I'm just looking for some decent writing. It seems to be a fast-fading skill.
As a graduate student, I've churned out a lot of papers, which are closely scrutinised for the facts and arguments contained within, and the writing itself. The brutal honesty that graduate students receive on their papers is a good way to learn what constitutes decent writing. As a teaching assistant, my primary job is to grade papers and it has exposed me to all manners of writing styles. Why am I telling you this? So that you know that I have some background knowledge of the topic and what opinions my experience has garnered.
Recently, I sat down with a set of midterm papers for correction. As a basic survey-level course, the class is open to all undergraduates. This means you see a fair variety of writing levels. As a general rule they tend to be okay, with passable language and grammar usage. Occasionally, there are excellent papers and, just as occasionally, there are appalling ones.
This time, the one labelled, "Midterm Thing" was the primary motivator for this blog. The downward slide began when the student used words & phrases such as "whodunnit", "fiddly" and "yeah, probably" in their essay as well as their disregard for punctuation (such as the usual of capitals at the beginning of a sentence and periods...little, finnicky things). My first thoughts: How did this kid get into college? What did their entrance essay look like? And considering that all Canadian high-schoolers have to take English-12 and provincial exams etc, which self-respecting teacher and/or examiner passed this student?
I come back to this after grading a stack of final papers which has pushed me to actually post this blog. The writing was, if anything, worse than the midterms, which was somewhat surprising considering the students got more time to develop their ideas and do their research. Now I know that many students still left the papers to the last minute, (who hasn't done that in college?) but the general standard was appalling.
Writing standards seem to be declining. As much as it pains me to do this, I go easy on language when grading, as per the general departmental attitude towards undergraduate writing. But when and why did bad writing become acceptable at the college level? These are not young kids who have little to no training in writing, they have graduated from high school after all. Am I bringing an elitist element to writing by stressing on proper punctuation, smooth language etc. etc.? Don't misunderstand me by thinking that I'm asking for brilliant prose. Brilliance is, by its very nature, an achievement of few. On the other hand, competence and striving towards excellence is not. Most good academic writing is not very complex, it's beauty lies in clarity. A few polysyllabic words don't go amiss but they are not crucial for displaying competency in writing.
The point of college is to teach. This is not characterised by simply imparting information on a subject, but building skills to analyse and manipulate data, taking the information forward in new/different directions. Writing is a key tool in managing the latter component of college education, in my opinion.
Are television and chat and text messages responsible for the decline in formal prose? I don't want to sound like a white-haired biddy railing against 'youngsters today', mostly because I'm still quite young myself, but I do think that modern technology has had its fair share of negative effects. At the same time, I don't think its fair to blame computers and television for the failures in education. After all, I watched television almost daily as a child. And we had a computer in my house where I spent a fair amount of time on pacman and other video games. The difference is that I spent hours reading. And not just books like Sweet Valley Twins (which I confess to reading) but also Little Women, the Chronicles of Narnia, St. Clairs, Anne of Green Gables etc. My father actually read The Hobbit to me and my brother in installments at bedtime. And we were encouraged to peruse the newspaper, and actively enjoyed the weekly children's supplement (which is printed to this day--why don't the Times or the Boston Globe do that?).
What I'm saying is, parents and schools need to push reading and writing in order to better develop writing skills way in advance of college. College will polish those skills and refine them in readiness for stepping out into the work-world, but it shouldn't be expected to teach the basics. And colleges need to have higher standards than they do now, because letting bad writing go on is a disservice to students who are attending school for better/higher education.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
A Political Drama in Countless Violent Acts
The Mumbai attacks are the latest in a long line of violent acts committed in the Subcontinent, stretching into the past few decades. This large swathe of land has seen far too much bloodshed and strife. You'd think someone would have stopped and thought, "hmmm, this is crazy we're all dying, maybe this isn't such a great idea." The Mumbai storyline has become a haunting refrain: violence in India and many are killed/injured, Indian government points fingers at Pakistan, Pakistan postures back vehemently, nothing happens. Waiting for Godot had nothing on the drama that is Waiting for Peace.
I'm tired, tired of hearing that the ISI is to blame, that Pakistan harbours terrorists and supports militia in Kashmir, tired of India's constant need to point the finger at Pakistan, tired of Pakistan's non-action. I don't care to find a party to blame anymore. The blame game can go on forever: so Pakistan provided a location from which these attacks were planned, what about Indian border controls and their own intelligence networks? Are they on vacation? There will be no commission like there was in the US after 9/11 to discover how the Indians missed this. But this gets us nowhere. I just want it all to end because this is helping no one.
We all need to take a good, hard look at ourselves because the world is crumbling into chaos. Nothing is secure anymore, the sanctity of life has become a farce. And how are we going to resolve the mess that is South and Central Asia? Here are some suggestions:
1. Western governments need to discontinue all military aid to this area.
2. America needs to stop bombing indiscriminately on the Pak-Afghan border. Really its not helping.
3. India and Pakistan both need to do some housekeeping and resolves failures in governance.
4. The OIC & SAARC both need to step up and work towards real cooperation and solution-brokering.
5. The UN needs to focus on Kashmir and do its job.
I don't think I'm asking for a lot.
I'm tired, tired of hearing that the ISI is to blame, that Pakistan harbours terrorists and supports militia in Kashmir, tired of India's constant need to point the finger at Pakistan, tired of Pakistan's non-action. I don't care to find a party to blame anymore. The blame game can go on forever: so Pakistan provided a location from which these attacks were planned, what about Indian border controls and their own intelligence networks? Are they on vacation? There will be no commission like there was in the US after 9/11 to discover how the Indians missed this. But this gets us nowhere. I just want it all to end because this is helping no one.
We all need to take a good, hard look at ourselves because the world is crumbling into chaos. Nothing is secure anymore, the sanctity of life has become a farce. And how are we going to resolve the mess that is South and Central Asia? Here are some suggestions:
1. Western governments need to discontinue all military aid to this area.
2. America needs to stop bombing indiscriminately on the Pak-Afghan border. Really its not helping.
3. India and Pakistan both need to do some housekeeping and resolves failures in governance.
4. The OIC & SAARC both need to step up and work towards real cooperation and solution-brokering.
5. The UN needs to focus on Kashmir and do its job.
I don't think I'm asking for a lot.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Celestial Bodies
"...as we did in a time when our eyes looked towards the heavens, and with outstretched fingers we touched the face of God."That's how I felt walking home today. Sunset before 6 pm has few advantages but darkened clear skies to walk home under is one of them. As I looked to the skies, I saw the stars in all their bright glory. The glow of the streetlights did little to obscure the magnificent view I had and I walked entranced under the blanket of stars, glancing up again and again in wonder.
Some moments are simply too perfect.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Thank You Eli
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.I've always though Margaret Mead's words were a lovely sentiment, but I'm not sure if I ever really believed them. Let me just say: at 11 pm EST on November 4th, I BELIEVED.
--Margaret Mead
I'm not going to talk about the historic nature of this election, many have already written very eloquently on the subject. I want to talk about a group of thoughtful, committed citizens: the volunteers who made President-elect Obama more than just a dream, who instilled in us hope, and showed us that yes we can. These people not only supported the Obama campaign with their vote but they made phone calls and canvassed neighbourhoods. They were often received with hostility and disrespect but they persevered and look how that turned out.
So thank you, all of you for your hard work, change has come.
P.S. I know various people who volunteered for the campaign, but this post is especially dedicated to Eli who worked very hard in aiding the win in Ohio!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
War Hero does not an American President make
I have occasioned across views during this campaign that suggest that Senator McCain's war hero status automatically makes hime an excellent choice to be the next president. In fact, some take any words against his candidacy to be insulting. I'm quite bewildered by this correlation. Now, before you dismiss my words, please understand that I am in no way undermining Senator McCain's bravery during the Vietnam war, and his time as a POW. I admire his courage and fortitude in the face of such circumstances. But how does that qualify him to be the president?
To be honest, it doesn't. There are many veterans of the Vietnam war, many heroes from this war. They are not running a presidential campaign, and it is not suggested that they should run. Certainly, they have done much for this country, but that does not qualify them to the highest seat in office. It qualifies them to talk about the military perhaps, war perhaps, and torture perhaps. It does not give them an insight into the economy, the health care system (unless we talk about the dismal state of veteran health care), immigration reform, etc etc etc. Voting for the American president is based on all of these issues, not some, and while we can accept that senator McCain's past has shaped him, and serves as an example of his character, we cannot let that be the reason we give him a free ride to the White House.
When (not IF) you pledge your allegiance to a candidate, look at the whole picture not one part of it, and then cast your vote to whomever you care to.
P.S. ELECTION DAY IS TWO DAYS AWAY. PLEASE REMEMBER, IT IS AN HONOUR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AND DECLARE YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE. DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY: GO TO THE POLLING STATION, AND DON'T LEAVE UNTIL YOU HAVE PULLED A LEVER.
To be honest, it doesn't. There are many veterans of the Vietnam war, many heroes from this war. They are not running a presidential campaign, and it is not suggested that they should run. Certainly, they have done much for this country, but that does not qualify them to the highest seat in office. It qualifies them to talk about the military perhaps, war perhaps, and torture perhaps. It does not give them an insight into the economy, the health care system (unless we talk about the dismal state of veteran health care), immigration reform, etc etc etc. Voting for the American president is based on all of these issues, not some, and while we can accept that senator McCain's past has shaped him, and serves as an example of his character, we cannot let that be the reason we give him a free ride to the White House.
When (not IF) you pledge your allegiance to a candidate, look at the whole picture not one part of it, and then cast your vote to whomever you care to.
P.S. ELECTION DAY IS TWO DAYS AWAY. PLEASE REMEMBER, IT IS AN HONOUR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AND DECLARE YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE. DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY: GO TO THE POLLING STATION, AND DON'T LEAVE UNTIL YOU HAVE PULLED A LEVER.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
American Exceptionalism
Roger Cohen's op-ed in the NYT today got my goat up:
"Nowhere else could a 47-year-old man, born, as he has written, of a father “black as pitch” and a mother “white as milk,” a generation distant from the mud shacks of western Kenya, raised for a time as Barry Soetoro (his stepfather’s family name) in Muslim Indonesia, then entrusted to his grandparents in Hawaii — nowhere else could this Barack Hussein Obama rise so far and so fast."
What?
Within fifty years of independence, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan all managed to elect women to the highest seat in office. India, one-upped everyone by electing a party headed by an Italian immigrant, and simultaneously selecting a Sikh to be PM. They've even had a member of the "untouchable" caste as president. United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Phillipines, Liberia, Iceland, Ireland, Finland, Indonesia, Chile, and Argentina (to name a few) all have/have had women as presidents/prime ministers. Many nations have large numbers of minorities in various legislative positions. British Columbia's previous premier was an Indian immigrant.
While we may agree that this is a historic election for the United States, it is by no means the first of its kind, nor are people looking to America for direction on this front. Mr. Cohen please accept this shortcoming of American politics, and stay away from such grandiose statements that sound pleasing but have little substantive value.
"Nowhere else could a 47-year-old man, born, as he has written, of a father “black as pitch” and a mother “white as milk,” a generation distant from the mud shacks of western Kenya, raised for a time as Barry Soetoro (his stepfather’s family name) in Muslim Indonesia, then entrusted to his grandparents in Hawaii — nowhere else could this Barack Hussein Obama rise so far and so fast."
What?
Within fifty years of independence, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan all managed to elect women to the highest seat in office. India, one-upped everyone by electing a party headed by an Italian immigrant, and simultaneously selecting a Sikh to be PM. They've even had a member of the "untouchable" caste as president. United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Phillipines, Liberia, Iceland, Ireland, Finland, Indonesia, Chile, and Argentina (to name a few) all have/have had women as presidents/prime ministers. Many nations have large numbers of minorities in various legislative positions. British Columbia's previous premier was an Indian immigrant.
While we may agree that this is a historic election for the United States, it is by no means the first of its kind, nor are people looking to America for direction on this front. Mr. Cohen please accept this shortcoming of American politics, and stay away from such grandiose statements that sound pleasing but have little substantive value.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Mary Poppins can teach you everything
If you invest your tuppence wisely in the bank, safe and sound
Soon that tuppence, safely invested in the bank, will compound
And you'll achieve that sense of conquest, as your affluence expands
In the hands of the directors who invest as propriety demands
[You see, Michael, you'll be part of]
Railways through Africa,
Dams across the Nile,
Fleets of ocean greyhounds,
Majestic, self-amortizing canals,
Plantations of ripening tea
All from tuppence, prudently, thriftily, frugally, invested in the,
To be specific, in the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs,
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
[Now, Michael]
When you deposit tuppence in a bank account, soon you'll see
That it blooms into credit of a generous amount, semiannually
And you'll achieve that sense of stature, as your influence expands
To the high financial strata that established credit now commands
You can purchase first and second trust deeds.
Think of the foreclosures!
Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares!
Bankruptcies! Debtor sales!
Opportunities!
All manner of private enterprise!
Shipyards! The mercantile!
Collieries! Tanneries!
Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks!
[While stand the banks of England, England stands.
When fall the banks of England, England falls]
[You see, Michael, all for the lack of]
Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested in the,
To be specific, in the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs,
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
Soon that tuppence, safely invested in the bank, will compound
And you'll achieve that sense of conquest, as your affluence expands
In the hands of the directors who invest as propriety demands
[You see, Michael, you'll be part of]
Railways through Africa,
Dams across the Nile,
Fleets of ocean greyhounds,
Majestic, self-amortizing canals,
Plantations of ripening tea
All from tuppence, prudently, thriftily, frugally, invested in the,
To be specific, in the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs,
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
[Now, Michael]
When you deposit tuppence in a bank account, soon you'll see
That it blooms into credit of a generous amount, semiannually
And you'll achieve that sense of stature, as your influence expands
To the high financial strata that established credit now commands
You can purchase first and second trust deeds.
Think of the foreclosures!
Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares!
Bankruptcies! Debtor sales!
Opportunities!
All manner of private enterprise!
Shipyards! The mercantile!
Collieries! Tanneries!
Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks!
[While stand the banks of England, England stands.
When fall the banks of England, England falls]
[You see, Michael, all for the lack of]
Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested in the,
To be specific, in the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs,
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Get your facts straight
Every night, one of the last things I do before turning the computer off is check the New York Times website. Living at the other end of the country gives me the advantage of seeing the newest edition of the paper late at night rather than waking up to it. It also means that no one has commented on the op-ed articles yet. I have this burning desire to be the first to comment. But I haven't done it yet. There are two very simple reasons for this; (1) I have nothing much to say in response, and (2) I prefer well-thought out comments which have correct facts in them.
Why am I talking about this? Well, I just saw a comment claiming that Lousiana governor Bobby Jindal was a Muslim. This, coming from a university teacher, was sort of funny and ridiculous. Funny because Gov. Jindal is actually Roman Catholic! His family hails from India and he was born Hindu and converted in high school. But he has never been a Muslim. Ridiculous, in a sad kind of way, because the person making the claim should have been better informed.
I should have added that the comment was responding to an article regarding Colin Powell's defense of Muslims in America and the mistaken claim of Obama's being a Muslim. Irony, my friend, we meet again...
Why am I talking about this? Well, I just saw a comment claiming that Lousiana governor Bobby Jindal was a Muslim. This, coming from a university teacher, was sort of funny and ridiculous. Funny because Gov. Jindal is actually Roman Catholic! His family hails from India and he was born Hindu and converted in high school. But he has never been a Muslim. Ridiculous, in a sad kind of way, because the person making the claim should have been better informed.
I should have added that the comment was responding to an article regarding Colin Powell's defense of Muslims in America and the mistaken claim of Obama's being a Muslim. Irony, my friend, we meet again...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A pale yellow envelope
...was pushed under my door today. In bold red capital letters it's entitled:
OFFICIAL ABSENTEE BALLOTING MATERIAL
With a curious lack of fanfare (except in my mind), I've just filled in my first ever ballot for the 2008 United States election.
It was a somewhat breathtaking (in the literal sense) moment, even though words cannot quite describe the quiet moment in my apartment, as I sat with the ballot, chose an ordinary black ballpoint pen and filled in my votes for president and congressional representative, sealed and signed my declaration of choice as a citizen of this democratic nation.
OFFICIAL ABSENTEE BALLOTING MATERIAL
With a curious lack of fanfare (except in my mind), I've just filled in my first ever ballot for the 2008 United States election.
It was a somewhat breathtaking (in the literal sense) moment, even though words cannot quite describe the quiet moment in my apartment, as I sat with the ballot, chose an ordinary black ballpoint pen and filled in my votes for president and congressional representative, sealed and signed my declaration of choice as a citizen of this democratic nation.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Excerpt
An excerpt from former Secretary of State, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama:
"I'm...troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said, such things as, "well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well the correct answer is, he's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?...This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Enough said...
"I'm...troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said, such things as, "well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well the correct answer is, he's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?...This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Enough said...
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Decline of the Intellectual
For the past decade, there has been an increasing divide between the highly educated and the barely graduate (if even that) classes in America. We all see this in the consistent push by the Republican party to sneer at elites and intellectuals as a method of gaining popular support.
Today's New York Times has an article by David Brooks called "The Class War Before Palin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin), which provides a succinct description of the evolution from what he describes as "disdain for liberal intellectuals" to a denigration of educated Americans as a whole. Now, Mr. Brooks is the Times' conservative columnist and represents traditional Republican values, not those mired in moral politics but those concerned with fiscal conservatism and small govenments (lets not be deceived that the McCain/Palin ticket stands for either of these latter values), and his criticism of the Republican party comes of as far more weighty than many other liberal columnists' work would.
I have bemoaned for a long time this anti-education push in American politics and society. It's antithetical to the values of a country which prizes ambition and progress. Reading the responses to the column, I found one which accurately pinpointed the unfortunate consequence of this class battle:
"What a pity, indeed, that the Republican party, as a result of this sort of truculence, has alienated thinking people, even as it devoted itself to the destruction of its unthinking allies' lives, as the last week has shown. Proud and defiant ignorance may win votes among the ignorant--they identify with it-- but it hasn't done much for their pensions, mortgages, or their children's futures. The current administration, whose titular head shows an arrogant lack of curiosity and contempt for any intellectual endeavor, has sold the American people down the river for generations to come, by appealing to the stupidest among them. The Founding Fathers didn't envision government by the most easily duped; as a result we are now rather worse off than some South American countries we were used to describe as tin-pot dictatorships. We are now a whole nation that is owned by the company store.--M Carter, Endicott, NY"
I also want to point out that Republicans are very hypocritical about their stance on the educated class, sneering at candidates who are well-educated and pushing their "ordinari-ness" and simultaneously proclaiming America as a technologically superior nation during Presidential debates etc. It's not Joe Sixpack who is achieving the breakthroughs which have made America a leader in scientific discovery, nor who has caused American scientists to be the most frequent recipients of Nobel prizes, nor made America the location where science students flock to for the best possible higher education in the world.
The Republican Pary is no longer the same party as founded by William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman and no longer the one that follows the values of Edmund Burke. It's high time conservative intellectuals accept that fact and distinguish themselves from the religious conservative right that has taken over the Republican party.
Today's New York Times has an article by David Brooks called "The Class War Before Palin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin), which provides a succinct description of the evolution from what he describes as "disdain for liberal intellectuals" to a denigration of educated Americans as a whole. Now, Mr. Brooks is the Times' conservative columnist and represents traditional Republican values, not those mired in moral politics but those concerned with fiscal conservatism and small govenments (lets not be deceived that the McCain/Palin ticket stands for either of these latter values), and his criticism of the Republican party comes of as far more weighty than many other liberal columnists' work would.
I have bemoaned for a long time this anti-education push in American politics and society. It's antithetical to the values of a country which prizes ambition and progress. Reading the responses to the column, I found one which accurately pinpointed the unfortunate consequence of this class battle:
"What a pity, indeed, that the Republican party, as a result of this sort of truculence, has alienated thinking people, even as it devoted itself to the destruction of its unthinking allies' lives, as the last week has shown. Proud and defiant ignorance may win votes among the ignorant--they identify with it-- but it hasn't done much for their pensions, mortgages, or their children's futures. The current administration, whose titular head shows an arrogant lack of curiosity and contempt for any intellectual endeavor, has sold the American people down the river for generations to come, by appealing to the stupidest among them. The Founding Fathers didn't envision government by the most easily duped; as a result we are now rather worse off than some South American countries we were used to describe as tin-pot dictatorships. We are now a whole nation that is owned by the company store.--M Carter, Endicott, NY"
I also want to point out that Republicans are very hypocritical about their stance on the educated class, sneering at candidates who are well-educated and pushing their "ordinari-ness" and simultaneously proclaiming America as a technologically superior nation during Presidential debates etc. It's not Joe Sixpack who is achieving the breakthroughs which have made America a leader in scientific discovery, nor who has caused American scientists to be the most frequent recipients of Nobel prizes, nor made America the location where science students flock to for the best possible higher education in the world.
The Republican Pary is no longer the same party as founded by William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman and no longer the one that follows the values of Edmund Burke. It's high time conservative intellectuals accept that fact and distinguish themselves from the religious conservative right that has taken over the Republican party.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A change is gonna come
Well, it's here. I was tired of the old look and thought maybe a change of scenery might refresh this blog...it may not work...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
And the West Wing references continue...
A few days back, the BBC had an article which compared the current [real] Presidential race with the fictitious race portrayed in the last season of The West Wing (minority Democrat vs. hardened Republican maverick--sound familiar?). This week, the New York Times has picked up on the trend with an op-ed piece covering an exchange between Barack Obama and Josiah Bartlett, President in The West Wing universe (played by the incomparable Martin Sheen):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I have been thinking for quite a while that the 2008 race is very much like The West Wing so these references come as no surprise. I quite liked the NYT's column by Maureen Dowd, especially the following piece of advice from Bartlett to Obama [after Obama has asked, "What would you do?"]:
"GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"
Thank you President Bartlett, you're pretty cool for a fictional president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I have been thinking for quite a while that the 2008 race is very much like The West Wing so these references come as no surprise. I quite liked the NYT's column by Maureen Dowd, especially the following piece of advice from Bartlett to Obama [after Obama has asked, "What would you do?"]:
"GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"
Thank you President Bartlett, you're pretty cool for a fictional president.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"You've come a long way" or have you?
It has been almost five months since I blogged. Partially because I've been away and had forgotten that the blog existed, and also because while there seemed to be a lot to blog about, there was also plenty of news out there reporting the same things that I was seeing during my stint in Pakistan. Rising fuel prices, soaring inflation, power cuts, yada, yada, yada...
Today's post is not at all about that. It was going to be about my apprehensions about the 2008 US Presidential elections, but instead has shifted to a more general discourse (read: rant) about democracy and freedom.
Recently, I saw Craig Ferguson's (the guy who does the Late Late Show, the one after Letterman) monologue about voting and the duty of all Americans to do so. If you want to see it go to YouTube, it's all there, of course. It was an excellent, non-partisan commentary about taking part in democracy, I won't go into details because I think when most people hear the monologue, they will find themselves in agreement with Ferguson. What I did do after seeing the monologue was check out news articles about it. There were some interesting articles and, finally, one with reader comments. And as always, there was one that I just read and was stupefied by:
"Voting in and of itself is not a solution-- it may set us up for a bigger problem. When young, naive, pop-culturists vote because they're worked into a frenzy of irrational exuberance by well-marketed, fork-tongued devils, what might be the outcome? Let's start with a serious focus on educating our young on economics, history, world affairs, the Constitution and political science. The biggest drawback of democracy is the right of ignorant and stupid people to vote. The educated and aware will vote. The apathetic and foolish do us a service when they don't vote."
First of all...(imagine face of shock--jaw dropping)
Second of all...what?
Third of all...whoa...
I mean, where do you get off suggesting that young, naive people only vote for the "cooler" candidate? Given that statistically more elderly vote in elections and that elections are often characterised by people voting for the better-looking/more-charming etc etc candidate, really that isn't just a young phenomenon...
When I read posts like this, I wonder where the poster (postee?) gets the right to claim that by not voting people are doing a service to their country. I mean the last two presidential elections certainly prove that inadequate voter turnout, and apathy are not good things. And please, don't think that it's just stupid and ignorant people who don't vote, although I suppose one could argue that not voting and taking part in democracy is a mark of ignorance...
The implication that the fault of democracy lies in it's ability to give everyone the opportunity to participate in shaping the land and the laws that govern it is an insult of the highest order to all the people who fought to make democracy a reality in this country, from the founding fathers, to the suffragettes, to civil rights workers in the 20th century. Talk like this is eerily like an argument for eugenics or some such form of prejudice that coloured the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in America (oh yes, the Nazis weren't the first to tread this path).
Democracy is messy, there's no denying that. That is the glory of the system--it allows people the chance to disagree. A country of 300 million odd people will never all be satisfied at the results of an election--that is the nature of the beast. They can be satisfied, however, that they have been given the ooportunity to make their voice heard, even if in the end, their's was the "losing" side. The bottom line is democracy gives you freedom where other forms of government don't. "By the people, for the people" and all that jazz.
The only part I agree with in this ridiculous post is the bit where he/she says that we need to better educate the young about this country, it's history and it's current situation. Yes, we do need to move beyond a high school course of US history and government, and start encouraging youth to be more aware of world affairs and how the US is involved in the world as well as better knowledge about the political process both on the national and state level and on the city level.
But even in the absence of this, let's not suggest that there are people who shouldn't be voting. There are many problems with American governance, but these faults do not lie in giving each and every adult in this country the option to vote.
Today's post is not at all about that. It was going to be about my apprehensions about the 2008 US Presidential elections, but instead has shifted to a more general discourse (read: rant) about democracy and freedom.
Recently, I saw Craig Ferguson's (the guy who does the Late Late Show, the one after Letterman) monologue about voting and the duty of all Americans to do so. If you want to see it go to YouTube, it's all there, of course. It was an excellent, non-partisan commentary about taking part in democracy, I won't go into details because I think when most people hear the monologue, they will find themselves in agreement with Ferguson. What I did do after seeing the monologue was check out news articles about it. There were some interesting articles and, finally, one with reader comments. And as always, there was one that I just read and was stupefied by:
"Voting in and of itself is not a solution-- it may set us up for a bigger problem. When young, naive, pop-culturists vote because they're worked into a frenzy of irrational exuberance by well-marketed, fork-tongued devils, what might be the outcome? Let's start with a serious focus on educating our young on economics, history, world affairs, the Constitution and political science. The biggest drawback of democracy is the right of ignorant and stupid people to vote. The educated and aware will vote. The apathetic and foolish do us a service when they don't vote."
First of all...(imagine face of shock--jaw dropping)
Second of all...what?
Third of all...whoa...
I mean, where do you get off suggesting that young, naive people only vote for the "cooler" candidate? Given that statistically more elderly vote in elections and that elections are often characterised by people voting for the better-looking/more-charming etc etc candidate, really that isn't just a young phenomenon...
When I read posts like this, I wonder where the poster (postee?) gets the right to claim that by not voting people are doing a service to their country. I mean the last two presidential elections certainly prove that inadequate voter turnout, and apathy are not good things. And please, don't think that it's just stupid and ignorant people who don't vote, although I suppose one could argue that not voting and taking part in democracy is a mark of ignorance...
The implication that the fault of democracy lies in it's ability to give everyone the opportunity to participate in shaping the land and the laws that govern it is an insult of the highest order to all the people who fought to make democracy a reality in this country, from the founding fathers, to the suffragettes, to civil rights workers in the 20th century. Talk like this is eerily like an argument for eugenics or some such form of prejudice that coloured the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in America (oh yes, the Nazis weren't the first to tread this path).
Democracy is messy, there's no denying that. That is the glory of the system--it allows people the chance to disagree. A country of 300 million odd people will never all be satisfied at the results of an election--that is the nature of the beast. They can be satisfied, however, that they have been given the ooportunity to make their voice heard, even if in the end, their's was the "losing" side. The bottom line is democracy gives you freedom where other forms of government don't. "By the people, for the people" and all that jazz.
The only part I agree with in this ridiculous post is the bit where he/she says that we need to better educate the young about this country, it's history and it's current situation. Yes, we do need to move beyond a high school course of US history and government, and start encouraging youth to be more aware of world affairs and how the US is involved in the world as well as better knowledge about the political process both on the national and state level and on the city level.
But even in the absence of this, let's not suggest that there are people who shouldn't be voting. There are many problems with American governance, but these faults do not lie in giving each and every adult in this country the option to vote.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
More on biofeuls
Just a short note in relation to my previous post (Roundhouses...). The BBC just reported on comments by two Latin American presidents on the effect of biofuels on food supply: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7359880.stm
Both Bolivian President Evo Morales and Peruvian President Alan Garcia stressed the negative effects of biofuels upon food supply and prices, harming vulnerable groups. The inflation of food prices and food supply issues have been repeatedly highlighted in the press over the last few months, I can recall reports on comments by major development agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the critical issue of growing hunger in the world.
Now I'm not saying that biofuels are responsible for the overall rise in food prices, although I am sure that increased production of biofuels has played a part in this situation. These articles and continuing conversation, however, highlight the importance of caution in our strides towards alternative energy sources. We cannot focus upon a single product or mechanism for the production of energy and significant pre-application evaluation needs to be conducted on any energy source to understand the ramifications that follow its usage. Haste has not served us well in the past and given the havoc created by greenhouse gases, it is better to proceed with care.
Both Bolivian President Evo Morales and Peruvian President Alan Garcia stressed the negative effects of biofuels upon food supply and prices, harming vulnerable groups. The inflation of food prices and food supply issues have been repeatedly highlighted in the press over the last few months, I can recall reports on comments by major development agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the critical issue of growing hunger in the world.
Now I'm not saying that biofuels are responsible for the overall rise in food prices, although I am sure that increased production of biofuels has played a part in this situation. These articles and continuing conversation, however, highlight the importance of caution in our strides towards alternative energy sources. We cannot focus upon a single product or mechanism for the production of energy and significant pre-application evaluation needs to be conducted on any energy source to understand the ramifications that follow its usage. Haste has not served us well in the past and given the havoc created by greenhouse gases, it is better to proceed with care.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Who am I?
In the fall of 2001, I was suffering from what seemed like the worst kind of writer's block, the kind where you have no words for your college entrance essay. There was nothing, I felt, interesting about the subject of "me", nothing worthy of penning down and sending to colleges across the world. There I was, a girl from a regular upper middle class family who could not see why there was anything about her that was remotely captivating. I didn't pity myself, I was perfectly content in my mundane lifestyle, I simply couldn't find anything to say.
And then, I picked up my pocketbook version of The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. I was hoping for some words of wisdom that would also resonate with me. Of course there was, the great Gibran never fails:
And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom."
And he answered:
At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.
And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.
And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?
If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.
And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.
For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?
And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.
Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.
These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.
And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.
And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.
--
Therein lay the key to my essay. I read the words and began thinking that true freedom didn't exist because we prevented its existence through our many worldly shackles. The reason I was unable to come up with anything to write about myself was because of all the labels I had imposed upon myself: "somewhat intelligent" "middle class" "average" and on and on and on. What I wanted was to write an essay about how those labels didn't mean anything in the end because they said nothing about me. Sounds rather trite, and appropriately dramatic for a teenager, seven years hence but there was and is truth in these words. Those labels, that part of my existence was abundantly clear through any college application. So I wrote instead something along the lines of: "I am not just a Muslim, not just a Pakistani, not just a women..." etc. I don't think I added in the phrase that "I am greater than the sum of my parts" though now I wish I had!
I didn't want some admissions officer to only see those things in me, I wanted them to see a person, an individual who didn't know quite yet what she wanted to be or how she wanted to get there because the journey was only just beginning. Good thing I got accepted into college on the basis of that "finding myself" essay...
And then, I picked up my pocketbook version of The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. I was hoping for some words of wisdom that would also resonate with me. Of course there was, the great Gibran never fails:
Freedom
And an orator said, "Speak to us of Freedom."
And he answered:
At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you, and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.
You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.
And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.
And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?
If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.
And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.
For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?
And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.
Verily all things move within your being in constant half embrace, the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished, the pursued and that which you would escape.
These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that cling.
And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light.
And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom.
--
Therein lay the key to my essay. I read the words and began thinking that true freedom didn't exist because we prevented its existence through our many worldly shackles. The reason I was unable to come up with anything to write about myself was because of all the labels I had imposed upon myself: "somewhat intelligent" "middle class" "average" and on and on and on. What I wanted was to write an essay about how those labels didn't mean anything in the end because they said nothing about me. Sounds rather trite, and appropriately dramatic for a teenager, seven years hence but there was and is truth in these words. Those labels, that part of my existence was abundantly clear through any college application. So I wrote instead something along the lines of: "I am not just a Muslim, not just a Pakistani, not just a women..." etc. I don't think I added in the phrase that "I am greater than the sum of my parts" though now I wish I had!
I didn't want some admissions officer to only see those things in me, I wanted them to see a person, an individual who didn't know quite yet what she wanted to be or how she wanted to get there because the journey was only just beginning. Good thing I got accepted into college on the basis of that "finding myself" essay...
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Art History & World Consciousness
In 1982, the great art historian Oleg Grabar wrote an article titled: "On the Universality of the History of Art". The article is a short piece about how the discipline has progressed over the years to its present state (or rather, in the 80s), and what future progression may look like. As with any Grabar writing, it is spot on even in 2008, though this may be due to the slow mechanics of changing a discipline's methodology. The central crux of the paper is that art history has advanced beyond simply covering the canon of art as was put together, primarily, by Vasari in his Vitae, to include more artworks and regions than ever before. The problem remains, however, that despite this shift, the field remains stuck in a Eurocentric mode. One need only step into an introductory art history course and be reminded of this fact. Grabar says: "The day would come, some of us thought, when introductions to the history of art would be based on any artistic tradition and when African sculpture or Persian miniatures would help us to understand Bernini and Titian." (Grabar, p. 33)
This hope remains unrealised. Sure, in an introduction to the history of art and architecture, students will be taught about art from around the world, but Europe and, in the modern period, the United States, take a central role in this history with other histories acting as footnotes to this main body of knowledge. This is partly because the initial years of the field allowed for an extensive history to be drawn up of Western art, whereas the process is still in its infancy for most non-Western art histories. But there is also a deeper, more troubling (at least to my mind) reason why Euro-centrism continues to haunt us: The fact that many art historians believe that this is what students, no matter what their speciality or interest, should be taught, that because this is a Western field in Western universities, the West should be the focus. I find this very upsetting, both as a non-Western specialist, and as a non-Westerner.
I'm going to segway here into providing a little bit of background to how this blog, and more specifically, this last statement came about: Recently, I have expressed my dismay at the fact that the university's intro course spent its second half squarely in Europe and North America the entire time. As such, the department head, who is a lovely woman, occasionally chats with me about how the course can be changed. In this process, I stumbled across a book while at a bookstore (of course I went to the art history section, it's how I measure a store's worth!), that did not follow the canon per se. Instead, the author wrote a chronological history of art where, during every time period, he talked about art production the world over side by side. Not necessarily linking them all together, but presenting their simultaneous production so that a reader would come away knowing what went on the world over in, say the 12th century. It's still heavily Western, but its a start in moving away from the canon and similar troublesome things.
I showed the instructor the text as something for next year and it has been taken up well. Our conversation, however, did not go so well. I think this might have been my fault because I wasn't very tactful. Anyways, what happened was that the instructor mentioned that another possibility for next year's class had been to make up a coursepack with selected texts that would cover each period/region for the class. Now that is relatively easy to do with something like Impressionism which is a single philosophy, not so easy with others like African art which covers not simply an entire continent (save North Africa, which is shoved into Islamic art) but also an impossibly large timeline (prehistoric to today). Her solution was that for the places where a short summary could not be found/proved inadequate, instead a single issue would be the focus for that unit. The art shown in class would work in conjunction with this reading. Here was where I began my tactless statement by the way.
What I couldn't explain to her was that I found that ridiculous because to cover a single issue within a vast genre while managing to cover every little Western art movement was the reason why the course needed to be overhauled in the first place. It didn't change a thing! Why didn't we continue using Marilyn Stokstad or Gardener because they were doing that in their overpriced text books. What was more insulting was that she thinks that because there is more scholarship is available on Western art movements, its okay to teach more of it. The fact of the matter is, art historians are unwilling to spend less time on Europe. They'll happily spend more time on non-Western as long as it doesn't take away from them spending an entire lecture on Georges Seurat and pointillism for example. An entire lecture!
There's more than enough art historical information out there on non-Western art history to adequately inform an introductory course, the space needs to be taken away from Western art to make way for this information to be included. I don't think art history departments are willing to compromise here and that is the problem. Right now, I am unsure of how or even whether to continue with my complaints with the structure of the course because it tends to make me feel defensive, being that I am both a non-Western specialist and non-white on top of that, and leaves me seething in irritation. I also dislike being not nice to people, it's not my usual modus operandi and my last bit of tactlessness was not pleasant for me. I suspect that I will continue to be frustrated by this, since there seems to be no resolution in sight. Sorry to end on such a note but when I have happy things to say, I won't write on my blog! It's my form of therapy...cheap and unable to reply.
P.S. I use non-Western in this blog even though I rather dislike the term because I have no substitute that covers the same meaning.
This hope remains unrealised. Sure, in an introduction to the history of art and architecture, students will be taught about art from around the world, but Europe and, in the modern period, the United States, take a central role in this history with other histories acting as footnotes to this main body of knowledge. This is partly because the initial years of the field allowed for an extensive history to be drawn up of Western art, whereas the process is still in its infancy for most non-Western art histories. But there is also a deeper, more troubling (at least to my mind) reason why Euro-centrism continues to haunt us: The fact that many art historians believe that this is what students, no matter what their speciality or interest, should be taught, that because this is a Western field in Western universities, the West should be the focus. I find this very upsetting, both as a non-Western specialist, and as a non-Westerner.
I'm going to segway here into providing a little bit of background to how this blog, and more specifically, this last statement came about: Recently, I have expressed my dismay at the fact that the university's intro course spent its second half squarely in Europe and North America the entire time. As such, the department head, who is a lovely woman, occasionally chats with me about how the course can be changed. In this process, I stumbled across a book while at a bookstore (of course I went to the art history section, it's how I measure a store's worth!), that did not follow the canon per se. Instead, the author wrote a chronological history of art where, during every time period, he talked about art production the world over side by side. Not necessarily linking them all together, but presenting their simultaneous production so that a reader would come away knowing what went on the world over in, say the 12th century. It's still heavily Western, but its a start in moving away from the canon and similar troublesome things.
I showed the instructor the text as something for next year and it has been taken up well. Our conversation, however, did not go so well. I think this might have been my fault because I wasn't very tactful. Anyways, what happened was that the instructor mentioned that another possibility for next year's class had been to make up a coursepack with selected texts that would cover each period/region for the class. Now that is relatively easy to do with something like Impressionism which is a single philosophy, not so easy with others like African art which covers not simply an entire continent (save North Africa, which is shoved into Islamic art) but also an impossibly large timeline (prehistoric to today). Her solution was that for the places where a short summary could not be found/proved inadequate, instead a single issue would be the focus for that unit. The art shown in class would work in conjunction with this reading. Here was where I began my tactless statement by the way.
What I couldn't explain to her was that I found that ridiculous because to cover a single issue within a vast genre while managing to cover every little Western art movement was the reason why the course needed to be overhauled in the first place. It didn't change a thing! Why didn't we continue using Marilyn Stokstad or Gardener because they were doing that in their overpriced text books. What was more insulting was that she thinks that because there is more scholarship is available on Western art movements, its okay to teach more of it. The fact of the matter is, art historians are unwilling to spend less time on Europe. They'll happily spend more time on non-Western as long as it doesn't take away from them spending an entire lecture on Georges Seurat and pointillism for example. An entire lecture!
There's more than enough art historical information out there on non-Western art history to adequately inform an introductory course, the space needs to be taken away from Western art to make way for this information to be included. I don't think art history departments are willing to compromise here and that is the problem. Right now, I am unsure of how or even whether to continue with my complaints with the structure of the course because it tends to make me feel defensive, being that I am both a non-Western specialist and non-white on top of that, and leaves me seething in irritation. I also dislike being not nice to people, it's not my usual modus operandi and my last bit of tactlessness was not pleasant for me. I suspect that I will continue to be frustrated by this, since there seems to be no resolution in sight. Sorry to end on such a note but when I have happy things to say, I won't write on my blog! It's my form of therapy...cheap and unable to reply.
P.S. I use non-Western in this blog even though I rather dislike the term because I have no substitute that covers the same meaning.
Cult of the stupid
Apparently, I'm not the only one worried about the growing fashion of portraying non-intelligence. I just read an article (thanks to Claire's gchat msg :) which had the link) which has the same subject, albeit not relating to American Idol (see a few posts below for said topic):
http://blog.brevardyoungdemocrats.org/2008/03/obama-tests-americas-cult-of-ignorance.html
26 minutes a day reading, what a waste of all those Barnes & Noble and Borders. Books are cheaper than ever, you can even buy them at Costco...
http://blog.brevardyoungdemocrats.org/2008/03/obama-tests-americas-cult-of-ignorance.html
26 minutes a day reading, what a waste of all those Barnes & Noble and Borders. Books are cheaper than ever, you can even buy them at Costco...
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Roundhouses are for hobbits...apparently not?
I just finished going through a photo gallery on the BBC's website which is certainly worth sharing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/06/in_pictures_life_in_an_eco_roundhouse/html/1.stm
Our consumer lifestyle is recklessly indulgent. And I don't think we have the time to wait for the government to come up with stricter emission standards, but to take on the responsibility ourselves. Societal attitudes need to change. Just putting your paper in a blue bin really isn't enough. Bringing down the amount of trash and recycle you create is the next step. Using less energy on a daily basis (turn that light off!), wasting less water etc etc.
What I think would be really great is if more eco-friendly products could be more accessible to middle- and low-income earners. I'm talking about eco-friendly building materials, and clean energy sources like solar panels (so easy to install on rooftops), things that will have an enormous impact, if taken up wholesale. But for most people, these are too costly. It's analogous to expecting a poor person to shop at Whole Foods for healthy foods rather than going to McDonalds for an unhealthy but considerably cheaper meal.
Although, come to think of it, cooperative communities/attitudes could manage where individual households cannot in achieving energy independence. For example, a single streetlight provides light for about 4-5 houses around it, right? That means that if we replace regular street lights with a solar-charged LED light, with contributions from each household, the costs would be about $100 per household for the panel, the light and the battery/converter kit. Imagine how much energy & money could be saved by getting rid of every street light in the country. Now I know that we don't pay for our street lights, at least not directly, but I'm just using this as an example. If someone wants to start a project replacing streetlights with solar-powered ones, I'm all for it...
There's also a downside to renewable/clean energy, however, that I should point out. The use of corn to produce ethanol caused an increase in corn prices, impacting consumers detrimentally. Cellulosic ethanol requires too much energy to produce. Even the use of non-useful plants for ethanol production (there's a plant in India--I can't remember the name), can cause a shift in production as farmers stop growing other essential products, such as soya bean. Wind turbines are not simply eyesores, the setting up of a wind farm also takes up large tracts of land. Solar panels won't work so well in perennially cloudy areas. When applying these different technologies, I think we must not give up any but rather plan on a combination of them to balance out economic and environmental issues. Diversifying our sources of energy is only practical, the dependence on oil proves that if nothing else.
Getting back to the article that sparked this blog: Now, I'm not ready to give up some of the conveniences that Tony Wrench and Jane Faith have, such as washing machines (washing by hand is not pleasant), but I really admire their philosophy of living within one's means and practising a low-impact lifestyle. I've been trying to slowly change my lifestyle to be make more environmentally conscious choices. These decisions have not even meant major sacrifices, I'm building up towards them! Here are some things I've done (and many others have also taken up).
**Using eco-friendly (i.e. natural), concentrated detergent: regular detergent is made less concentrated by adding water and ends up requiring more plastic for packaging, a waste all round. My clothes are no dirtier, and nor am I spending more money (I may be saving money actually...). Likewise with dishwashing detergent and cleaning sprays, household freshening sprays etc. etc. I use only naturally made products. This is partially because bleach smells disgusting and I am too paranoid to use it on places where my skin will touch it...i.e. everywhere.
**I have had one roll of paper towels in my kitchen all year. And I didn't buy it, it was already there and so far I've used maybe five sheets of it. Instead, I bought a very cheap set of kitchen cloths and use them for the same purpose. They can be regularly cleaned with my laundry and reused. I also only buy toilet paper that's made of 100% recycled paper.
**Not using a hot water cycle in the washing machine, cold cycles work fine 99.9% of the time. I have a very white-collar lifestyle and so my clothes do not collect grime that may warrant hot water usage. This also means that I don't do two separate loads of whites and colours (even washing machines are racist?!) I also run the dryer for a shorter period than a normal hour-long cycle. Victoria is too rainy to allow for air drying or I may be tempted to use that system instead.
**Limiting my use of the vacuum cleaner to every two weeks, sweeping regularly instead. I have a small place, it takes thirty minutes to sweep up the entire apartment! Turning off unused lights, and generally unplugging devices which are not in regular use. Turning the heat down/off when leaving a room/the flat.
**Buying local/close to local produce whenever possible, and limiting my intake of imported foods which have to travel incredibly long distances. BC grows great apples, but tomatoes unfortunately come from either California or Mexico most of the year...what can you do? Also, I like my European cheeses. But I have started purchasing Canadian produced chocolate...without realising it.
These are just a few things among many that anyone can do and I'm always looking for suggestions of how to decrease my carbon footprint...
Our consumer lifestyle is recklessly indulgent. And I don't think we have the time to wait for the government to come up with stricter emission standards, but to take on the responsibility ourselves. Societal attitudes need to change. Just putting your paper in a blue bin really isn't enough. Bringing down the amount of trash and recycle you create is the next step. Using less energy on a daily basis (turn that light off!), wasting less water etc etc.
What I think would be really great is if more eco-friendly products could be more accessible to middle- and low-income earners. I'm talking about eco-friendly building materials, and clean energy sources like solar panels (so easy to install on rooftops), things that will have an enormous impact, if taken up wholesale. But for most people, these are too costly. It's analogous to expecting a poor person to shop at Whole Foods for healthy foods rather than going to McDonalds for an unhealthy but considerably cheaper meal.
Although, come to think of it, cooperative communities/attitudes could manage where individual households cannot in achieving energy independence. For example, a single streetlight provides light for about 4-5 houses around it, right? That means that if we replace regular street lights with a solar-charged LED light, with contributions from each household, the costs would be about $100 per household for the panel, the light and the battery/converter kit. Imagine how much energy & money could be saved by getting rid of every street light in the country. Now I know that we don't pay for our street lights, at least not directly, but I'm just using this as an example. If someone wants to start a project replacing streetlights with solar-powered ones, I'm all for it...
There's also a downside to renewable/clean energy, however, that I should point out. The use of corn to produce ethanol caused an increase in corn prices, impacting consumers detrimentally. Cellulosic ethanol requires too much energy to produce. Even the use of non-useful plants for ethanol production (there's a plant in India--I can't remember the name), can cause a shift in production as farmers stop growing other essential products, such as soya bean. Wind turbines are not simply eyesores, the setting up of a wind farm also takes up large tracts of land. Solar panels won't work so well in perennially cloudy areas. When applying these different technologies, I think we must not give up any but rather plan on a combination of them to balance out economic and environmental issues. Diversifying our sources of energy is only practical, the dependence on oil proves that if nothing else.
Getting back to the article that sparked this blog: Now, I'm not ready to give up some of the conveniences that Tony Wrench and Jane Faith have, such as washing machines (washing by hand is not pleasant), but I really admire their philosophy of living within one's means and practising a low-impact lifestyle. I've been trying to slowly change my lifestyle to be make more environmentally conscious choices. These decisions have not even meant major sacrifices, I'm building up towards them! Here are some things I've done (and many others have also taken up).
**Using eco-friendly (i.e. natural), concentrated detergent: regular detergent is made less concentrated by adding water and ends up requiring more plastic for packaging, a waste all round. My clothes are no dirtier, and nor am I spending more money (I may be saving money actually...). Likewise with dishwashing detergent and cleaning sprays, household freshening sprays etc. etc. I use only naturally made products. This is partially because bleach smells disgusting and I am too paranoid to use it on places where my skin will touch it...i.e. everywhere.
**I have had one roll of paper towels in my kitchen all year. And I didn't buy it, it was already there and so far I've used maybe five sheets of it. Instead, I bought a very cheap set of kitchen cloths and use them for the same purpose. They can be regularly cleaned with my laundry and reused. I also only buy toilet paper that's made of 100% recycled paper.
**Not using a hot water cycle in the washing machine, cold cycles work fine 99.9% of the time. I have a very white-collar lifestyle and so my clothes do not collect grime that may warrant hot water usage. This also means that I don't do two separate loads of whites and colours (even washing machines are racist?!) I also run the dryer for a shorter period than a normal hour-long cycle. Victoria is too rainy to allow for air drying or I may be tempted to use that system instead.
**Limiting my use of the vacuum cleaner to every two weeks, sweeping regularly instead. I have a small place, it takes thirty minutes to sweep up the entire apartment! Turning off unused lights, and generally unplugging devices which are not in regular use. Turning the heat down/off when leaving a room/the flat.
**Buying local/close to local produce whenever possible, and limiting my intake of imported foods which have to travel incredibly long distances. BC grows great apples, but tomatoes unfortunately come from either California or Mexico most of the year...what can you do? Also, I like my European cheeses. But I have started purchasing Canadian produced chocolate...without realising it.
These are just a few things among many that anyone can do and I'm always looking for suggestions of how to decrease my carbon footprint...
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
American Idol and Dumb People
I watch American idol as entertainment along the lines of "I can't believe people can sing this badly, be this stupid, that Paula Abdul really is that crazy." Occasionally, it also introduces me to songs that I subsequently download the original of (cause the Idol contestants rarely sing a decent version). And, of course, while I abhor Simon Cowell's compulsive need to be rude, his comments are usually spot on and rock. I especially liked how he called out Kristy Lee Cook on playing the patriot card with "God Bless the USA" this week...heehee.
This week's episodes made me feel more than ever how stupid most of the Idol contestants are. When did it become attractive for twenty-somethings to act like simpering, substance-less, stupid people (alliteration!)? Why do the women feel the need to act like they are five? I quote one of them, regarding losing her voice, in a baby-voice: "it went bye bye"--you're twenty, for the love of all that is holy. It's not a crime, and not even unattractive to act your age. Is this a result of having Bush as a president? Lack of intelligence and/or maturity is simply considered normal, perhaps even something to aim for? I'm not asking for Einstein's, this is a singing contest, but a little show of brains would not be amiss. Is anyone thinking about the kids watching this show, their impressionable minds seeing that being famous is about acting half your age (or in some cases, quarter your age). I'm not saying that celebrities are all idiotic, there are many intelligent, articulate celebrities out there, e.g. Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant (who is Cambridge educated believe it or not), Robin Williams etc. etc. Unfortunately, the uber-popular American Idol is not where these stars are found. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears get way more coverage in the news than high-class stars do.
This may also explain/be explained the dismal state of K-12 education in many public schools. Why does everything need to be dumbed down, we need to be pushing kids further instead of relaxing standards so that everyone can graduate. Ambition, drive, and high standards can be good things. Expecting young Americans appearing on a singing competition to be somewhat intelligent is a reasonable request.
This week's episodes made me feel more than ever how stupid most of the Idol contestants are. When did it become attractive for twenty-somethings to act like simpering, substance-less, stupid people (alliteration!)? Why do the women feel the need to act like they are five? I quote one of them, regarding losing her voice, in a baby-voice: "it went bye bye"--you're twenty, for the love of all that is holy. It's not a crime, and not even unattractive to act your age. Is this a result of having Bush as a president? Lack of intelligence and/or maturity is simply considered normal, perhaps even something to aim for? I'm not asking for Einstein's, this is a singing contest, but a little show of brains would not be amiss. Is anyone thinking about the kids watching this show, their impressionable minds seeing that being famous is about acting half your age (or in some cases, quarter your age). I'm not saying that celebrities are all idiotic, there are many intelligent, articulate celebrities out there, e.g. Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant (who is Cambridge educated believe it or not), Robin Williams etc. etc. Unfortunately, the uber-popular American Idol is not where these stars are found. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears get way more coverage in the news than high-class stars do.
This may also explain/be explained the dismal state of K-12 education in many public schools. Why does everything need to be dumbed down, we need to be pushing kids further instead of relaxing standards so that everyone can graduate. Ambition, drive, and high standards can be good things. Expecting young Americans appearing on a singing competition to be somewhat intelligent is a reasonable request.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Guns on Campus?
A few years ago, while I was doing my Bachelors, I remember the uproar over the possibility of campus police carrying handguns in an attempt to up security. Now I don't much care for guns, no matter whose hands they are in and thought asking for more guns on what is a relatively peaceful, non-violent campus was asking for trouble. [Guns are the reason I don't shop at Walmart by the way. I refuse to buy products from a store that sells guns in some states. There are, of course, many reasons not to shop at Walmart, this is my primary motivator effectively defusing the cheaper costs which are so attractive to a student.]
Anyways, the reason I thought of this suddenly was because I read an article about the rise in Indian student deaths across US campuses. The material of the article contained a reference to a group called "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus." Said group apparently advocates for the right of licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. Wait a second, What?!!! That was my reaction reading this titbit. On second thought, it didn't really surprise me given the vast network of the NRA.
I'm struck by the asinine nature of such advocacy. I'm not going to go into numbers of how many people die yearly in accidental gun deaths etc etc. All I'm going to say is, how is this going to fix things? In the event that some crazed nutter, carries a gun onto campus and starts indiscriminately shooting people, will the aforementioned 'licensed individuals' be there on hand like superheroes in a comic? Moreover, will they be sharp shooters immediately able to take out the killer? What will they do that a policeman cannot? If we change the scenario to a more intimate threat, i.e. that a student is accosted in a dark alley or some such circumstance, do you really think having a gun on hand is necessarily going to pull things back in your favour? Likely that both victim and offender die or get injured.
By allowing guns on campus, we are allowing a lot of trigger-happy folks to carry weapons on campuses and ultimately make campuses much more dangerous. Instead, please just be careful security-wise. Don't wander around alone in the middle of the night, stick to crowded areas etc etc. Unfortunately, there's not much to do in cases of the 'killer on a rampage' situation. But lets not make it easier to happen?
Anyways, the reason I thought of this suddenly was because I read an article about the rise in Indian student deaths across US campuses. The material of the article contained a reference to a group called "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus." Said group apparently advocates for the right of licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. Wait a second, What?!!! That was my reaction reading this titbit. On second thought, it didn't really surprise me given the vast network of the NRA.
I'm struck by the asinine nature of such advocacy. I'm not going to go into numbers of how many people die yearly in accidental gun deaths etc etc. All I'm going to say is, how is this going to fix things? In the event that some crazed nutter, carries a gun onto campus and starts indiscriminately shooting people, will the aforementioned 'licensed individuals' be there on hand like superheroes in a comic? Moreover, will they be sharp shooters immediately able to take out the killer? What will they do that a policeman cannot? If we change the scenario to a more intimate threat, i.e. that a student is accosted in a dark alley or some such circumstance, do you really think having a gun on hand is necessarily going to pull things back in your favour? Likely that both victim and offender die or get injured.
By allowing guns on campus, we are allowing a lot of trigger-happy folks to carry weapons on campuses and ultimately make campuses much more dangerous. Instead, please just be careful security-wise. Don't wander around alone in the middle of the night, stick to crowded areas etc etc. Unfortunately, there's not much to do in cases of the 'killer on a rampage' situation. But lets not make it easier to happen?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Five Years
It has been five years since the Iraq war started. Many Americans took to the streets today protesting the continuation of the war (and some got arrested), but George W. Bush took the day to once again proclaim victory against the enemies of America and Iraq. To George W., the costs of the war have been exaggerated by his opponents and, moreover, whatever the numbers, they have been necessary for victory in the war against terror. Here are some numbers by generally reliable sources:
** The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of war at $600 billion, while Joseph Stiglitz estimates that once post-war costs are included, the Iraq war will have cost somewhere around $3 trillion. (Taken from today's BBC news report: http://news.bb.co.uk/2/hi/americas/730523.stm)
** www.iraqbody count.org estimates civilian deaths to be between 82,249 and 89,760. They use numbers from documented sources. I've seen websites which place the number at over a million--I don't know about how true that is and I'm not sure how they're calculating their numbers.
** The AP reports that close to 4,000 American troops have died. The DoD reports the same.
I'm not sure what 'cost' is necessary but these numbers are very high. It's disturbing that we think collateral damages of over 80,000 civilians is considered okay by the government and the Armed Forces. If we're trying to maintain our values of life, liberty and justice, why aren't we following those self same values?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Some poetry
INTERDEPENDENCE
We cannot have well humans on a sick planet.
We cannot have a viable human economy by devastating the earth’s economy.
We cannot survive if the conditions of life itself are not protected.
Not only our physical being, but our souls, our minds, imagination and emotions depend on our immediate experience of the natural world.
There is in the industrial process no poetry, no elevation or fulfilment of mind or emotion comparable to that experience of the magnificence of the sea, the mountains, the sky, the stars at night, the flowers blooming in the meadows, the flight and song of the birds.
As the natural world diminishes in its splendour, so human life diminishes in its fulfilment of both the physical and the spiritual aspects of our being.
Not only is it the case with humans, but with every mode of being.
The wellbeing of each member of the earth community is dependent on the wellbeing of the earth itself.
—Thomas Berry
We cannot have well humans on a sick planet.
We cannot have a viable human economy by devastating the earth’s economy.
We cannot survive if the conditions of life itself are not protected.
Not only our physical being, but our souls, our minds, imagination and emotions depend on our immediate experience of the natural world.
There is in the industrial process no poetry, no elevation or fulfilment of mind or emotion comparable to that experience of the magnificence of the sea, the mountains, the sky, the stars at night, the flowers blooming in the meadows, the flight and song of the birds.
As the natural world diminishes in its splendour, so human life diminishes in its fulfilment of both the physical and the spiritual aspects of our being.
Not only is it the case with humans, but with every mode of being.
The wellbeing of each member of the earth community is dependent on the wellbeing of the earth itself.
—Thomas Berry
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Some common courtesy? And some politics to spice it up...
I am convinced that I may be the champion of bottled-up frustration. There are a lot of disgruntled people out there, but I may just take the cake in not expressing extreme levels of irritation that I feel on a daily, perhaps even hourly, basis. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this level of pent up emotions have got to be terrible for me and that I should really learn to let go of this unhealthy amount of rage.
Perhaps the biggest reason I have for this level of rage, is that many, many things that people do bother me. But I feel perfectly justified in getting bothered by these points because they so often are matters of common courtesy or common sense. By the way, neither of these two attributes is as common as you'd like to believe. There are two primary things that have me all het up by the way and I point them out here so whoever reads this blog can appreciate and perhaps even empathize with my situation:
1. Talking on phones loudly in public locations: It's not simply a matter of YOUR privacy, it's every person's right to not be subjected to every last detail about the last crazy party you went to or the recent family scandal. So please, talk softly. Actually, let me refine this: Don't talk loudly in public. Unless your fellow conversationalist (conversee?) is hearing impaired or you are in a very loud place, there is no need to raise your voice.
2. Walking in large groups so that you take up the entire sidewalk: I am a fast walker and like to get to places quickly. It won't hurt your 'pack' to be a little more scattered so as to allow innocent bystanders passage. Is it too much to ask?
So now that I have let that off my chest…pheww. I’m now good till the next time it happens, at which time I may have an apoplectic fit. Or some other thing may grate on my nerves.
___________________________________________________________________
In other news, I have come to the somewhat disturbing conclusion that bomb blasts in my home country do not seem to affect me emotionally anymore. I have become increasingly blasé about them and that worries me. It happens so often that I can no longer react in an appropriately shocked manner. Which, in turn, saddens me intensely. What does it say about the state of a country when its citizens have come to expect bomb blasts by extremists on a regular basis?
And while this cycle of violence and death continues, the only other news about Pakistan is the power struggle between the “democratically” elected parties and their power-brokering deals…best of both worlds? I think not. We are, once again, at a point where the military has failed us and Pakistanis once again look to democracy as a savior, only to be disappointed, and in about a decade the tides will shift again and the army will step in again. How does this cycle stop? Once we leave behind all our Zardari’s and Sharif’s with their false promises and feudal ideas and find an honest-to-goodness ethical and just leader. What a pipe dream it seems right now.
But there is good news. Not all change comes from the government and there is so much grassroots activism that is focused on diminishing poverty, improving health and education standards amongst a multitude of other noble causes. Hurrah for the development organizations toiling away in the difficult arena that is improving the lives of others. With no real guarantee of success, it is a brave occupation to belong to. Also, hurrah to the philanthropists who give so generously to those in need. There is still some light left after all…
Perhaps the biggest reason I have for this level of rage, is that many, many things that people do bother me. But I feel perfectly justified in getting bothered by these points because they so often are matters of common courtesy or common sense. By the way, neither of these two attributes is as common as you'd like to believe. There are two primary things that have me all het up by the way and I point them out here so whoever reads this blog can appreciate and perhaps even empathize with my situation:
1. Talking on phones loudly in public locations: It's not simply a matter of YOUR privacy, it's every person's right to not be subjected to every last detail about the last crazy party you went to or the recent family scandal. So please, talk softly. Actually, let me refine this: Don't talk loudly in public. Unless your fellow conversationalist (conversee?) is hearing impaired or you are in a very loud place, there is no need to raise your voice.
2. Walking in large groups so that you take up the entire sidewalk: I am a fast walker and like to get to places quickly. It won't hurt your 'pack' to be a little more scattered so as to allow innocent bystanders passage. Is it too much to ask?
So now that I have let that off my chest…pheww. I’m now good till the next time it happens, at which time I may have an apoplectic fit. Or some other thing may grate on my nerves.
___________________________________________________________________
In other news, I have come to the somewhat disturbing conclusion that bomb blasts in my home country do not seem to affect me emotionally anymore. I have become increasingly blasé about them and that worries me. It happens so often that I can no longer react in an appropriately shocked manner. Which, in turn, saddens me intensely. What does it say about the state of a country when its citizens have come to expect bomb blasts by extremists on a regular basis?
And while this cycle of violence and death continues, the only other news about Pakistan is the power struggle between the “democratically” elected parties and their power-brokering deals…best of both worlds? I think not. We are, once again, at a point where the military has failed us and Pakistanis once again look to democracy as a savior, only to be disappointed, and in about a decade the tides will shift again and the army will step in again. How does this cycle stop? Once we leave behind all our Zardari’s and Sharif’s with their false promises and feudal ideas and find an honest-to-goodness ethical and just leader. What a pipe dream it seems right now.
But there is good news. Not all change comes from the government and there is so much grassroots activism that is focused on diminishing poverty, improving health and education standards amongst a multitude of other noble causes. Hurrah for the development organizations toiling away in the difficult arena that is improving the lives of others. With no real guarantee of success, it is a brave occupation to belong to. Also, hurrah to the philanthropists who give so generously to those in need. There is still some light left after all…
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Irresponsible Journalism
Yesterday, I was sitting in a seminar waiting for the professor to start class when some of the undergrads began discussing an article they were quite shocked by in the university's student newspaper (which, by the way, only comes out once a week--hurrah for daily BDH's!). Now I rarely pick up the newspaper because it has little information of interest to me, such is the grad student disinvolvement with university life. Anyways, I hadn't read the Martlet and it turned out there was an article in it called: "Violence at root of Qur'an" which essentially called the text a genocidal document. The author, Derek Madson, was linking the Qur'an's hatred-inciting violence with the Criminal Code of Canada which in its hate crimes legislation exempts religious texts from its definition for hate speech. the article has kept me hopping mad since I read it and I've already sent of a complaint to the newspaper for printing it.
Now I am not arguing that the Qur'an does not have its violent moments, there's a fair amount of it to be honest. My issue with Mr. Madson was his irresponsible journalism. First of all, I think we all know some other religious texts that are equally violent. In a letter I wrote to the newspaper complaining on such hate-mongering acts, I noted that the Bible calls for the execution of homosexuals in Leviticus. Deutoronomy has its fair share of violence. For crying out loud: working on the Sabbath is a sin and the punishment prescribed is death!
Mr. Madson recorded his "casual perusal" of the Qur'an and cited various examples of hate speech within it. I would like to say to him, religious texts are complex and casual glances tell us little of these complexities. Furthermore, he says that the Qur'an's hate speech should not be tolerated because of 'jihadists' who preach them regularly. Oh well, if the fundamentalists are using this violent speech, then yes we must abandon everything about a religion that over a billion people (clearly they are all racist and violent) adhere to. I'd just like to add that the Criminal Code of Canada was written far before Islam had much of an impact on Canada and probably exempted religion from its hate crimes legislation because of the Bible!
Why does this man need to write such a hateful article? Does he truly think all Muslims are 'jihadists'? I am a Muslim and while I am enraged at his seeming righteousness, I wish him no harm. He can believe what he likes as far as I (and many, many other Muslims are concerned) but this racist diatribe is unwelcome and unwarranted. Before you publish something, check your facts more thoroughly, talk to a few experts perhaps. No "casual perusals" please.
Mr. Madson recorded his "casual perusal" of the Qur'an and cited various examples of hate speech within it. I would like to say to him, religious texts are complex and casual glances tell us little of these complexities. Furthermore, he says that the Qur'an's hate speech should not be tolerated because of 'jihadists' who preach them regularly. Oh well, if the fundamentalists are using this violent speech, then yes we must abandon everything about a religion that over a billion people (clearly they are all racist and violent) adhere to. I'd just like to add that the Criminal Code of Canada was written far before Islam had much of an impact on Canada and probably exempted religion from its hate crimes legislation because of the Bible!
Why does this man need to write such a hateful article? Does he truly think all Muslims are 'jihadists'? I am a Muslim and while I am enraged at his seeming righteousness, I wish him no harm. He can believe what he likes as far as I (and many, many other Muslims are concerned) but this racist diatribe is unwelcome and unwarranted. Before you publish something, check your facts more thoroughly, talk to a few experts perhaps. No "casual perusals" please.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Apologies
I've taken the liberty of copying the full text of Australian premier, Kevin Rudd's speech to Parliament apologising to Australian aborigines:
"Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing culture in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia."
Wow.
As an American, I wish we could have some of that. Nobody even talks of apologies in the ongoing presidential race or in media generally. And we owe a few.
Apologies will not solve the many problems minorities face but they will open the door to seeing that there have been injustices and that something must be done. Moral leadership must be about more than talk but don't we have to start talking to move to action?
I'm not going to say anything more than this: Start talking
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)