media. That every girl has dreamt of her wedding day.

Maybe this is true, it certainly isn’t among my friends, but I can accept that they do not represent the norm. But what I have encountered, surprisingly, is many guys who fit this profile better. Young guys in their early or mid twenties, who are ready to be in that lasting relationship and get married. To get the house, and have some kids.

I find myself wondering what has caused this schism of interest between the two genders. Is it that women have moved forward (or perhaps away) from the traditional roles, while men have yet to catch up? Is it that guys spend more of their youth “playing the field”, so are ready for the next step sooner than women who have put it off in order to pursue careers? Is it simply that dating in your twenties can be tiresome, and the female reaction to this is to ignore it, and the guy reaction is to skip it? I hate to draw lines along gender differences, but I find myself mystified at the wedding/wife talk I hear from guys on all sides these days.

Have guys become the ones to dream about their wedding day?

Can Your Goal Be Something You Don't Want?

2006-11-11T11:28:00.000-05:00

In Michel Foucault’s book, “On the Hermeneutics of the Subject” he traces the practice of ‘care of the self’ from antiquity, up through Roman times, and then through Christianity. Care of the self seems to be an ethics of care to the self, exercises (mental and physical) to become the right kind of person, to lead the good life. And in all the eras, it seems to include a large amount of self-mastery. You need to be in control of your life, and your reactions to it, so that the contingencies of life will not unbalance you.

So, when Lucilius is faced with a lawsuit, he should imagine the worst possible outcome, and work on himself so that he is okay with it. Thus, if it does happen, he knows that he will survive it. This kind of exercise to control emotion, and be prepared, seems great. But then another example is given that when you hug your child you should be thinking, “tomorrow the child I love will die.” This exercise is to prepare yourself for the possible outcome of losing your child, and thus have the kind of affection for them that could withstand such an event.

I raise this issue, because it seems to me that the first example, of the lawsuit, is great. I understand what it shows, what control the person will have. But the second example seems obscene, and morbid. And that perhaps you should never be unruffled by the death of your child.

Those who want to ‘care for their self’ want self-mastery; they want control over their emotions, and emotional reactions- potentially, because to simply react makes us more animal than human. But the goal of complete self-mastery, where you are unruffled by your personal relationships, seems to make the person into some kind of unfeeling robot.
And we no more want to be described as a robot, than we do an animal. But perhaps it is always a struggle to maintain control, and it is impossible for humans to completely become disjointed from their affection for others, but that the struggle and attempt is what is important. But if this is the case, that means we are using something as our goal, that we don’t actually want to achieve. And this to me seems to be some kind of contradiction.

Do we have the same problems with modern ‘vices’? We all agree that lying is wrong, and that we should tell the truth, but the person who always tells the truth, do we admire them, or think they are lacking something? The person who gives all their money to charity and thus has no hobbies – are they a hero, or something else? Do we actually aspire to be moral saints, or are we aiming at something lower?

Sometimes it's all about the meek...

2006-11-09T23:39:00.000-05:00

I was talking to one of my professors today about American Literature (turns out this was his love pre-philosophy). He told me that in this area of literature you find that there is an association between simple talk (and lower intelligence) and goodness, as compared to educated, well spoken, and evil – think Huck Finn, etc. I wonder if we still have this association – in some sense a very Christian (and yet, like most Christian themes, easily traceable to earlier times.) Is intelligence an automatic threat to our goodness? Our do we just feel that evil done by those who don’t know better, (whatever this means) isn’t truly evil?

Hypocrisy To Earn Your Dollar: Gap’s Red Shirt Campaign

2006-11-03T12:23:00.000-05:00

GAP, a member of (Product)Red has launched its Red Shirt Campaign. This appears to be a case of selected GAP merchandise being modeled by celebrities, and half of the proceeds of these products will go to help fight AIDS in Africa. (The actual claim is eliminate AIDS in Africa).

In this way the consumer is being fashionable, both through their clothing, and through the statement of fighting AIDS. You are participating in the, very fashionable, fight against AIDS in Africa, your co-conspirators being the likes of Bono, Bill Gates, and Angelina Jolie.

Regardless of your disbelief in the good-natured motivation of GAP, it might seem that this is all right. That we need to all step up and do what we can. What is going on in Africa is horrible right now, and especially when compared to the wealth and way of life in other countries. So why is this entry labelled with the word “Hypocrisy”?

GAP has been struggling against claims of using sweatshops in foreign countries to make its products for many years. And even as GAP attempts to become more socially responsible, the number of such sweatshops that are closed, even as recently as 2005, amount to under 20%. The factories in China are particularly bad for human rights violations, yet GAP closed less than 5% of them in 2004.

I do commend GAP for starting the ball rolling, if you will. They are trying to clean up their act, and perhaps this cannot be done overnight. But there is something hypocritical about the products, of (Product)RED, being made in factories that violate basic human rights. Where workers are paid less than minimum wage, work over 60 hours a week, where unions are discouraged (often violently), and a myriad of other abuses occur.

So by buying GAP products to support Africa, you are employing workers from overseas sweatshops. The more GAP products you buy, in an attempt to help Africa, the more harm you cause in the form of such, near-slave labour. Instead of using (Product)Red to clean up GAP’s image, to appear socially responsible, why don’t they actually become socially responsible? Donate half the proceeds of each of their products back into a fund for making sure the workers are paid properly, that working conditions are appropriately satisfactory. Or better than that. And instead of supporting Africa by buying GAP, just donate your money directly.

Draw the Line

2006-10-31T22:00:00.000-05:00

I need to start this by saying that I am not a relativist. In fact, I find relativism self-defeating; as to claim to take the stance of relativism is to take a determinate stand. What I do think, when it comes to ethics, is that there is a right and a wrong. And although we may not have access to this information, and may not be able to tell when we’ve got it right, there is a right, underlying it all. And it is with this belief that I begin to wonder about the following idea.

It seems to me that when we talk about problematic issues from a theoretical standpoint we end up with strange extremes that don’t relate to everyday life. For example, if I were to say that violence is not justified, from such a belief I could take the stand of a pacifist. Now if violence is wrong, then I am committed to not directly harming another. But this will also commit me to not harming another in self-defence. And then, if violence is truly wrong, perhaps I cannot support something that would promote violence or that has links to violence, for instance pro wrestling on TV, or governments that support sending citizens to war in foreign countries. If pushed far enough, extreme pacifism could include a withdrawal from society. And this doesn’t even deal with the possibility that violence to animals or plants could also pose a problem.

This ‘slippery slope’ must be avoided in order for us to justify our actions- but how can we do this? I am starting to think that what determines our moral character is where we draw the, somewhat arbitrary, line. This kind of violence is wrong, and that kind is okay. Lines drawn in the sand. And although this begins to sound relativist, I wonder if knowing where someone has drawn the line doesn’t tell us about them morally? Robert Latimer who would kill his disabled and suffering daughter, but not anyone else.

Lines, lines, drawn in the sand. All you must decide is on which side you wish to stand.

Indecisionitis

2006-10-12T16:05:00.000-05:00

I’m back to free the fly once again. I thought perhaps I had escaped, but not yet.

I met with one of my students as she prepared to write her first philosophy essay in her first philosophy course. She told me how she was stressed about the essay, and began describing her symptoms.

She had started the chapter on identity and after a few passes through the material understood the first argument. At this point she happily agreed with the first philosopher. Then she read the second selection on identity, which argued for a different, and opposing explanation of identity. With both arguments in mind she felt her satisfaction with the first wane, and was unable to choose between the two. In this confused state of mind she began to read the final selection, which contained Derek Parfit’s thought experiments about brain fission including such problems as; is it the same person if you transplant their brain into another body? What if you transplant half their brain? And so on. This final blow had left her in an unfortunate state – what we call a case of Indecisionitis.

Usually such a problem presents itself after years of work in philosophy. You don’t become vulnerable until the ego has let go of the belief that you know something, thus opening yourself fully to the arguments before you. I recall a particularly bad case that I had myself in fourth year. I’ve had annual reoccurrences ever since.

My student asked me for help, and I had to admit there was no cure. It’s disturbing to see such a case in one so young.

What is the power of language?

2005-10-20T15:17:00.000-05:00

Some have said that politically correct terms (pc) have gone from correcting a problem in society to being so overused that they are now creating problems. In a way the pc revolution is a control on the connotation behind our words, a form of thought-police whose aim is a more equal society.

Last year I read an article entitled “The Metaphysics of Race” in which the author (who, shamefully, I cannot name) wrote of an interesting issue when it comes to the use of racial slurs or insults. He divided society into R1s (those from the dominant race) and R2s (those from the less powerful, with lesser numbers.) Because of the power imbalance in society, the author argued, a racial insult directed from a R1 to and R2 is far worse than the same insult directed from the R2 to the R1. The connotation behind the word is different because of each person’s placement within the power hierarchy of the culture.

What this boils down to is the belief that, in Canada for example, it is more wrong for the R1s – European Caucasians - to use any kind of racial slur or insult directed at a R2, than for an R2 to make such a remark towards an R1. The enforcement of the use of pc terms, thus, seems directed at those who do the most harm, those who fall into the R1 category.

The result appears to be that it is unacceptable in any company for a European Caucasian to make a racial slur. This often results in the stuttering that takes place when someone is searching for the correct term to use to reference a race. This is fine. However, it also means that the use of racial slurs by the minority is not policed in the same way.

The question that arises for me is what effect this one-sided enforcement has. I am a member of the R1s. I find myself mostly unaware of race. I’m used to diversity. When I hear the racial slurs it takes a moment to place what race they are referring to, and sometimes I never figure it out. Because such words were discouraged, they have no meaning to me. Maybe I am unusual in this way, but I don’t think so.

I’m watching Comedy Now as I write this, and it was the inspiration. At the moment the comic is a Native American. If he hadn’t mentioned it half a dozen times at the beginning of his skit, I wouldn’t have known. During the beginning of his skit he made fun of natives, whities, Asians, African Americans, Americans… making use of racial stereotypes that would be scandalous is made by a “whitie”.

I have to wonder if this comic sees the world in terms of race, always noticing skin colour or bone structure, and making assumptions upon his conclusions. Racial slurs were socially banned from use by whities because of the connotation behind the words. Because it meant more than just the words, it was a way of viewing the world. And inside the words themselves there was a language of domination towards all R2s. But if this is true, and I’m temped to believe it, what does it mean about those who belong to a racial minority and use racial slurs? What is the connotation behind their words, what worldview do they possess? And would a similar social pressure be helpful for them?

Crazy Lawn

2005-09-20T22:34:00.000-05:00

I’ve put my project on our changing attitudes towards animals on hold for the moment, as I watch how pets are dealt with after Hurricane Katrina. So, for now, on to other things.

On City Pulse tonight they aired the story of a man in Scarborough who has decided to have a ‘natural’ lawn, which basically amounts to doing nothing. His neighbours are furious, for as hard as they work on their own carefully manicured lawns, they can do nothing to affect what this man does. Neighbours complain that the ragweed growing freely on his lawn is causing them to have breathing problems, so not only is it an eyesore, but also a health hazard.

You’re probably thinking that this is the lamest complaint you’ve ever heard. The man should be able to do whatever he wants with his lawn, same as everyone else. Surprise, the city sided with the neighbours, and has told the man that he MUST mow his lawn, or the city will do it for him.

This is outrageous for many reasons.

First, problems caused by the use of lawn pesticides are far worse, and far less natural, than that of ragweed. Ragweed relief comes in the form of a pill, but problems caused by exposure to pesticides have only recently been acknowledged, and are much harder to guard against. The man should be able to complain to the city about his neighbours’ use of chemicals, and tell them to stop. That would make far more sense.

Second, the man has to obey the majority, with no right over his own property. Gas is expensive, should you HAVE to spend that money and mow your lawn if you don’t want to? Will the city subsidise this? Unlikely. And what if the man wanted to paint his house with black and white checkers. This would also be an eyesore, so would he be stopped?

The city’s response is ridiculous. And it saddens me that such craziness it so easily accepted. In fact, City Pulse is now offering information on how to ‘turn in’ your neighbour with the weed-infested lawn. Makes you wonder what property ownership really means.

Our Evolving Treatment of Animals: Part One - Growing Sympathy

2005-08-27T22:34:00.000-05:00

When I decide to make dinner for someone, I usually find myself in the meat section of the Loblaws, giving in to the general acceptance of all meals revolving around meat, and wariness of “alternative” protein sources. But my sensitivity to the source of my food is not especially aroused, for most meat bears no resemblance to the animal from which it came. Chicken breasts are pale blobs on white styrofoam, ground beef is nothing but pink mush. Could be anything.

Even though the majority of Canadians (and North Americans in general) participate in the “meat in every meal” practice, I believe this is dependent, at least in part, on the way in which we are able to purchase our meat. It takes a great deal of effort to make it appear as if the chicken breast had no relation to the body of an actual chicken, therefore it makes sense that such measures would only be taken if necessary. If, when we went to the market, we were sold the entire live chicken, veganism would likely jump in popularity.

What I’m not arguing here is that veganism is the right way to go (I’m not a vegan), but that the reason why our meat does not resemble the animal from which it came is because of a growing sensitivity among our population. Studies of psychopaths reveal that traumatic childhoods retard the development of the part of the brain associated with empathy, seeming to indicate that environment has an impact on this quality. It could be that our treatment of household pets as important members of our families has created an environment with an increased sensitivity towards all animal welfare.

With this sensitivity, or empathy, comes a need for distance from the source of our meat; if the meat appears sterile, and unlike its origin, then we will eat it. This self-deception allows us to be carnivores without feeling guilt when later hugging a beloved pet. We can justify our actions claiming that Rover would eat meat without feeling guilt. Of course, Rover also doesn’t need to perform a self-deception in order to accept this.

It is important to note that this empathy and self-deception are not universal. There are places in the world that eat animals that most North Americans would never touch. For example the common practice of eating dogs in places like China. Also, when walking through Chinatown in Toronto, the meat sold there is not put through any process to hide what it is. Whether self-deception is the better route, I’m not seeking to answer here.

Evolving animals rights and this increasing need for a self-deception points to a change in our views regarding animals. These changes have already had interesting consequences, and may yet have more. In the next three parts of this article I will look at some of these issues more closely. In the end if things continue in this direction I see two possible consequences, each interesting in its own way. Stay tuned!

Vacation Time

2005-08-05T21:08:00.000-05:00

Time for a vacation - back soon with posts on Our Evolving Treatment of Animals.

Nostradamus and China

2005-08-03T21:33:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I enjoyed an interesting documentary on the prophecies of Nostradamus.

Those who’ve studied his writings have identified predictions for three antichrists. The criteria for being an antichrist is unclear, obviously you have to do many evil acts, but it seems to me that there have been more than three since Nostradamus wrote his predictions. Regardless, an antichrist is a very bad person who kills, in the worst possible way, innocent and good people. (I’ll leave for now any further questions about what these classifications mean).

In the documentary the Nostradamus scholar described in great lengths the descriptions surrounding the three antichrists, providing evidence for his conclusions about their identity. He claimed the first antichrist was Napoleon, the second, Hitler, and the third is some yet unknown man from the middle east, the scholar guessing that it could be either Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden.

I’ve always felt conflicted about Nostradamus, his predictions are much more clear after an event and have no ability to warn (which makes you wonder what the point could possibly be). However, they do seem to contain information about the future, so perhaps there is some truth in them. For the sake of this entry I’ll assume there is.

There is another issue that bothers me. In the view of the world that Nostradamus gives us, it is the European world and their colonies that appear to comprise all that is worthy of predictions. Why are none of these antichrists tyrants from Asia, from China? Why do the horrific acts that take place in South America, or the Eastern world escape classification of being brought about by an antichrist?

There are two possible explanations as I see it. One, the horrors in the western world are far worse than those in the Eastern (and south American) world. Thus, they must be the acts of an antichrist. This explanation is ridiculous, and simply false.

Second, antichrists can only come to Christian people, so are limited to the Christian world (hemisphere). This is problematic. The antichrist is not necessarily Christian (as the third antichrist from the middle east is unlikely to be Christian) and the acts of this third antichrist have been harmful (if it is Bin Laden or Hessian) to people of all faiths.

Since neither of these explanations seems plausible, what could the reason for the Western location of the antichrists be?

A third possibility is that Nostradamus was simply biased towards the world that he knew, and felt that what happened outside of it was irrelevant. But this seems oddly small-minded coming from a man with the ability to predict the future.

Is Branding Evil?

2005-08-02T18:56:00.000-05:00

Branding has become the most important challenge facing advertisers today. The differences in the physical make-up of a product will differ little, if at all, from that of its competition. The top brands of shoes, for instance, may be made from the same materials, for the same cost, and usually in the same type, if not the same building, of off-shore production facility. As a result advertisers seek to create a different kind of identification for their product, attempting to attach non-material goods to material ones.

Many “counter culturalists”, who claim that such advertising is akin to mind control, have criticized this practice loudly. Advertising creates a hole, for example by drawing attention to the shade of white of your teeth. For those with less white teeth this results in a new feeling of self-consciousness. Advertisers then fill this hole by flooding the market with tooth whitening potions. The newly self-conscious people immediately need to buy the new product, and as their teeth are whiter, their self-confidence tends to be higher.

Advertisers do this with all manner of products, from jeans that make promises of making you look ‘hipper’, to clothing stores that will make you appear unique, or beer brands that have average men surrounded by gorgeous women. Each advertising campaign focuses on a non-material good, and associates it with their material product. But since confidence cannot be found in a white smile, the association is false.

As persuasive as these anti-branding claims are, I’ve often wondered how evil branding really is. While it is uncontroversial to claim that false advertising is wrong, the act of associating a non-material good with a material one is common and often beneficial. How is it that we gain happiness? Confidence? Ease of mind? We tend to gain these non-material goods by a force of will- attaching meaning to some action or product, a meaning that does not inhere in the thing itself.

There are many examples of this, the lollipop that makes the child smile or the old pair of sweatpants that remind you of relaxing on vacation. The mental association makes the inert material object more desirable.

Some people go to a church to seek peace of mind. Some will argue that this peace of mind is delivered to the person via something divine. But what if the reason why they find peace of mind is because they believe they will? That attaching such meaning to the act of going to church allows them to get the non-material good? This seems likely since all people who attend mass, or perform other religious acts, do not receive the same benefit. Receiving the benefit must be an act of the will. (I am not saying that the divine has no part in this, but that more is going on.)

If advertisers condition us to believe that buying that cute GUCCI purse will make us more sophisticated, and this belief makes us feel more confident, isn’t this a good thing? Yes, it would be better if we didn’t need the impotent external objects or events, but through the medium of something so simple we can, but attaching meaning to it, get the immaterial good that we seek. So, as long as buying a car actually brings you happiness, how can we say that advertising is evil?

The Hypocrisy of Gaining from Unethical Research

2005-07-29T19:47:00.000-05:00

Once again I’m returning to that fantastic article in National Geographic on stem cell research that I mentioned a few days ago.

Another interesting aspect in this debate, much like the debate on cloning, is the fact that the ethical stance taken by one country may be completely ignored by another. Thus, laws that we have against human cloning in Canada do not influence whether it is done in other parts of the world.

In the article, an adult stem cell scientist, Graziella Pellegrini, is quoted as saying, “If we ban the work we risk hypocrisy because we will all gain from what is learned by others.”

Such a statement has hefty implications. It indicates that if we believe the research is immoral, then we must refrain using any information that was gained. Basically, if via stem cell research we discovered the cure to cancer, for instance, in order to be a morally good nation the cure could not be used in this country. Anyone who took it would be no better than those who performed the questionable research in the first place.

While I acknowledge that to say using the information in this instance cannot be completely distinct from performing the research itself, any responsibility would be miniscule compared to that of those actually performing the questionable act. And further, to ignore the cure once discovered seems not morally noble but rather foolish and stubborn.

Thus, I would have to disagree that the possibility of eventually benefiting from this research requires us, in order to avoid hypocrisy, to engage in the research ourselves. There is a difference between doing the wrong thing, and benefiting from a wrong act performed by another.

Philosophy Problem #1: Can You act Morally Towards a Tree?

2005-07-28T14:12:00.000-05:00

At the Canadian Philosophical Association conference this past spring, a group of my fellow philosophers discussed this question at great length. At first this question may seem funny- reminiscent of the Buddhist sayings like, “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” However this question has its roots in the far more serious issue of whether morality itself only exists when surrounded by people; does it require witnesses? For the sake of this entry I will dismiss the explanation that we are never really alone, to quote Laverne from Scrubs, “You don’t have to tell me, q-tip, but you will have to explain it to Jesus.”

So here’s the scenario: You are on a deserted island in the Pacific. There are no animals, and no people, just a tree. Is there any act you could do that would be interpreted as immoral towards that tree?

If you answer no, after laughing to yourself, then you either believe trees to be nothing but a mindless resource, or you believe that without supervision there is no morality. If you believe the former, then you are committed to only acting morally towards those things, or people, that you feel are part of your “moral community”. If you can’t communicate effectively with the tree, then it is hard to act in bad faith.

If you believe the latter, that morality requires supervision, then for you morality only exists, as Jean-Paul Sartre said, “in the eyes of the Other.” For you to act morally is to be, in a sense, judged by another. The tree can’t judge you, and no one else can see you, so there is no moral standard that can come into effect.

In an attempt to avoid the moral relativism that these answers promote, Sarah (one of the philosophers) chose to defend the possibility of acting immorally/morally towards the tree. She wanted to claim that there is morality without enforcement, that it is an internal measure, not external. Returning to the island, say you have an axe. Now if you, getting frustrated with your situation, look at the tree and decide to take out your anger upon it, Sarah would say you are acting immorally. However, if you are freezing, and need fire to stay alive and you must cut down some of the tree, you are acting morally.

Sarah’s account of morality places the measure of your actions on the intent behind them, regardless of whether they are witnessed, and regardless of what is acted upon.

While intent is extremely important in our everyday accounts of what is right and wrong, I am still unsure about acting immorally to a thing that is not part of my moral community, and with which I can have no discourse. Surely I can’t lie to the tree? I can’t steal from it (can I?), and I’m not sure I can effectively verbally abuse it either. If the tree itself were to drop seeds upon the ground, and then destroy the new seedlings as its roots search for nutrients, we wouldn’t accuse the tree of murdering its own children.

I do believe that morality is internal, and exists when not witnessed (except by the agent themselves) but I am unsure that the language of morality that could exist between a tree and a person would be similar to that which exists between people. Perhaps you can act morally towards a tree, but in doing so it is a very different kind of morality than that which you employ towards people.

The Forgotten Ethical Issue in the Stem Cell Debate

2005-07-26T19:24:00.000-05:00

This morning as I was about to start studying Aristotle and his metaphysics, I was distracted by the National Geographic I bought at Shoppers yesterday. Feeling a little at odds because of the move, the familiar yellow-framed magazine reminded me of the stacks my parents used to have in our family room that we would use to construct forts. And more interesting still, on the cover: “Stem cells, how far will we go?” (July 2005)

Basically, stem cells (and I am by no means knowledgeable about biology) can be used to repair most anything that goes wrong with the body by growing new cells of whatever is injured. We’ve been using a number of ‘adult’ stem cells (not from embryos) to great success, but the kinds of new cells they can grow is limited. We know that the stem cells we get from embryos can be grown to be virtually any kind of cell. Stem cells from embryos may very well contain the cures to nearly every medical problem.

The ethical issue that arises, especially for the conservative Christians, is that the embryos are not that different from foetuses, and that if abortion is morally wrong, then harvesting embryos for medical purposes must also be wrong. I am not going to comment on this, for much like the abortion debate, it seems you either believe this to be true or you don’t, and it’s very hard to get people to switch sides.

What made the abortion debate interesting, to me, was the claim that women should get to have some say when it comes to attaching something to their body for nine months. It’s not that pro-choicers wanted to eliminate unwanted babies, but that the baby wasn’t grown in a test tube but a person whose life would be forever altered. The second, and often forgotten ethical issue in the stem cell debate also looks to the details of the women involved- how the embryos are procured.
The popular argument by those in favour of using embryo stem cells is that with the popularity of invetero fertilization (IVF), in which embryos are removed for the purpose of helping women to get pregnant, more embryos are frozen than are needed for the procedure. Once the woman gets pregnant, these frozen embryos are stored, and eventually thrown out. It then seems the scientists merely want to make use of what was going to be garbage anyway.

This argument makes is nearly impossible to say no. It seems there is little difference between destroying something and using it for science. However, what isn’t mentioned is that the best embryos for this research are not the frozen ones, but, for want of a better word, those that are fresh.

At a talk by a Philosophy PhD student who had previously been a nurse, the implications of this were examined. The operation to remove the embryos is not a simple procedure, it is much more complicated than giving blood or donating sperm. So it is unlikely that women will decide to donate fresh embryos for the good of society.

Other countries get around this by offering money, some outright, and some in the form of offering IVF treatments for free, as long as they can harvest embryos for their own needs as well. This is a tempting offer as IVF treatments are extremely expensive, and don’t have the best success rate (often meaning a woman will need to return several times).

If we (Canada) decide to take this approach, then what it seems we are doing is taking advantage of women in a vulnerable position, who want children but are unable to conceive, and cannot afford the treatments. In a sense we are holding their desire for children over them to get the donation needed. If the result is that there are loads of fresh embryos for our scientific community it would likely be the result of women in this vulnerable position, and not because people necessarily support the research.

The second, often overlooked, ethical dilemma stem cells present is the problem of how to act towards the women who have the embryos, treating them with respect but still finding a way to convince them to donate the needed embryos. Where the questions surrounding the potential personhood of embryos may be intellectually interesting, practically speaking the research is upon us, and the more important question is how to procure the embryos ethically.

Accepting Violence?

2005-07-25T20:35:00.000-05:00

I’ve been “living” in Toronto for nearly a month (“living” because I’ve been playing the nomad for half of that). Although I knew I wanted to come to this city, the city of every possible job opportunity and such an amazing arts environment, it has been a quite a jarring change of pace. Even though it is by far the largest city I’ve lived in, that’s not the quality that makes it seem so foreign. It is the intensity of the city- everything seems a little more extreme here. The events are all a little bigger, the tourists from much farther away, the problems just a little more serious. I’m not a paranoid person by nature (and some might say my streets sense is buried beneath an unjustified trust in my safety) but with the metro bombs in London, the vulnerability of living in one of the potentially targeted cities in the country becomes more real. I know that Blair and Londoners response was not to let terror win, but is that truly the justification that we use? Or is it more that the intensity of all the positive experiences in Toronto balance any violence or terror that will likewise be more intense in a larger city. And does this mean that even though we don’t want violence in our city, on some level we accept it as unavoidable? Is our resolve to carry on in the face of violence and crime more about making sure we are strong enough not to be effected, and less about the violence itself?

Constructed Barriers

2005-07-24T22:49:00.000-05:00

On a wooden slat bench beneath the drooping branches of the quiet willow tree, two young women sit. On the left end of the bench, in silence but for the whispering of wind in the leafy vines, a brunette sits, blue eyes unfocussed, aimed but not comprehending at the far away movement of children playing. Her silky, straight hair is hanging past her shoulders, swaying lightly. Dressed in an orange, low cut tank top, and blue jeans, bare feet planted in the cool grass, she taps absently at the laptop she has been using to surf news articles. At the opposite end of the bench, turned slightly away, sits a woman with copper hair, the waves unsuccessfully tamed in a lose elastic, threatening at any moment to break free. She is wearing a deep green shirt and white peasant skirt, sitting cross-legged on the bench. Absently she removes her glasses revealing green eyes, tired from reading. On her lap sits the collected works of Plato, her finger tracing a line in the Republic over and over, trying to see beyond the ink to the intentions of a so long dead writer.

The brunette’s tapping begins to mimic the beat of a song that has been trapped unwanted in her mind all week. Minutes later the other woman picks up the beat, tapping her foot, but never acknowledging her company. Finally, tired, the red head closes The Republic, dropping the heavy tome on the bench, and rising to stretch her weariness away. The brunette looks up at the vibration of the book hitting the wood, but does not see the other woman.

How is it that we manage to create a gulf where none existed, something seemingly unsurpassable, but entirely of our own creation?

London Terrorist Attack

2005-07-07T09:59:00.000-05:00

Question: Would you perform a terrorist attack against those who perform terrorist attacks?

If Yes – Then you are admitting that there is little difference between the terrorist and yourself. You are claiming that terrorist action is justified when you feel your way of life/security is threatened. All you can argue is the degree to which such justification is effective for action.

If No – then our reaction is limited, in trying to act from a ‘higher moral standing’ than the terrorists you may be unable to act at all. The higher road may be to do nothing.

If the reason why you don’t act is because you acknowledge that terrorists are people not that different from you and me, what does this mean?

What is the right response?

2005-02-27T21:29:00.000-05:00

self portrait?

No Sex = No Marriage?

2005-02-27T15:49:00.000-05:00

The Gay Marriage debate is, in many respects, a debate about who can have sex with whom. (Well, this is my opinion on what it is about, anyway.) But with such preoccupation about marriage and sex, what about the old idea of ‘consummating the marriage’? Is it the case that if you don’t have sex, you’re not actually married?

Consummation of marriage brings to my mind pictures of women treated as sexual objects and procreators of male heirs – surely a dated image. When I looked up the relevant Canadian law I found this to be somewhat supported – simple non-consummation is no longer grounds for making a marriage void. But a more complicated version of it is.

The common law has developed such that in order for the marriage to be void due to lack of sex the party making the claim must either have a complete inability to have sex because of some physical problem, or an “invincible repugnance” to the prospect of sex which is psychological in nature.

In a recent case, Grewal v Sohal, where they were to annul a marriage based on lack of sex, the court held that the applicant must prove that,

1. there had been no consummation of the marriage;
2. the refusal to consummate the marriage was persistent and not due to capricious obstinacy;
3. the applicant has an invincible aversion to sex with the other spouse;
4. the aversion was the result of some sort of incapacity; and,
5. the incapacity may be based on normal, predictable reactions.

Such criteria imply that sex is a necessary part of marriage. It might seem that such a conclusion supports the idea that marriage’s main purpose is for procreation. However, such arguments fail because inability to procreate is not a ground for annulment.

This makes me think of those people in society who are physically incapable of having sex due to disability or injury, or those not interested or asexual. Can such people ever feel secure in a marriage, since at any time it could be annulled? Even if it is the case that only the person who has the injury or is asexual could make the claim for annulment (as the case law seems to suggest) a marriage that can be so easily annulled seems not a marriage in the same sense that it is for other Canadians. Some people (I would argue most) marry not to have children, but to join in a union with another person. If we only married to have children (which seems odd, don’t need a marriage certificate to procreate!) then likely people would marry only before having children, and likely divorce once the children had left home. The evidence to the contrary supports the idea that it is the union that people desire.

If this is so, what about those who want the union, but not the sex?

Gay Marriage Debate

2005-02-06T13:25:00.000-05:00

There is an excellent article in the Star on the breakdown of the next stage of the Gay Marriage debate. But although comprehensive, it points once again to the fatal problem: that the two sides have failed to argue in the same language.

This statement may seem odd – obviously language in the literal sense is common to both sides. What I mean to claim is that their arguments are not reactive to each other. In many cases it is like one side says, “It is the case that A” and the other side says “But B = C” (sorry to use the logical formulation, but it makes the problem clearer). The two sides cannot come to any common ground because they have yet to respond to each other’s arguments.

I have to admit, as is obvious from my earlier blog, that I am on the side of expanding the traditional meaning of marriage. However, I don’t believe that the anti side of this debate is inherently weaker, but that their use of a restricted language made them inevitably so. To speak of an action being right or wrong based on a passage from the Bible is a reason that only those who already, (a) believe in the bible, and (b) agree with your interpretation, can understand. For those that these criteria don’t hold for, the anti position might as well be expressed in a foreign language.

The pro-position, on the other hand, is couched in terms that are accessible to the general public. For this position is based on information from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and regards civil liberties and equality of all citizens. Such concerns are likely to be held by all Canadians, and is thus in language understandable by the entire country.

I know that by pointing this out, it is unlikely that any anti proponent will change their mind, or change their strategy. Personally I believe this has to do with a fear of what will happen when the definition is expanded, a fear I cannot hope to understand. In closing, I want to remind those so engaged in this debate that the decision reached in June will not effect the provinces that have already deemed it legal. For them this battle has already been won.

Assisted Suicide Back in the News

2005-01-30T17:54:00.000-05:00

Marcel Tremblay, a 78 year-old-man dying of a painful lung condition, not only chose to end his own life, but do so with public awareness. He’s an advocate for the right to assisted suicide, and hoped his public suicide would help put the issue back onto the ‘political’ table. This case is reminiscent of that of Sue Rodriguez from Victoria who, after being diagnosed with Lou-Gehrig’s disease, fought for the right to assisted suicide. The Supreme Court rejected her bid, after which, as far as I know, an anonymous doctor helped her commit suicide.

Which makes me wonder. It seems that, although assisted suicide is illegal, it does happen. That in the case of Sue Rodriguez, no one was in a hurry to find and prosecute the doctor we assumed helped her. In a recent article in the Star about Tremblay, two other cases of assisted suicide are briefly mentioned. One, a woman from BC, was found not guilty last November of helping two women commit suicide. The other case is of a mother from Montreal who was arrested after the death of her 36-year-old son who had MS. I cannot predict what will happen in the case of the later, it’s harder to accept the death of a younger person, but it would seem odd to arrest this mother if the son was significantly along in his prognosis.

It seems that there is already a leaning in Canadian courtrooms to favour those who assist in the dying of others, as long as it seems legit, if the condition of the deceased was horrible enough. And if this is the case, is this the happy medium? We’re not legalizing it, so there is no fear of abuses, the various advocates against it can relax. But at the same time, it’s not exactly illegal either. If you’re smart about how you participate and you keep quiet about your involvement, you can avoid arrest. Or is this actually worse, because it is existing somewhere in limbo, and people want to know, one way or the other, what the case is?

These are tough questions, and I sit in wonder awaiting what might happen in the wake of Tremblay’s death.

Extreme Feminism: Only the Right Choices for Women

2005-01-28T18:28:00.000-05:00

This rant is hardly as fiery as I intended it to be, as I’ve let time and distance cool my rage from the original instance. However, I still feel the need to comment. In a conference a few days ago it was brought to my attention that there are feminist writers who believe that women ‘ought’ to enter the workforce. That they ‘owed’ it to other women. It was an obligation.

First, the feminists posited a theory along these lines: Entering the workforce, as a woman or a mother (especially) can have two potential impacts. It could inspire women around you to believe that they too can enter the workforce, and/or it could simply cause the ‘workforce’ to be more accepting of women as the numbers increase. Now this argument is not only used to allow women to work, but on more contemporary issues, like male dominated professions, the ‘glass ceiling’ and gender based wage differences.

From this argument, which is quite plausible, feminists have pushed it to a point of obligation. That the impact, the effect women can have, obligates them to take this action. I must mention that at this conference, although all were women, none had any children. At this point one of the members described a friend of hers who had been an intellectual, academic equal, until getting married and having kids. Now this woman liked crafts and gave her daughter a make-up kit for Christmas. The disgust was thick as the friend was described.

To me the ideals of feminism were always supposed to be breaking down the barriers to choice that women faced. Women weren’t allowed to vote, so now they have that choice. They weren’t allowed to attend university, now they have that choice. They weren’t allowed to work, now they have that choice. But now because of these type of feminists, and the member of the conference, women whose lives are judged to be of lesser worth, are having the choice removed. The choice is extended, choose what you want to do with your life. And if the women chooses to be a full time mother, the feminists want to retract the offering of the choice, and force them via ‘obligation’ into making the ‘proper’ choice. In the end this seems to me no better than the Patriarchal system they were fighting against. And this is the reason for the quote in the sidebar – Extreme feminists want to trade Male Masters for Female Ones.

I don’t have any children, and I don’t know if anyone who reads this blog does. But it seems that there is something wrong when we think the most important impact a woman can have is on women, or ‘the system’ and not her own children. During an age where ‘bad childhoods’ so often excuse antisocial behaviour, shouldn’t we praise the crafty mom?

The Conservatives' Bad Argument

2005-01-21T12:16:00.000-05:00

With the looming knowledge that Ottawa is about to introduce same-sex marriage legislation, the Conservatives are making a few last-minute, desperate attempts to stop it. And once again, their arguments against it are weak, and often obviously false. The topic of the recent article was whether allowing same-sex marriages opened the door for legalizing polygamy.

Basically, the Conservatives are arguing that once same-sex marriage is enshrined in law, thus stretching the “traditional meaning” of marriage, Canada will be faced with more radical demands, like polygamy. Stephen Harper argues, “We have to draw the line somewhere.”

Although this sounds like a passionate stand to take, it fails because the argument on which it is based is faulty. Harper, remember, only wants to stop same-sex marriage from being called ‘marriage’. He wants to construct a different term that will confer all the same legal benefits as marriage, but without using the word “marriage”.

The usual argument against Harper is that same-sex marriage is constitutional, and it follows from the Charter. Polygamy does not. But there are larger problems with Harper’s argument than just this.

This slippery slope that Harper fears, we are already sliding down. What he is proposing will have no effect on that. Same-sex marriage must be allowed, because marriage does not have the “traditional meaning” (and by this I take it he means ‘religious meaning’) that it once had. But marriage began to lack this meaning as society became more secular, when marriage lost its religious significance. The real problem is that we allow non-religious people to get married. As soon as marriage became rights based, and all citizens equally entitled to those rights, the slippery slope started. Drawing the line at this point makes no sense, for it violates the rights that led us here in the first place.

In fact, the slippery slope the Conservatives should be worried about is the one in which we begin to deny people equal rights, starting with marriage. Where could that lead?

It is true that this slippery slope, more properly identified as giving people equal rights, could one day lead to polygamy. The idea that polygamy will never be an issue because it is illegal does not provide me confidence that it will never be legal. But although some may find the idea of polygamy unsavoury, the reality is, if all participants enter into it of their own free will then why should we not support it? So such a claim that same-sex marriage leads to this, is not such a frightening claim after all.

One further problem with Harper’s argument: Since he is not keeping same-sex marriage from occurring, but just trying to restrict what word they can use to describe the union, this in no way will keep out other forms of union from being legalized. Polygamy would be allowed just as easily as same-sex, it just wouldn’t be called marriage.

Stephen Harper needs to be more honest as to what his reasons are. I think most of us can read between the lines, and know that his poorly constructed arguments are the result of some deeply held prejudices and fear of change. But by putting out false arguments he is trying to use propaganda, flashy lies, to sway the public. And I find that insulting.

Discovering Feminism

2005-01-13T23:53:00.000-05:00

My mother is a mix of traditional and progressive. She seems to, without problem, hold the view that women can do anything, and that there are only certain things that women should do. That there are feminine and unfeminine activities. Although I find this perspective sometimes maddening, she has no problem holding it.

Over Christmas my mother finally grasped the anger that motivates feminists. The anger that still motivates them. It’s not just women having been called the ‘inferior sex’ or even being excluded from male dominated professions (I’m not sure if this would even phase my mother). There’s another trigger, the reason behind the exclusion.

Mother: I just realised something.
Me: Wha?
Mother: The reason why women weren’t allowed in male society.
Me: Yeah?
Mother: Because the guys couldn’t control themselves. They couldn’t think about other things, besides sex, when a woman was in the room.
Me: Pretty much.
Mother: So- women were excluded because of a male weakness
Me: Yep. The only reason to exclude women is the ‘distracting influence’. As long as a person can do the job, what gender they are is irrelevant.
Mother: That’s really annoying.
Me: yep

This is a preface to a long feminist rant that will be forthcoming. But not the kind of feminist rant most people expect. I’m the feminist that makes other feminists angry. Intrigued? Stay tuned!

Ants

2005-01-09T17:39:00.000-05:00

When I went to my sink today and saw the ants walking across my wall, over my counter, and merrily around the taps, it was the final straw. Since getting back to London I’ve been so busy writing papers that I didn’t want to deal with the return of the ants. So I got out the heavy artillery – liquid Raid. First I dribbled around the entrance by my sink. Then I attempted to splash some of the wandering wall ants, unsuccessfully. Then I isolated an ant on my counter, and drew a circle of the poison around it.

Mu-Ha-HA-Ha-HA! Try getting out of that – sucker!

And as I watched the confused ant try to escape my circle of doom, as I watched him struggle, my conscience starting making noise.

Do you remember that movie, Honey I shrunk the Kids where the shrunken kids, the one nerdy one, befriends the ant. I think the ant is named Buddy, or Ernie or something. The ant who ends up sacrificing his life for the kid.

The ant in the circle reminds me of that ant.

DAMN.

So apparently I am going to coexist with them.

Students

2005-01-06T19:08:00.000-05:00

Next week my tutorials start again, and I am both eagerly awaiting and dreading them. I like to think I learned from last term (and learned more than how little I can relate to GUCCI toting, first year students).

Fall term
Student: Does our attendance and participation get counted for marks?
Me: Not directly, but the students who are here for tutorials will learn the material more thoroughly, and thus get a better mark. [Mood: very pleased with self]
Student: right. [The student never came back]

Winter term
Student: Does our attendance and participation get counted for marks?
Me: Yes. [Potentially an open-faced lie, this will be great for the ethics based portion of the class] If you don’t show up, I need a doctor’s note, or some other documentation. You can’t pass the course without coming to the tutorials.
Student: Do I have to participate?
Me: What do you think? I control all your marks – and they are directly related to your ability to impress me. For some of you this is bad news.

Mu-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-HA!

*events may be slightly exaggerated.

woohoo!

2005-01-04T11:15:00.000-05:00

Booyah!

First 'real' publication http://www.uwo.ca/philosophy/index.htm

stress...

2005-01-04T11:12:00.000-05:00

As I was loading up the elevator to bring my many bundles from Christmas up to my flat, I felt that horrible twinge in my back. That ‘sproing’ type twitch when your muscles twist the wrong way because you forgot the adage that is repeated to us far too often, “Lift with your legs, not with your back”

Dumbass!

Driving into London my stomach had started to knot, my shoulders to ache. Even hours later, and a teapot of green tea later, I’m still feeling jittery. My sore back is just another symptom. My stress has returned full throttle.

Stress is such an odd thing. Sure, to a certain extent it can light that fire you need to get things done. But when there’s nothing to do but wait, it just works on creating a little ulcer in your stomach.

I wonder, do we all stress out in the same way, or is our stress response somehow conditioned? Over Christmas as my parents worked to sell the house, their stress response was exactly the same as mine – obsessing until the source of stress was removed. Does the person who jogs to release stress (boy, I wish I did this!) do so because of some childhood event? Does the stress eater?

If it’s environmental, some type of conditioning, then you think we wouldn’t copy our parents in their unproductive stress habits, since we have the ability to see how unhelpful they are. But could it be genetic? That’s too much for me to ponder.

For the time being I’ll run a bath, locate the painkillers, remember to lift with my legs, and patiently await my grades.

Africa + Two Choices

2004-12-24T13:07:00.000-05:00

Today when I was watching TV one of those Christian Aid commercials came on, you know the ones, with the heartbreaking children that can be saved for the price of a cup of coffee a day. This time I didn’t tune out the commercial, didn’t change the channel, but felt somehow drawn to it.

In feminist philosophy there is a strain of thought regarding help to other cultures, one that says we have to be careful not to influence the development of their culture. I like to think of this as the prime directive theory [all you trekkies understand]. So under this theory, North Americans can offer options, or money, but they cannot only offer it for certain behaviour or to certain religious groups. The theory boos the attempts to give aid only to those who convert, or who become “American” in some way. On the other hand are the Christian Aid groups, missionaries, and the like, who bring religion with aid, trying to convert as they go along. Normally I side with the feminist philosophers, and as such don’t approve of Christian Aid. But lately I’ve seen added complications.

Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose you have the power to decide how aid will be directed to Africa in regards to AIDS. Maybe you’re the leader of a new World Government, or simply the head of a more powerful UN. In any case, you alone have the power to decide how the entire world will approach the AIDS epidemic in Africa. [I say one person deciding on all forms of aid to Africa because it seems to me that when we each act separately our efforts are like tiny bandages to hold back the flood. To ensure efficacy we need to act as one.] Now you’re faced with a choice between two options- Either you can cure AIDS by releasing a cure into the air over all of Africa (say this is possible) or you can bring in thousands of missionaries to reform the structure of the society from the inside out. Say these are Christian missionaries, although they don’t need to be. They need to be preaching a certain kind of life, monogamy, family unit, no prostituting and no raping. So you have a choice between doing one or the other, you can’t do both.

Most people would say, ‘cure AIDS’ easy solution – but is this true? I recently watched an episode of PrimeTime as they were following Prince Harry around during his gap year. He headed to Africa and during the story came out the following fact (or rather myth): In Africa it is believed that you can cure AIDS by having sex (i.e. raping) a virgin. And this is, of course, another way it is being spread.

My question is: Is eliminating AIDS going to do anything about this kind of social behaviour that has been formed because of its’ existence? Or does this social behaviour need to be fought with the introduction of a new one? Would it be better to give the people a reason to believe that such behaviour would be punished by some spiritual means?

These questions haunt me, because I don’t want to say that indoctrinating people is a good idea. But it has the feel of a solution, at least of a sort. In the end the ‘thought experiment’ above brings out one point; eliminating AIDS from Africa is no longer a full solution – and even if we could eliminate it, problems would remain.

curmudgeons...

2004-12-18T00:35:00.000-05:00

It’s funny how you set up a blog because you’re dying to say something, but once you’ve set it up the pressure of the blank page, that first post, renders you speechless. However, my determination perseveres.

I was watching I, Curmudgeon the other night, a documentary I recommend to all, documentary addict and newbie alike. What I found interesting is that the negative people (the curmudgeons) had a similar view to Tolstoy in his Confessions that happy people are living some kind of lie. That if they knew The Truth, they would be as negative as the curmudgeons. And The Truth, at least what’s at the centre of it, seems to be knowledge of our own mortality.

I question the validity of this claim for many reasons, some stemming from the fact that most curmudgeons seem to be motivated less from knowledge of their own mortality, than some reaction against a society that they believe has rejected them. But, putting this aside, still this claim lacks something. Is it really more logical to be pessimistic than optimistic? Are optimistic people delusional, are they naive, are they uninformed? Or do these characteristics more accurately describe the pessimist?

It seems to me that anyone who jumps to conclusions, be it the optimist who fails to see the violent side of mankind, or the pessimist who does not see the good, is missing the point. It seems that The Truth that we need to grasp is our own mortality, but that the curmudgeon is thinking that mortality equals death, whereas mortality also equals life. It means that we are really alive.

I throw this question out to the sea of people that is the internet population [a habit I cannot break after teaching]: Does any claim of the optimist unfailingly sound religious? Does saying you must have faith in peoples’ goodness sound more spiritual than saying you believe in the badness of people?

learning the ropes...

2004-12-17T23:21:00.000-05:00

I'm just trying to navigate my way around this... I'll replace this with a real post shortly :)