Your "First World Problems" are actually just "World Problems".
A bit of an older link, I know, but this hashtag has been bothering me for a damn long time, and I finally found something to say about it.
The term "Third World" has dropped out of use by real geographers and economists who study the differences in economies and social power between the modernized developed world and the still-developing world. Sadly, the views of the average North American are skewed by commercials like these:
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Gideon Bibles have no place in Canadian public schools
You'd think you wouldn't have to say that, eh? Well, apparently, it's not as obvious as I'd like.
“I'm not even a Gideon. I'm just a concerned Christian parent in a country that's still 70 per cent Christian,” said Rev. Mark Koehler, pastor at First St. Matthews Lutheran Church in Hanover, Ont.
“We've taken prayer out of school. We can't say certain greetings at Christmas time. We don't want further erosion of our Christian faith and heritage to happen.”
Friday, December 30, 2011
Atheism and equality do not go hand in hand.
Required reading for this post:
Rebecca Watson
Greta Christina
Jason Thibault
Greta again
To summarize: Rebecca Watson notices that assholes on reddit use a 15 year old girl as a sex object, and makes the note that atheists aren't necessarily in favour of equality. Jason points out that it's good that Rebecca shows off how idiotic the atheist movement can still be, reminds us that we are obviously not infallible, and that we should use her ability to really push the assholes out of the woodwork to fix our problems. Greta points out that by minimizing what is going on you're really part of the problem, and then another random asshole threatens her and tells her to shut up.
See, this is a problem, from start to finish, and it's a clear reminder of one simple fact: not believing in a god doesn't equal not being part of the fucking problem. I can't pretend to be perfect, but I try to follow the advice of people like Greta, and Jen, and Rebecca, and make sure that I think about what I say. These sorts of people who sexualize an utterly unsexual and totally inappropriate situation for cheap thrills are pretty low.
But what scares me more is that when attention is called to it by a man, they don't say anything (like when Jason called them out) - but when a woman speaks up (in this case, Greta Christina), they tell her to shove a knife inside of her and shut up. Call our behaviour bad? Shut the fuck up woman, have some genital mutilation, and get back in the kitchen.
How do you fight that sort of idiocy, aggression, misogyny? You call it out, even if you're a blogger who has no following. You remind the people who are at the front lines of the fight that they're not alone. And if you see it...you call it out. Don't give people a pass just because they figured out there's no god. Sometimes that's just the first epiphany people have to have before they sort shit out.
Rebecca Watson
Greta Christina
Jason Thibault
Greta again
To summarize: Rebecca Watson notices that assholes on reddit use a 15 year old girl as a sex object, and makes the note that atheists aren't necessarily in favour of equality. Jason points out that it's good that Rebecca shows off how idiotic the atheist movement can still be, reminds us that we are obviously not infallible, and that we should use her ability to really push the assholes out of the woodwork to fix our problems. Greta points out that by minimizing what is going on you're really part of the problem, and then another random asshole threatens her and tells her to shut up.
See, this is a problem, from start to finish, and it's a clear reminder of one simple fact: not believing in a god doesn't equal not being part of the fucking problem. I can't pretend to be perfect, but I try to follow the advice of people like Greta, and Jen, and Rebecca, and make sure that I think about what I say. These sorts of people who sexualize an utterly unsexual and totally inappropriate situation for cheap thrills are pretty low.
But what scares me more is that when attention is called to it by a man, they don't say anything (like when Jason called them out) - but when a woman speaks up (in this case, Greta Christina), they tell her to shove a knife inside of her and shut up. Call our behaviour bad? Shut the fuck up woman, have some genital mutilation, and get back in the kitchen.
How do you fight that sort of idiocy, aggression, misogyny? You call it out, even if you're a blogger who has no following. You remind the people who are at the front lines of the fight that they're not alone. And if you see it...you call it out. Don't give people a pass just because they figured out there's no god. Sometimes that's just the first epiphany people have to have before they sort shit out.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Instant Runoff Voting in Canada
In May, 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada stunned political pundits by winning a solid majority government of 166 seats - 13 more than required to control the federal government for four and a half years. Instead of winning a minority government as projected, the Conservatives won 53.9 percent of seats available with only 39.6% of the vote. A five-party vote split and Canada’s first-past-the-post style of electoral politics has allowed for a party with only a plurality of votes to control the majority of politics for the first time since 2000.
Electoral reform in Canada is, sadly, not a seriously-considered issue, but that doesn’t mean it’s not necessary. The Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom made electoral reform part of their platform, and their preferred choice, instant run-off voting, was put to the test recently in the UK. Though defeated in the UK, I was curious what would have happened in Canada in 2011 if we used the same system. After a little work, I was able to come up with some answers to that question, but before we get to the exact logistics, let’s take a peek at how things work now, now instant run-off voting would work, and the methodology of my thought experiment.
Electoral reform in Canada is, sadly, not a seriously-considered issue, but that doesn’t mean it’s not necessary. The Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom made electoral reform part of their platform, and their preferred choice, instant run-off voting, was put to the test recently in the UK. Though defeated in the UK, I was curious what would have happened in Canada in 2011 if we used the same system. After a little work, I was able to come up with some answers to that question, but before we get to the exact logistics, let’s take a peek at how things work now, now instant run-off voting would work, and the methodology of my thought experiment.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The #Shanaban
Welcome to the era of the Shanaban.
Last season, during the Stanley Cup Finals, the NHL announced that Senior VP of Player Operations Colin Campbell would be rotated out of the role of the NHL's head disciplinarian. Replacing him would be a former hockey superstar who has done more for professional hockey than anyone else in the last 20 years - Brendan Shanahan. Shanahan is not completely beyond reproach in this position, but he is an experienced hat at discipline from the player's end. Shanahan also has the trust of the NHL - he has worked as an executive for Gary Bettman since retiring from active play, and was one of the key negotiators during the 2004-05 lockout. Both as a player (someone sure to be enrolled in the Hockey Hall of Fame next year) and as an executive and negotiator, Shanahan has helped move hockey forward, and Bettman is relying on him to do so again.
The NHL has an injury problem. Colin Campbell continued to deny this simple fact last season, even as Sidney Crosby - the biggest superstar in the NHL since some guy named Wayne Gretzky - missed the entire second half of the season after two brutal headshots, one occurring during the League's premiere regular season event, the Winter Classic. While Campbell was in charge, the League seemed to resist changes for headshots, which, as well as Campbell's random and unexplained discipline, discredited him among many observers. On top of this, Campbell showed a distaste for certain players, notably, Marc Savard, that significantly questioned his ability to be in charge of discipline.
The Shanahan era, therefore, has come as a welcome change. So far, Shanahan has suspended 9 players for a total of 60 games and $719,249.99 in salary (the latter mostly from James Wisniewski of the Columbus Blue Jackets). Shanahan has made a video for each call explaining his reasoning, and recently for a hit that he did not suspend, why the hit was considered fair. Overall, this public explanation has made it very clear to observers and the players what Shanahan wants and expects, and has set a clear precedent.
Finally, the NHL has finally evolved to completely ban hits to the head, excepting for when the player's head moves into the otherwise clean checking line. This was why Ryan Malone didn't get suspended for his hit on Montreal's Chris Campoli. Although I am a Montreal fan, it was the right call - thanks to Shanahan's clear explanations. The Shanabans will undoubtedly continue; every player doesn't learn quickly, and accidents will happen. But Shanahan has placed the emphasis on the attacking player to protect the defending player - and it's about damned time.
Last season, during the Stanley Cup Finals, the NHL announced that Senior VP of Player Operations Colin Campbell would be rotated out of the role of the NHL's head disciplinarian. Replacing him would be a former hockey superstar who has done more for professional hockey than anyone else in the last 20 years - Brendan Shanahan. Shanahan is not completely beyond reproach in this position, but he is an experienced hat at discipline from the player's end. Shanahan also has the trust of the NHL - he has worked as an executive for Gary Bettman since retiring from active play, and was one of the key negotiators during the 2004-05 lockout. Both as a player (someone sure to be enrolled in the Hockey Hall of Fame next year) and as an executive and negotiator, Shanahan has helped move hockey forward, and Bettman is relying on him to do so again.
The NHL has an injury problem. Colin Campbell continued to deny this simple fact last season, even as Sidney Crosby - the biggest superstar in the NHL since some guy named Wayne Gretzky - missed the entire second half of the season after two brutal headshots, one occurring during the League's premiere regular season event, the Winter Classic. While Campbell was in charge, the League seemed to resist changes for headshots, which, as well as Campbell's random and unexplained discipline, discredited him among many observers. On top of this, Campbell showed a distaste for certain players, notably, Marc Savard, that significantly questioned his ability to be in charge of discipline.
The Shanahan era, therefore, has come as a welcome change. So far, Shanahan has suspended 9 players for a total of 60 games and $719,249.99 in salary (the latter mostly from James Wisniewski of the Columbus Blue Jackets). Shanahan has made a video for each call explaining his reasoning, and recently for a hit that he did not suspend, why the hit was considered fair. Overall, this public explanation has made it very clear to observers and the players what Shanahan wants and expects, and has set a clear precedent.
Finally, the NHL has finally evolved to completely ban hits to the head, excepting for when the player's head moves into the otherwise clean checking line. This was why Ryan Malone didn't get suspended for his hit on Montreal's Chris Campoli. Although I am a Montreal fan, it was the right call - thanks to Shanahan's clear explanations. The Shanabans will undoubtedly continue; every player doesn't learn quickly, and accidents will happen. But Shanahan has placed the emphasis on the attacking player to protect the defending player - and it's about damned time.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Wayne Simmonds and bigotry in the NHL
Wayne Simmonds has been the centre of two major on-ice controversies in the NHL preseason this year. Firstly, Simmonds, a black player, was the target of a thrown banana peel during a shootout attempt while playing the Detroit Red Wings in London, Ontario. Secondly, Simmonds was accused of using a homophobic slur against Sean Avery of the New York Rangers.
In the first situation, the fan was arrested; in the second situation, the NHL has declined to punish Simmonds. Racism and homophobia are aspects of sport that have been prevalent over the past century, during which national sports leagues have flourished in North America; while one a more recent monkey than the other, both have been forced into the limelight at various times. Hockey, however, hasn't had to deal much with either.
In the first situation, the fan was arrested; in the second situation, the NHL has declined to punish Simmonds. Racism and homophobia are aspects of sport that have been prevalent over the past century, during which national sports leagues have flourished in North America; while one a more recent monkey than the other, both have been forced into the limelight at various times. Hockey, however, hasn't had to deal much with either.
What's a blog again?
It's been awhile since I used this thing. I'm going to start by fixing the RSS feeds on the right and adding some new favourite blogs to it. A lot of them are from Freethought Blogs, a conglomerate of "stuff I like to read about".
One omission is Lousy Canuck, a blog run by Jason Thibault, who in a kind moment a month or so ago encouraged me to pick up this blogging thing again. However, his feed is broken. Suffice to say, his blog is also good, and check it out.
I think I will try to be better at this sort of thing.
One omission is Lousy Canuck, a blog run by Jason Thibault, who in a kind moment a month or so ago encouraged me to pick up this blogging thing again. However, his feed is broken. Suffice to say, his blog is also good, and check it out.
I think I will try to be better at this sort of thing.
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Case for Voting
Why should people vote? It's a question I've been asked to answer, especially when confronted by people in my age group who don't understand why the franchise is important, though I am sure there are others.
There's many reasons to vote, and some of them are conditional. In the current Canadian election, it is a possibility that Stephen Harper's Conservatives might get a majority government, giving them the right to rule as they see fit for four years. I choose not to judge here on whether or not this would be a positive thing - it depends on your political preferences, but the choice of whether or not this happens should be partially up to you and your vote.
In Canada, sometimes you live in a riding where the incumbent is going to win. This happens a lot, but your vote is never meaningless. If you vote for a party, that party gets funding for the NEXT election from your vote. Just by voting for the party you favour, you can help them do better next time. In Canadian politics, $2 million dollars is a lot of money - the Reform Party of 1993 won over 50 seats, and they started with $2 million dollars, which is what a million votes for a party would get them next time out.
Sometimes you live in a riding where it's close. That way you can directly affect Parliament. You can help choose if someone makes it or doesn't. If 1000 people had voted differently in 1997, the Liberals wouldn't have won a majority government. 1000 people spread throughout 5 ridings. Your vote has power.
Sometimes you want to show that a national party's platform has traction. The Green Party has gained traction based on their popular vote performance, despite not winning any seats. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians vote Green, and as a result, they get increased screen time. Your vote can show discontent with the current parties and help a new one take form.
But the best reason to vote is that if you do not vote, you do not matter. The government will not put out programs for you, they will not change their habits based on your opinion. They will not see that you exist, and they will ignore you. If you complain, your complaints fall on deaf ears. They will look at you, and your age, and gender, and your race or religion and the statistics, and say, "I know that people your age and location and gender generally don't vote, so...fuck off."
That piece of paper is the power for which regimes have toppled this very year. Every time a vote is cast, you are empowering everyone, including, and especially, yourself.
I don't care who you vote for. Just do it, because democracy always needs you.
There's many reasons to vote, and some of them are conditional. In the current Canadian election, it is a possibility that Stephen Harper's Conservatives might get a majority government, giving them the right to rule as they see fit for four years. I choose not to judge here on whether or not this would be a positive thing - it depends on your political preferences, but the choice of whether or not this happens should be partially up to you and your vote.
In Canada, sometimes you live in a riding where the incumbent is going to win. This happens a lot, but your vote is never meaningless. If you vote for a party, that party gets funding for the NEXT election from your vote. Just by voting for the party you favour, you can help them do better next time. In Canadian politics, $2 million dollars is a lot of money - the Reform Party of 1993 won over 50 seats, and they started with $2 million dollars, which is what a million votes for a party would get them next time out.
Sometimes you live in a riding where it's close. That way you can directly affect Parliament. You can help choose if someone makes it or doesn't. If 1000 people had voted differently in 1997, the Liberals wouldn't have won a majority government. 1000 people spread throughout 5 ridings. Your vote has power.
Sometimes you want to show that a national party's platform has traction. The Green Party has gained traction based on their popular vote performance, despite not winning any seats. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians vote Green, and as a result, they get increased screen time. Your vote can show discontent with the current parties and help a new one take form.
But the best reason to vote is that if you do not vote, you do not matter. The government will not put out programs for you, they will not change their habits based on your opinion. They will not see that you exist, and they will ignore you. If you complain, your complaints fall on deaf ears. They will look at you, and your age, and gender, and your race or religion and the statistics, and say, "I know that people your age and location and gender generally don't vote, so...fuck off."
That piece of paper is the power for which regimes have toppled this very year. Every time a vote is cast, you are empowering everyone, including, and especially, yourself.
I don't care who you vote for. Just do it, because democracy always needs you.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Canadian Politics Primer
Okay, I'm sorry if you're one of the Americans who followed me during last night's leadership debate. In case you were wondering what the hell's going on, I'm pleased to present a primer on Canadian federal politics for you, so you too can follow in the fun-filled democratic process in "America's hat". I don't know what kind of country you are to wear a hat that's bigger than all of you, but hey.
Canada has a constitutional monarchy that uses a bicameral parliament in which only one house is elected via direct election using a first-past-the-post system, and the other house is appointed but is mostly ceremonial. If you understand this sentence, I'm pleased to know that you've taken some political science courses! You can stop reading now and interpret the news on your own.
Alright, now that all the political scientists have stopped reading, I can really explain what's going on.
Canada has a constitutional monarchy that uses a bicameral parliament in which only one house is elected via direct election using a first-past-the-post system, and the other house is appointed but is mostly ceremonial. If you understand this sentence, I'm pleased to know that you've taken some political science courses! You can stop reading now and interpret the news on your own.
Alright, now that all the political scientists have stopped reading, I can really explain what's going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
