Category: Society

UN Says Equal Opportunity Employment Legislation Is Racist

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, SocietyLeave a comment

This one comes straight from the “They Said What?” file.

According to a recent article on Maclean’s magazine website, the UN has filed a formal complaint of racism against the Canadian government. After a thourough review of the dreadfully racist policy, a Canadian delegation must now appear before a UN review panel to explain our vile deed. Can you guess what horrible crime we committed? We passed legislation prohibiting discrimination in the workplace against visible minorities. Wow, are we evil, or what?

Apparently, the UN takes issue with the phrase, “visible minorities”. They believe it carries the implication that caucasians are the norm, and so demeans all other ethnicities. The legislation is actually designed to ensure equal treatment of all ethnicities in the workplace and provide a mechanism for resolving allegations of discrimination. Again, evil or what?

What the legislation says is: “It doesn’t matter if someone looks or sounds different from you. We guarantee you will be treated fairly in the workplace or else.” What the UN hears is this: ‘White people are the norm here and if you aren’t white, you aren’t normal.”

I’m not saying that Canada has a spotless record on human rights and equality. Our treatment of our indigeneous peoples is a historic disgrace which we are even now struggling to address. We have our share of social injustice. If we didn’t, we probably wouldn’t need legislation to guarantee rights to visible minorities, or women, or children. We arent’ perfect, but through this legislation and others like it, we are trying to change.

There are far more immediate issues to address, both here and elsewhere, than the wording of a document designed to protect people from harm. Of course not many of them are as easy as bickering about semantics nobody else really seems to care about. The UN is apparently okay with our opposition to discrimination, it’s our total failure to fudge the truth that has their knickers in a twist. The idea of visible minorities acknowledges two facts: caucasians are the majority ethnicity in Canada, and other ethnicies are visibly different from caucasians. That’s the big secret we let out of bag. According to the UN, by accepting that some people will discriminate based on the appearance of ethnicity, and in trying to prevent that, we are promoting racism.

Of course we are… because of our secret racist agenda. Like our other secret plan to undermine the UN misssion in Afghanistan by putting the brave and dedicated, men and women of our armed forces (including my nephew who went back three times and is one of my personal heroes) and a large number of non-military personel in harms way. See how totally evil we are? Good thing the UN is there to keep the world safe from us.

Maybe next time the UN wants some muscle they should ask Kim Jong Il. I’m guessing they won’t have to proofread too much legislation protecting minority rights in North Korea. Then they wouldn’t have to compromise their high moral standards by associating with a blatantly evil country like Canada.

I’ve lived here my whole life. Without the help of the UN, I might never have realized how evil we really are. That’s probably why they haven’t called to offer me a job with the Carefully Selected Transnational Panel To Find Fault With Countries That Support Us Because It’s Easier Than Dealing With The Unpleasant Ones. I don’t think I’d fit in anyway. I’m probably too evil because I’m Canadian.

Cheers, Winston

p.s. For the record I do support the idea of the UN. Unfortunately, the implementation of that idea, like many others, sometimes leaves something to be desired. For anyone not paying attention; this would be one of those times.

W

Amy Winehouse Was More Than “Back To Black”

On By WinstonIn Media, Pop Culture, SocietyLeave a comment

Whatever else Amy Winehouse may have been, regardless of how she may have lived, she was a person. According to Stephen Marche writing in Maclean’s magazine Aug 9, that doesn’t matter. In a burst of self-indulgent idiocy of truly epic proportions Mr. Marche not only pretends to know the “real” meaning of her album “Back to Black”, he insists her talent was of greater value than she was.

Among his more egregious violations is the claim that by placing deep chimes in the middle of the song “Back to Black” she “rings the bells in her own memory”. He then goes on to say the song was a “funeral elegy to herself”. He draws prescient meaning from drug references, to create the impression she knew she was going to die. He doesn’t quite accuse her of suicide, but close to it.

Even these conceits are not extreme by Maclean’s standards. Indeed, many of those who have chosen to cash in on her death have presumed to know her mind based on her public persona. I understand. That’s the type of article the public wants, and it’s their job to give it to them. No, Stephem Marche had something much more vile and insidious in store.

He quotes an interview she gave to Rolling Stone magazine in 2007. “I don’t want to be ungrateful,” she said. “I know I’m talented, but I wasn’t put here to sing. I was put here to be a wife and a mom and look after my family.” What was this loathsome hack’s response you may ask? “What self-conception could be more in error? What statement could be further from the truth?”. That is his response to this young woman’s desire for a normal life. She wanted at some level to step back from precipice at the end of the path she was on. He accuses her of throwing away her talent. Of being so talented, she had no understanding of how precious that talent was. In this there is an implied obligation to share. An objectifying vocal slavery requiring her to sing at his whim regardless of her wishes.

But it is in the final line of his article we find by far the most telling insight into his grotesque and distorted psyche.

“Sometimes 33 minutes can be worth more than 27 years.”.

If Stephen Marche truly believes that 33 minutes of music is of greater value than Amy’s life, he should be put on a pedestal in a museum. The plaque would read, “Here stands Stephen Marche. The Defining Example Of All That Is Wrong With The Cult Of Celebrity”. Nearby would be baskets of spoiled fruit and rotten eggs for patrons to throw at it.

p.s.
The premature end of Amy Winehouse’s life is truly a tragedy for her family and friends. So are the thousands of other lives lost to drugs and alcohol both literally and figuratively every year.

Cheers, Winston

Internet Access: Basic Human Right?

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, SocietyLeave a comment

Earlier today I was browsing conversation threads on TED.com when the following subject caught my eye. “How we can use social media on a world scale to launch a global campaign to recognize Internet access as a basic human right?”

My initial response was, “Excuse me. Could you repeat that please.”. As I read through the thread, I was able to put the idea into context. This allowed me to give a bit more constructive thought to the question.

The idea is to enshrine Internet access in the U.N.Charter of Universal Rights. That seems harmless enough since nobody enforces that thing anyway. But let’s consider for a moment why that’s supposed to be a good thing.

If you are reading this, it’s a pretty safe bet that you already have internet access (and some spare time). You have the luxury of tapping into mind-bogglingly huge amounts of stuff. There are the writings of great thinkers, practical “how-to”s for almost anything, random Blogs by people you’ve never heard of (Hello I’m Win. Nice to meet you.), and a universe of other stuff. There are also the communication aspects of it. How great would it be if a doctor in a rural village in Ghana could get a realtime consult with a pediatrician in New York? What if a teacher in Kosovo could give their students a live connection to classrooms around the world to share and learn in a global context? Who knows what changes might come from such democratization of access and communication?

Which is what I want to know. Who can predict those changes. Obviously, those who want to lobby for this right believe they know the outcome. The fact is, people are notoriously lousy at predicting the impact of their actions. Even more so when personal beliefs or emotional attachments are at stake. It’s nice to think of a doctor in New York helping the doctor in Ghana save a child’s life. It’s not so nice to think about Al Shabab using the collaborative power of the internet to unify and better manage their operations allowing them to vastly increase the suffering in Somalia.

We all tend to focus on our own desired outcome. It is immensely difficult for us to honestly look at other options. We don’t want to acknowledge that there are as many opportunities for abuse as for use. That just because we have this thing does not mean that it is good for everyone else, or for us. Even those who have been exposed to the internet since it’s public inception struggle with the existence of this ethical and moral void in our midst.

The internet is not a discreet entity. It had no ethics or morality beyond those of it’s creators. There are technologies which allow people, organizations or governments to block undesirable content. There are also technologies to bypass those blocks. Censorship, whatever it’s motive, is at best a stopgap solution. In our society, we have had a process of of information exposure and even we are suffering “information overload”. How much more devastating the potential impact of the internet on a community without so much as a TV. What of the erosion of that culture by exposure to every other cultural expression in the world?

Would universal internet access be a blessing, or the single greatest act of cultural colonization since the Romans, the British or the Catholic Church?

Only time (and an unlikely transfer of technology) will tell.

Cheers, Winston

Obama’s Not The Problem

On By WinstonIn Politics, Society2 Comments

In light of the recent debt crisis fiasco in the US, it seems the President has been appointed as the official fall guy. I’m not claiming to be smarter than all the anti-Obama crowd, but I would like to shine different light on him.

According to A variety of news sources, President Obama’s debt reduction proposal was the only one on offer which embraced actual compromise. He was willing to sacrifice some social welfare funding in return for closing some tax loopholes and removing certain tax breaks for corporations and the “ultra-rich”. His plan would have, through a combination of savings and increased revenue, provided a large enough debt reduction to have avoided the recent credit downgrade by S&P. Oh and it would have resolved the whole issue weeks sooner and avoided further destabilization of world markets.

Of course none of that was acceptable to either the Democrats or the Republicans. After all, why elect these people if not to watch them later act like irresponsible, self-absorbed jackasses? The Democrats hated the social-spending cuts, the Republicans hated the tax increases and each side hated the other.

So the Democrats put forward their own proposal which the Republicans hated. The Republicans developed a proposal the Democrats hated. The Tea Party took over the Republican party (which made everyone hate everyone else even more). All the while, the world watched in amazement and mounting fear as the worlds largest economy was allowed to slide ever closer the abyss of default.

When time ran out and it became obvious that neither side was willing to do the right thing, something had to be done. When elected members of both parties insisted on putting partisan ideology ahead of the good of the country, the good of the very citizens who put their faith in them. President Obama did what any true leader should do. He took the personal hit that could well cost him the Presidency next year. He signed into law an unpopular compromise which made many in his own party turn on him.

It wasn’t weakness that made the President sign that bill, it was selflessness. It was greatness. President Obama chose to sacrifice himself, to throw away his career, to save his country from a disaster. A disaster brought about by lesser people who when the moment came, could’t rise above themselves. People who chose loyalty to party dogma over loyalty to the people of the United States.

Whatever the media may say, and regardless of the outcome of next years election. I will always hold President Obama in the highest regard. In that moment when he offered up his career, his political future, his personal reputation, as ransom for those who chose him their leader: In that moment, he showed Greatness.

Cheers, Winston

Can Media Be Responsible?

On By WinstonIn Media, SocietyLeave a comment

I’ve been reading again. This time about the evolution of media and it’s role in society.

One of the points made by the author regarded the Rwandan genocide in 1994. They state that elements within the government used some local media to incite violence. So far, so good. The article goes on to say that Radio Mille Collines incited the violence that lead to genocide. The author then asks, “Could this happen again? Or will media take this opportunity to meet it’s obligation to inform and educate about our global interdependence?”

Excuse me, did you really say that?

This entire issue is one of diminishing of personal responsibility. First we have “elements of the government”. It’s a little vague, okay we’re still using obvious human references. The line about the radio station inciting violence, sort of, but not so much. Radio stations in my experience are buildings containing offices, studios, content and other broadcast related goodness, but not a trace of sentience. To do any high-end inciting, you need sentience, and for that you need people. People to spew information, disinformation, propaganda and just plain naked hatred. Radio Milles Collines was just a radio station. It was the people in front of the microphones who incited the violence.

Which brings us to his question about “media”. The problem of course is that media is not a discreet entity. Media is a generic descriptor so vague as to be utterly useless in this context. As a non-entity, questions of obligations become moot. The entire concept is just one more excuse for the devaluation of individual motive. If one is involved with anything which might be covered by the umbrella term media, they apparently need to start proselytizing about global interconnectedness. Right now. Not necessarily because they care about it, but because some random other has decreed an obligation.

This is manifestly (phrase breaches profanity policy for this Blog) umm, wrong. So very wrong on so many levels.

Use of media carries no inherent obligation. The content is at the sole discretion of the person creating and distributing it. If you feel that a particular message should be paramount (ie. global interconnectedness) then it’s up to you as an individual to convince other individuals to follow your lead.

In the long run, you don’t need media in any of it’s guises to incite a genocidal mob. All you need for that is people. That’s really what is at stake here. We all want to believe that it’s about the government, the radio station, the media, but not about the people. Because if it can be about the people who crafted the message that incited a genocidal rage in average Rwandans, then it is about all people. It is about us, and no one wants to admit to that part of themselves. It’s so much easier to put all that on a generic, non-entity like Media.

Cheers, Winston

The “True” Faith Is Only “True” For You

On By WinstonIn SocietyLeave a comment

I recently read an article about the need for men to attend Church (their capitalization) to ensure the next generation will also attend. So far so harmless. They go on to say that if the Mother attends but not the father, the next generation is less likely to than the other way around. According to one (and only one) study (done in Switzerland) if the father goes to Church regularly with or without the mother, the children are more likely to continue with the Church than if the mother attends regularly without the father.

The thesis here is that women are to be associated with early development only while men will shape the adult behaviors of the next generation. This apparently is the “created order” of things. If you just gagged a little, I’ll wait while you go rinse.

That is only the beginning. The author then goes on to state that a man who has been raised in a more gender equal environment will grow up to be “wet, spineless and unable to stand up in a breeze”. It seems that anyone who isn’t conforming to their narrow, fundamentalist, interpretation of Christian orthodoxy isn’t a real man, or real woman. Apparently, 99.5% of the world’s population is composed of inflatable pretend people. Who knew?

Whenever a religious group starts telling me why their interpretation is the ONLY interpretation I always have the same reaction. No it’s not hysterical laughter or sticking my fingers in my ears while humming loudly. I feel kind of bad that for believing themselves better than those around them they are (by their beliefs) committing the sin of pride. Claiming to know the will of God is, according to the scripture they love to quote, a sin. By their own deeds, if there is an afterlife, it may far different from the one they assume themselves entitled to.

I don’t mind if they choose to believe that a woman’s only role is that of supporting a man and nurturing his children. Not my belief, but hey; no harm, no foul. My issue is with the assumption that the entire rest of the world is wrong, and worse, worthless because they choose equality, inclusiveness and self-determination.

My Mother was equal to my father in my upbringing. My wife is my equal in every way, and we have raised our daughter to think for herself. Anyone who believes the women in my life are cheapened or failing as Mothers, wives or people, is welcome to tell me to my face. Then they can learn for themselves if a gender-equal upbringing has made me “weak” or “spineless”.

Believe what you like, but when those beliefs require the denigration of everyone else. That’s just wrong.

Cheers, Winston.

We Are Still Animals

On By WinstonIn SocietyLeave a comment

Something that always annoys me is to hear some atrocity described as “inhuman”. Unless it was in fact committed by a non-human, then the use of this word is always unjustified. This is the basest form of self-indulgence. We want to reassure ourselves that we could never do whatever it is. The easiest way to do this is by separating them from us by making them “inhuman”.

The simple fact of the matter is that humans are in fact multi-faceted creatures. Some do terrible things, some do great things, some will only ever do average things, but all of these things will be of human origin.

Realistically, given the prevalence of atrocity and horror in the world, it would seem more appropriate label as “inhuman” those who do great good. It would give less false comfort, but be far more accurate.

The whole issue is based on our ongoing efforts to distance ourselves from our less evolved selves. We prefer to see ourselves as one step removed from other animals. We want desperately to believe that the laws of nature don’t apply to us. We are of course deluding ourselves.

The simple fact is: we are animals. The same instincts drive us as drive every other animal. To deny this is to deny ourselves the opportunity to understand our actions. Only through understanding can we seek ways to channel those energies more constructively. Instead of pretending to be something other than we are, we should accept our animal self as a part of us.

The key is not to suppress the instinctive side of ourselves, but to chose how we will use them. One of the keys to this is realizing that everything we do is done purely for ourselves. This is not to be confused with selfishness. You could give away your every possession and devote your life to caring for lepers, there will always be your own benefit at the root of it. Selfishness and selflessness are not so much roots of actions as external measures of our self-centric behaviors.

To be self-centric is not by default to be selfish. One can amass great wealth and power at the expense of those around them and this can have obvious benefits to oneself. Conversely, one can chose to live a simple life devoted service and the well-being of others. The high regards of others and their own pleasing self image provide rewards of a very different but equally valid sort. Each path is equally valid, as are all others. The key is to accept our inner animal and then choose what type of action we will take as humans to bring it the greatest benefit.

To do anything else would truly be “inhuman”.

Judging is Easier Than Uderstanding

On By WinstonIn SocietyLeave a comment

I find it increasingly common for people to judge beliefs rather than people.  Most of the major faiths tend not to encourage their members to commit horrible, unspeakable acts.  Yet every time a member of any belief system does anything unpleasant, either they or others will attribute the action to the faith.

What got me thinking about this is the certainty that these people have undoubtedly done some socially dubious things of their own over the years. Does this mean that they believe they are as vile as the worst things they have done? Or would they prefer to be viewed as a totality of their experience and actions.

To my understanding, a belief system is usually a set of values and guidelines often spiritual in nature, which it’s followers are tasked with implementing in their lives. If a follower of a given belief misinterprets, either accidentally or deliberately, those values or guidelines, it is not the fault of the belief, but of the follower.

This remains true whether the individual is twisting the belief to justify hiding a pedophile to protect an institution, or to strap on a suicide vest. In either case, responsibility rests with the individual and not the belief they have hijacked for their own purposes. Yet many people on all sides persist in judging the belief itself.

I believe this to be an example of something which will no doubt show up in future posts as well. I tend to think of it as the depersonalizing of responsibility. The person encouraging people to blow up themselves and others isn’t doing this to create a more beneficial power structure for themselves, they are doing it for God. Likewise the person choosing to hide a pedophile in order to protect the organization they are part of isn’t doing it to maintain their own position of power and privilege, they do it to protect God’s spokespersons on earth.

The other side of this problem is just as ugly. When many people think of suicide bombers, they don’t think of a relatively small subset of a particular belief who have co-opted the entire group as a justification for an otherwise unthinkable act. Instead, these few are seen as being representative of the larger group about whose beliefs the average person likely knows next to nothing.
In the same sense, the pedophile and those who chose to hide them rather than address the issue are not seen as deviant and corrupt respectively, but as representative of the faith they use to hide their crimes. The faith again is judged by actions of these relative few rather than on it’s own merits.

Faiths in whatever are seldom judged on their own merits, but on the actions of individual persons claiming it for their own. It matters not at all if the person is acting according to the belief they want to take the blame, if they claim it, the rest if the world will usually go along with the joke.

I guess my ultimate message about beliefs and the people who abuse, distort and hide behind them would be this: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.