Army Education

I think we have a new poster boy to demonstrate the aphorism "have his cake and eat it too". Jeremy Hinzman, hypocrite extraordinaire, joined the American army. However, when he actually had to do some army-stuff, he balked:

Jeremy Hinzman tells MICHAEL VALPY that he enlisted to get an education, not to kill people. But his superiors wouldn't listen and ordered him to pack for Iraq. Instead, he packed up his family and hightailed it north. Now, Canada must decide: Can a U.S. Army deserter be considered a refugee?

The answer of course is: hell no! Nobody forced poor Jeremy to enlist for the army. In the States at least, it is strictly voluntary. In professional armies, the soldiers receive very high salaries commensurate with their skills and education. Why is that? Because sometimes, soldiers have to go to war, and that sucks.

So now, poor Jeremy, who got all this money for running around in boot camp and chanting slogans, wants to avoid the actual crappy part of being in an army. Do I understand his wish? Of course I do, nobody who is half sane wants to be involved in a war. However, if you sign up for an army, and your country goes to war... tough luck.

Canada should send this guy back after making him work in a coal mine to pay for his bus ticket.

Saudi Arabia part2

For posterity, I decide to cut and paste the interesting stuff:

Visas will not be issued for the following groups of people:

• An Israeli passport holder or a passport that has an Israeli arrival/departure stamp.
  
• Those who don't abide by the Saudi traditions concerning appearance and behaviors. Those under the influence of alcohol will not be permitted into the Kingdom.
  
• There are certain regulations for pilgrims and you should contact the consulate for more information.
  
• Jewish People
  

Important Instructions:

• If a woman is arriving in the Kingdom alone, the sponsor or her husband must receive her at the airport.
  
• Every woman must have confirmed accommodation for the duration of her stay in the Kingdom.
  
• A woman is not allowed to drive a car and can therefore only travel by car if she is accompanied by her husband, a male relative, or a driver.
  
• All visitors to the Kingdom must have a return ticket.
  
• Pilgrims must also have all valid documentation and a passport that is valid for 6 months.
  

Saudi Arabia - Land of equality

Making the blog rounds, I present the official page, describing who is eligible to visit the kingdom.

Guess which ethnic/cultural group is excluded?

Women don't do so well either, but at least they can enter the country.

edit: They took down the pages barring Jews! Dang, I wish I had taken a screenshot, thats a lesson for the future

edit2: You can still see the old version in a google snapshot, but not for long. (from Segacs)

Thoughtful

Some good christians are thinking about what will happen to their poor heathen brethren after the rapture. Luckily, they can now send a message to their fallen loved ones, by signing up for Rapture Letters.

We have written a computer program to do just that. It will send an Electronic Message (e-mail) to whomever you want after the rapture has taken place, and you and I have been taken to heaven.

I would have to say that as a general rule, any sect that uses Revelations as the basis for its moral compass is seriously screwed up. But still, at least they are being thoughtful here...

The Passion of Christ

I have not seen the movie yet, and I don't think I feel like contributing to the coffers of Mel Gibson. Therefore, I will probably wait until I can rent the movie or somehow acquire a bootleg version from the internet for some guilt-free viewing.

That said, it opened today to rave reviews from audience members... with a small catch of course:

An advance screening for church groups in Harlem on Tuesday held the audience in rapt attention...When Jesus was resurrected at the end a woman shouted "Hallelujah," and the audience burst into applause.

Obviously, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. The scary thing is that religious people are by nature already gullible and easily influenced, so if this movie is truly anti-semitic (and I'm not sure that it is), then it would be quite the negative event.

That said, many people are bringing up an interview with Mel Gibson's parents in which they are exposed as surpringly... different. Along with being holocaust deniers, they evidently think that 9/11 was caused by remote control. However, just because the Gibson's parents are anti-semitic, it does not follow that the movie is as well. I will be reserving judgement until such a time that I actually see it.

Oldie but good

The classic top 100 list of things not to do when you become an Evil Overlord.

Win $10000 (sorta)

All you need to do is prove that Bush served in the military. I would recommend going to the bottom of the page and reading the FAQ though, thats where the (small) catch comes in.

Best of Intentions

I guess that the Palestinian PM is against the suicide bombings after all:

"Our higher national interests necessitate an immediate halt to such actions that give Israel the pretext to continue the construction of the annexation and expansion wall," Mr. Qureia said later.

Thats just great. Stop the bombings until the Hague trial is over, then go back to the regularly scheduled massacre of Israeli citizens.

Stupid Study Game

I have decided to start an occasional series on silly studies, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out the flaw. Generally, it will be a correlational study leading to a causal solution, but varieties exist:

Inaugural study: Video games and violence

After looking at more than 600 Grade 8 and Grade 9 students, we found that playing a lot of violent video games was a serious risk factor linked with children's anti-social and aggressive behaviour -- even after controlling for the amount the children play, their gender and whether they have naturally hostile personalities. Surprisingly, even the kids who are not naturally aggressive are almost 10 times more likely, if they play a lot of violent video games, to get into physical fights than kids who do not.

Can you spot the flaw?

What is a religion?

In a multi-part leadup to my opinion on the recent French law that enacted some serious prohibitions with regards to religious apparel in public schools, I want to start off by asking the simple question: What is a religion?

We all know the general aspects of a religion. A central text of some sort is a good start. It allows for codification of the rules that set the religion apart from others. Furthermore, it provides a mechanism of ensuring continuity, allowing future generations to follow the rules as laid down in the central text. Of course, you need those future generations so that your religion can grow to an appreciable size. Conversions are easy but strictly short-term.

Another common aspect of a religion is some sort of central figure. Examples of course are Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed. Other possible examples would be David Koresh, Jim Jones, Kim Jong-Il and others.

Wait, is that disagreement I hear? Is Jim Jones not on the same level as Jesus or Mohammed? Why is that? Well, Jim Jones at least kinda screwed up the central tenet of a religion ("be fruitful and multiply"). Be fruitful and commit suicide tends to preclude those future generations I was talking about that are so important for the success of a religion.

So, when is a cult not a religion? When is a religion simply a cult? The answer usually given is something along the lines of "We know what a religion is when we see it". Number of adherents is generally used as the dividing line in the sand. Looking at the populations of various religions is interesting, but not very illuminating. The Garbar branch of Zoroastrianism is listed as a "real" religion, with only 20,000 people. Offhand, I think that Kim Jong-Il has many more followers than that, but he doesn't get listed.

So, when does a religion become legitimate? Lets take Christianity as an example. Obviously, in the year 4 A.D or so, it was still a cult. How many people did it take for Christianity to become a real religion, how long?

The question is important. Religions almost by definition force their followers to do silly things to set themselves apart from the crowd. Often, rules that most people must obey are broken by those who claim that they are following the commandments of their religious text of choice. Using religion as an excuse, people carry weapons into schools, flout uniforms with impunity, subject their children to brainwashing and get excused from difficult examinations.

Can we draw a line? If someone shows up and makes a random demand and claims that it is religious, can we deny it to him while allowing religious freedom to others?

(part 2 will follow when I feel like it)

Oh, and a little food for thought

Back!

After a well-needed blogging break, I'm back. Random blatherings should resume shortly.

Blog Break

I wasn't feeling well this week. I should be back to regular posting by this weekend.

Has rotten tomatoes gone rotten?

The movie blasphemy "Miracle", about the American hockey team that beats the Russians, got an 80% on the tomato scale, while the Butterfly Effect got a 29% on the tomato scale.

To be honest, the Butterfly Effect is getting destroyed by the critics. Maybe I saw a different movie, but I liked it.

Canadian Thought Police

Censorship is no longer the exclusive purview of our American neighbors. A Canadian court ruled this week that a public school teacher had no right to make remarks critical of homosexuality.

I know what you are thinking, we don't want teacher's spouting bigotry in the classroom, right?

The British Columbia Supreme Court said on Wednesday that Christian teacher Chris Kempling's freedoms were not violated when he was suspended for letters he had written to a newspaper.

(Emphasis is mine) Yeah, that's not a typo. The teacher was suspended for writing a letter to the editor. He didn't say anything in the classroom, he was just using his purported free speech rights.

This sends shivers down my spine. I find it completely intolerable that anybody could lose their job for expressing a set of controversial beliefs in the local paper. This is not even a case where the speech is terribly offensive, many people have religious beliefs that cause them to be discriminatory. I don't agree with them, but I defend their right to speak.

If a teacher can't write a letter to the paper and keep his job, then free speech essentially does not exist in this country.

Janet Jackson Song


Normally I'm not very interested in what other people try to pass off as humour but... To the tune of "Be my guest" from rec.humor.funny

Show your breast! Show your breast!
Have your sidekick bare your chest!
Then pretend it's a 'malfunction' and the whole thing was in jest!

Flash your boob on the tube!
Prove that Viacom's your rube!
Why, that nipple silver plating's gonna top the TiVo ratings!

I'll be blunt: What a stunt!
(least you didn't show your [*beep*].)
The FCC is pissed, you might have guessed.

You and Michael, I suppose
need to both keep on your clothes.
So stay dressed! So stay dressed! So stay dressed!

Discordia

The second documentary about Concordia aired last night on CBC newsworld. It came on half an hour late, but I managed to see it.

My original thoughts are actually fairly positive. There were not many in depth interviews or revelations, but I thought that the choice of protagonist for the documentary was well made. Frankly though, almost anything would have been better than "Confrontation at Concordia" one of the most biased and inflammatory pseudo-documentaries to ever hit Canadian television.

My favourite part was when they had a clip of Samer et al trying to make up a "positive" pro-Palestinian song that described something other than slaughtering Zionists. I may disagree with his viewpoint completely, but I can appreciate his sense of humour.

Physics Lesson for Survivor (tm)

I was reading some commentary about the latest installment of Survivor. For those who may have missed the show, the castaways were not given any means to make a fire, and since their water is contaminated they really need to get some fire going pronto.

After three days or so, the castaways have all failed to produce any flames at all, and the situation is looking grim. Some armchair survivor-geniuses have wondered why they don't use the eyeglasses that some tribe members are wearing to start a fire? After all, that's what they did in the Lord of the Flies, right?

Well, William Golding may have been a fine author, but he didn't know crap about physics.

Near-sighted (myopic) people wear lenses that are concave. While concave mirrors focus light, concave lenses diffuse light. If you stick a pair of glasses worn by a near-sighted person over a piece of paper or other clear surface, you will notice a penumbric shadow where the lenses are. This is not a shadow! It's the light being directed away by the lenses in the glasses.

Far-sighted people wear lenses that are convex and that focus light. Sadly, there isn't much reading material when stranded in Panama, so it is unlikely that any far-sighted tribe members brought their glasses. Of course, even if they did, you would need to have someone who was very seriously far-sighted to get a pair of glasses that actually focused the light in any reasonable way.

Sadly, that means that our castaways are unlikely to produce that much fire in the near future through optics alone... they'll have to make it themselves or... more likely, have it given to them by Mark Burnett when he realizes that his precious contestants are going to die.

Mideast view from Yale school of Medicine

Not the official position, but a commentary in a newspaper where the author is identified as a professor of genetics at the Yale School of Medicine. A number of the usual stereotypes are laid out , including Jewish control of the media and government.

The link may require registration, if so, I might put up a mirror on my website for the article.

Not a breast! Anything but a breast!

The right breast of Janet Jackson appeared for about half a second on TV during the halftime show at the superbowl. The FCC is hopping mad:

"That celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt," Powell said in a statement. "Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."

The children! Won't somebody think of the children?

Its a good thing that Americans have their priorities straight. Degrading music videos and horrific television violence may be bad, but if a child sees a female breast, he will be scarred forever.

Spanking

The Supreme court ruled that spanking was permissible under certain rigidly controlled circumstances. In particular:

[The Judges] declared corporal punishment off-limits for children under the age of 2 and for teenagers. And they outlawed the use of objects such as rulers or belts, as well as slaps or blows to the head.

To put it succinctly, the ruling was perfect. As in any controversial issue, there are two sides to the argument, and both have valid points that need to be considered.

Some parents believe that they have the right to raise their children as they see fit, and that may include corporal punishment. They are, of course, wrong. Children are not property of their parents, and they must be accorded a certain minimum of rights. However, with a few exceptions, most people in Canada do not want children to be singled out for physical assaults, and a protective law is appropriate.

The other side of course believes that the ruling did not go far enough. For example, Segacs did not appreciate the ruling at all:

This is a complete outrage. The spanking law on the books is an anachronism and a disgrace, and deserves to be struck down. I was encouraged to see the Supreme Court considering a challenge, but I'm disheartened by the result.

Her arguments against spanking are solid, there is no reason that parents should be hitting their children as a corrective measure. However, parents do many suboptimal things: they don't provide nutritionally balanced meals, they ignore their children, they belittle them for not living up to expectations, etc. etc. In an ideal world, all parents would be understanding, caring, thoughtful, and involved in their children's lives.

This is not an ideal world.

As a society, it is important for us to support a certain standard of caring for children. We need to encourage parents to be as competent as they can possibly be. Do we expect parents to be perfect? I would hope not, in most cases all we should be asking for is a reasonable effort. Criminalizing the behaviour of otherwise good parents is a dangerous road to be taking.

And it gets worse.

Who is charged with enforcing this law? While the police may be the initial contact point, the real damage gets done when the Children's Aid Society decides to move in. Do you think that the children suffered because they got spanked? Those were the good old days for those poor kids. After CAS gets involved, the children are forcibly removed from their parents and are placed in foster care. This may last for days, weeks or even months before the parent's get their children back. In the meantime, the children have just been put through a special CAS version of hell. Remember, the children don't get placed with some loving family looking to adopt them, they are dumped with some caretakers, since the situation is only temporary.

In the case where a parent is seriously abusing her child, the law already provides a means of protection. CAS has very broad discretionary powers, and is often very happy to use and abuse those powers. The last thing we need is CAS destroying even more families over small insignificant matters.

Is spanking wrong? Yes. But the answer is education, not criminalization.

Gearing up for the federal elections

Don't forget to consider the marijuana party, the battle is not yet won in the fight to decriminilize this mostly harmless substance. They won't form the government, but if they get enough votes it will reflect the will of Canada.

Of course, if you live in the district where the liberals might lose, then you might want to consider a different voting strategy.

Butterfly Effect

I saw the movie "The Butterfly Effect" yesterday. I won't say anything beyond giving a recommendation to see it.

Edit: One of the better scenes