8pov

The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Friday, April 27

Schooled by Me

Another transcript of a discussion had in the world of Facebook. This time, health care. I've cut most of the naive and patently untrue comments, leaving the thrust of the argument that I just HAD to put down. Edited for spelling.

"America's government probably does not pay for our health care system because our government holds us all responsible for our actions and for our health. Government, as I believe, is not designed to baby and minister to the people, ... I, as a future taxpayer, will not have to pay for the operation when I don't know, Timmy the crack dealer gets shot. I have to pay only for my medical expenses, and that is the way I like it to be. Absolute personal responsibility is a wonderful system because it frees the government from a foolish burden, i.e. shelling out tax dollars to pay for Timmy, and allows the people of America to positively govern ourselves.

"I also agree with Cody in that competition, in almost all industries, is a good thing because it does tend to weed out weaknesses in the system. ... Anyway, I agree that perhaps the system Canada uses for governing its people is good, I simply disagree about the seeming lack of personal obligation and responsibility in the system" (H. Clarke; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 24 April 2007).

More frequently than Timmy getting shot, there's a malnourished kid somewhere in middle America that needs a blood transfusion his parents can't afford because they're small business owners; or an elderly couple who need prescriptions but got bilked out of their Social Security by Enron; or the 24 year-old mother of two who is diagnosed with cancer and can't afford treatment because 36 years ago the nuclear power plant in her hometown cut costs by skipping the containment domes. Sure, survival of the fittest may work for young, healthy all-Americans -- there are fewer and fewer young, healthy all-Americans.

In the interest of competition and driving down costs, big businesses crush small ones, big businesses exploit their power over people, and big businesses cut corners to save costs. In health care, another big business, substandard care is given while costs skyrocket. Demand for care is the economic basis for rising costs -- even when demand is caused by "uncontrollable" factors such as environment. Basically, the system supports itself by making things worse for everyone but the system.

It's true, there's no good reason for a government to catch an individual every time he or she falls. Everyone must be responsible for him/herself. BUT, the greatest resource any nation has is its people, especially its children. The health of a nation is in the health of its people; both mentally and physically. Healthcare and education are the core values to maintaining national strength. Supporting these core values IS in the national interest and should be a national responsibility.

The "bad apples" justification for adopting a "survival of the fittest" stance holds about as little water here as it did when Bush was glossing over white-collar criminals at Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen in 2002; and the entire administration covered for the defense department and torture techniques at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and countless secret prisons. Besides, if Timmy was dealing enough crack to get shot, he'd probably pay his own hospital bill in cash, skip out on reporting the shooting to the cops with a bribe, and be back on the street the next day. You wouldn't have to pay a cent.

Harry replied, "On Big Business. You are forgetting that Big Businesses compete with each other..."

And...

"... so what if freaking terrorists, [rhetoric] are being tortured in the best interest of the free world[?] [Lots more FOX-news-induced rhetoric] What happens if America falls? [Doomsayer-ing] SO next time you think a stupid terrorist is "suffering", think about how the rest of the world gets to sleep another night safely" (H. Clarke; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 27 April 2007).

Big businesses competing with each other is fiscal mutual masturbation. Economic policy, then, is "join the circle-jerk or get nothing." If you honestly believe that just because there are three choices instead of one that you're getting a good deal, you must need a refresher in freedom and democracy. Three IMMENSE corporations competing with each other closes the market to everyone else. Instead of an actual monopoly, there is a virtual one. Quoting myself: "In the interest of competition and driving down costs, big businesses crush small ones, big businesses exploit their power over people, and big businesses cut corners to save costs." Believing that you have a choice where, really, there is none is a sign that you've bought the doublespeak. True competition would permit new players into the arena and would present real challenges to the big players, real risks to their supremacy.

**

I know YOU don't care about the "terrorists" being held at Guantanmo Bay. I know many Americans don't care about them. In fact, MOST Americans would rather that they stay there and rot -- in a stress position in 130 degree heat -- until they die and go to a worse Hell than the one they're already in. Sound about right?

Problem is, for all your talk of democracy and freedom, you would choose those to whom you would deny the inalienable rights that you hold so dear. Not only that, but, you would do so without due process of law, placing yourself above the laws you seek to institute as justice. Furthermore, you exalt the fact that your tortures are justified because they are the convenient punching bags you have been searching the world for. And finally, you repeat the rhetoric of the FOX news types extraordinarily well; "enemies of democracy and freedom," "best interests of the free world." Are you so certain that these catch-phrases and talking points are so accurate?

Try it this way: (paraphrasing you)

So what if free-thinking individuals, enemies of our Brand America military-enforced democracy and our selective freedoms... are being tortured in the best interest of the parts of the free world we like. Those people are different than we are and want to destroy everything we love in America by making it slightly different, possibly more Canadian. [OUR MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!!]

Any person who disagrees with America may, one day, be called a terrorist. Any person who thinks about actively contesting American military superiority, presently, IS called a Terrorist. It seems that ideas, themselves, are dangerous. Hence, massive surveillance and the USA PATRIOT ACT. Welcome to the age of Thoughtcrime.

A "terrorist" is not a Terrorist just because you say he is. Just like you're not an imbecile just because you write like one.

Harry wrote: "They are not little innocent victims, they are evil malignant turmors on the world who serve not purpose other than to disrupt, kill, torture, murder, and destroy everything we hold sacred. Secret prisons are used to protect America's security."

--- Check it out: What if what you hold sacred is a malignant tumour to everyone else in the world? What if America has proven its capacity to disrupt governments and nations? What if America kills, tortures, and murders (or at least recommends or promotes it)? What if America destroys everything that anyone who isn't in line with America holds sacred?

Harry wrote: "What happens if America falls? The world's economy will crash, millions will be unemployed, the world will fall into civic disorder, and millions will die."

--- Check it out: Hate to burst your bubble, but America isn't the World. If America falls, the world's economy MIGHT crash, but -- almost certainly -- it won't. Money knows no nationality. If America falls, the money will leave and settle in other markets.

--- America owes more money than it has -- that Iraq War is MY-TEE expensive -- so, the people to whom America owes money will take over. That's India, China, and faceless multinational corporations. Since India and China, combined, make up about 1/3 of the global population and incredible economic booms happening right now, all the power and money will shift away from America and move toward European and Asian markets, leaving America to rot. Africa and South America -- already in massive poverty -- will probably improve as more investment dollars freed for investment.

--- The upper crust of America will be OK, captains of industry and celebrities and other multi-multi-millionaires. They'll emigrate abroad, they'll buy citizenship in the New-New World, they'll forget America. Only middle and under-class America will suffer, the bottom 90%. Tens of millions of Americans will be unemployed; and a stupid fence won't separate America from looking like Mexico -- but whiter.

--- If you're even starting to think that America could win a war against China, let alone India and China combined, think again. If the world, or China alone, cuts America off -- no more money, no more cheap consumer goods, no more inexpensive electronics, and, most importantly no more cheap oil imports -- America would have only two choices: accept it and change or destroy the whole world. Short of the nuclear arsenal, this is the same position the empire of Japan was placed in, by America, between 1939 and 1941. Japan chose fight the world. Japan lost.

Sunday, April 22

Critical Thinking in Dystopia

Note: this was written on a discussion board in response to the following comment:

"Public education is NOT the foundation of society, because it is incompetant, and is detrimental to the future generations of this country, because of its lack of standards. Private education is much more efficient, and it is proven that private schools, which are based on the laissez-faire system of economics, provide a better standard of education in which children gain more oppurtunities from." (C. LeBlanc; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Message Board; 14 March 2007)

The incompetance of public education, at least in America, cannot be disputed by this point. The reasons for it can be found everywhere. Whether or not private schooling can correct this problem is up to parents, teachers, and students to decide for themselves, in either system. What I'd like to know is this: Can kids be taught, now, to think critically enough to avoid the pitfalls of pervasive DoubleSpeak in America? Are kids being taught to think critically, or are they being taught only to become active participants in brand "America?"

Think about all the advertising, all the political rhetoric, all of the media outlets, all of the information on the internet, all of the misinformation and disinformation pumped out to confuse (y)our "enemies." Is critical thinking being taught to kids?

If so, what happens when kids ask questions that can't/won't be answered?

"Lastly, from my experience at public school in America, students are not being taught to think critically. Public schools are too worried about how their test scores rank next to other public schools, and not worried about getting the students the best possible education. They are too self centered in their own rankings, as they often determine their funding and enrollment. This is primarily the main reason why I switched to private school, as they do not have mandatory state testing, and so are more focused on teaching us to think critically, as that is what will give us the most oppurtunity and will make a difference in the future." (C. LeBlanc; ibid; 22 April 2007)

Standardization is used in Canada only as a check and balance against systematic failure. A temperature check, if you will. Adjustments are made to the education system to determine its competency. However, tests are not annual, nor do they necessarily determine funding for, or enrollment in, any particular school. We are not necessarily forced to attend any one school, but, if you want to go to any other school besides the one to which your community/region/district/neighbourhood is assigned, you're on your own.

Critical thinking skills, as Aaron stated, are not really "taught." They are ingrained in us by our society. This is partially because of a great diversity of culture -- a great diversity of ideas and practices and foods and arts and identities -- in our nation.

Canada is, probably (I'm about 90% certain on this one), the most multicultural nation on Earth. We certainly have the single most culturally diverse city on Earth, Toronto, shaming cities like New York and London because of the amount of cultural integration there is. We were taught, as Canadian kids, that Canada is a cultural "tossed salad." You can see all of the different cultures expressed in Canada even though they are all mixed in to this one nation. One's culture is not destroyed and not covered up by in being Canadian.

On the other hand, and as Bush has recently stated with respect to American immigration policies, America is a "cultural melting pot." Ostensibly, this means that all cultures contribute to being American. But, and this is a BIG BUT, the prevailing aspects of "American culture"-- whatever that is -- always supersedes any other culture. What this means in terms of ideas and practices and foods and arts and identities is pretty clear to me; and, what I see, as close English-speaking neighbouring nation has changed recently, a LOT.

We can discuss what American culture is elsewhere -- like on another board (that'll I'll start in a couple of minutes). The consequence of America's "melting pot" is that, as a society, denies critical thinking and promotes acceptance of the status quo. Therefore, state mandated tests. Therefore, a focus on economy. Therefore, Americans are expected to fall in line. America denies difference or dissent or discussion. Those who think critically, they're troublemakers -- D-students.

Wednesday, April 11

On Iran...

I don't think that the UK and the US would want to, at this point, open another theater of warfare. I could be wrong. Certainly, there is reason for it and there may yet be a battle for control of Iran. The West needs to control Iran to complete the trinity of states (the others are Afghanistan and Iraq) to pipe oil from the land-locked Caspian Sea, into the Black Sea, to be transported west. All this is to be done without stepping on the toes of the Russians, who, you'll remember, were the "other" superpower during the Cold War and were dismissed from Afghanistan; the result of a combination of US-backed Muhajadeen (later, Taleban) guerillas and crumbling Communism (in part the product of lack of resources, such as oil).

There are also trust Issues between Iran, Iraq, and America.

Iran already has reason to anticipate Western invasion. It happened once before. In 1953, the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown. In his place, a (very) West-friendly monarch -- the Shah -- was installed and the oil began to flow again to the West from Iran. That is, until 1979. That's when the Iranian Revolution took place, deposing the Shah, instituting the Islamic State, and establishing the Iran we know today. America was involved in, read: paid for, the Iraqi response to the revolution. America's, then, good buddy Saddam Hussein was running the show. That war lasted eight, almost nine, years and ended in a stalemate. The rest is the history we've all heard a little more recently. Brutal suppression of Iraq's Shi'a (majority) population. Chemical warfare against Iraq's Kurdish population. But, it wasn't until the invasion of Kuwait that Hussein became a "bad guy." There was Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm and the Gulf War. And hen, there was another Gulf War. And then, there was 9|11. And then, there was an Iraq War (on false pretenses).

Iran has no reason to believe that America will stay out of their space. America has to entertain their paranoid fantasies about Iran building nuclear weapons because, if the Administration was Iran, they would be idiots not to build nuclear weapons with their nuclear enrichment facilities.

But, and this is pretty key here, look at the history.

After the British military personnel were captured, they were put on TV, and they were made to admit that they had transgressed Iranian territory. Whether they actually did is a matter, now, of politics not of fact. In the end, they were released, unharmed, as a sign of good faith and in the spirit of the Easter holiday; this despite sabre rattling of the past three years about the Iranian nuclear program. Isn't that nice?

In 1981, after being held for 444 days, the fledgling Islamic state of Iran released the 52 captive American embassy personnel unharmed; this, despite the charges of espionage laid against them. Isn't that nice?

Perhaps these lessons are the teachings of Islam. After all, Saladin spared many lives in his retaking of Jerusalem from the Frankish Crusaders in 1187 (I learned this from Kingdom of Heaven, and Wikipedia can't be trusted, so, maybe it's not true); this despite the massacre of Muslims in the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. Isn't that nice?

And, Muhammed, prophet of Islam, spared the lives of many in his conquest of Mecca in 630. Isn't that nice?

Here and Now, Boys

So, maybe, all of the "Durka, Durka, Mohammed-Jihad" repetitions from sources such as FOX News and other members of Team America belie only the suspicions of paranoid Westerners, unable to understand why Islam forgives when Western culture forgets only when convenient. An eye for an eye is what the West anticipates. We've shit on them for years, why WOULD they let us get away with it? Expect the worst: "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" ("they're gonna build nukes and bomb the shit out of us"); and hope for the best: "Freedom is on the march... fight terrorism abroad" ("we'll hit 'em before they hit us").

If effort is undertaken to understand the perspectives and concerns and cultural sensibilities of the people we, in the West, subjugate, perhaps all of this posturing and political rhetoric will come to an end. If America was to find another way to feed it's big, fat economy with something other than 25% of the world's resources -- including 25% of all the oil -- maybe they wouldn't have to fight everyone for it.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Monday, April 2

Environmental Perspective

or, "What I said to Stephen Harper"

I believe that it is the responsibility of our federal elected officials to shape the actions of Canada and to project the best the Canada has to offer. Canada cannot be content to follow the lead of other nations or interest groups. This information age, an age of ideas and ideologies, can be influenced by a people that firmly believe in an ideal. Here, I posit that Canada's international ideal be "the living Earth."

The living Earth is an idea. It marries human systems and processes to natural systems a processes. To some this is regarded as environmentalism, to others it is true-cost economics, to still others it is common sense. As cells live within a body, so too do living humans inhabit the Earth. Damage done to the body affects the cells within. Damage done to the Earth affects the humans within. Only a few types of cells can be employed to repair the body, but, all humans can assist in repairing the Earth. There is a caveat, we must slow or stop the damage being done.

As Canadians, we can promote that the benefits of a healthy environment is the first step in this repair process. Economics, often touted as the first victim of environmentalism, must simply adjust to the new demands of human respect for a living Earth.

Other considerations such as universal human rights; the abolition of warfare; an end to "kill-switch" weapons that are nuclear, chemical, biological, explosive, or projectile in nature; can be undertaken. They will not happen overnight, but, in a healthy mental and physical environment, such things can take shape.

A green revolution must take place in this country, one that sets an example to the rest of the world. Canada is, despite the misadventure in Afghanistan and our seat within the G8, respected in the international community. Canada boasts vast natural resources. Our population and economic might may be lesser than some of our peers, but, it makes us more flexible in exploration of a sustainable future. We are a hardy people, a young nation that appreciates the outdoors. Let us create the future that the world needs.