(Updated below) (Update II)
First, read this post by Glenn Greenwald concerning the latest twisted, truthiness-fattened, spin-in-a-dizzy attempt to cast yet more condemnation on the New York Times, as further retaliation for their disclosure of the SWIFT banking transactions monitoring program.
Read it? Good.
Now, here is my question: do right-wing pundits and like-shills have no shame, no decency left in their intellectual sloth-rotting bones? Or have they simply gone insane?
How much longer can these insipid, hypocritical, reality-denying, outright lying, delusional fools keep on doing what they are doing? You know whom I am speaking of - the Coulters, Malkins, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Limbaughs, Carlsons, et al.?
How much longer will these insane people be allowed to call for the prosecution, execution and/or murder of those who seek the truth and hence do not agree with their surreal, hallucinatory views of the world?
Which, by the way, include our own Canada?
All I can say is: A) am I ever so thankful that such hate-filled, violently crazy speech is outlawed in Canada; B) let us not forget that promoting hate and violence is not a right; and C) I can only hope that decent, free-thinking americans will get the nerve, sooner than later, to do away with these insane MadHaters.
And by the way, U.S. G.O.P. congressmen and senators are scarcely any better. The politics of fear are alive and well indeed in the U.S.A.. What a shame.
But we Canadians must remain ever vigilant, if we do not want to go the way of the U.S.A.'s sad, sad state of affairs these days.
For indeed, xenophobia and intolerance lurk everywhere. Embracing muticulturalism is not mutually exclusive with our principle of a unified country, but rather the two princples are complementary. Andrew Cohen's latest piece clearly illustrates how intolerance and fear-mongering can be easily and cleverly disguised in a sorry attempt at claiming to the contrary.
And shame on you, Mr. Cohen, for that fear- and xenophobia-mongering piece of demagoguery. You have insulted us all Canadians on the days of celebration of who - and what - we are. I invite you to crawl back under the same rock where the Horowitzes, Addingtons, Coulters, Malkins and other insane neocons hide during the light of day.
In the meantime, let us all true Canadians not forget the very last lines of our national anthem:
"Protègera nos foyers et nos droits/Ô Canada, we stand on guard for thee".
Happy Canada Day, eh?
(And hopefully our American neighbors will think hard about their true values and principles on their upcoming 4th of July ...)
(entry originally posted 01/07/06)
Time again for a Conclusions and Ergos round-up ...
Item 1: The Bushies are being offended again ...
Yesterday, the NY Times and LA Times published articles revealing the existence of a secret program that examines banking records of Americans and others in a vast international database. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney felt compelled to respond to these disclosures by saying that this operation was legal and absolutely essential to fighting terrorism, adding that what he found most disturbing about these disclosures is the fact that "some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people (...) It offends me." Elsewhere, Treasury Secretary John Snow said that this program of tracking millions of financial transactions was not an invasion of privacy of Americans but "government at its best", and reiterated the claim that it is vital to the war on terrorism. Accordingly, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow parroted the same talking points (by the by: to get a good perspective on the actual value of such illegal programms to ferret out terrorists, read this hillarious post by Robert Weissman - but I digress).
Conclusion: The Bushies are in effect using the same "blame the unpatriotic press" game and the same precarious arguments of legitimacy, presidential powers, and other such misunderstandings of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as those used previously to justify those illegal phone call tracking and listening operations already made public.
Ergo: It is quite understandable for the Bush administration to be offended by any and all disclosures of their illegal and dubiously-justified means to trample civil rights in order to keep on chasing ghosts, thus shedding yet more light on their flagrant incompetence. After all, what incompetent person ever applauded upon being revealed as such?
Item 2: Who does White House Press Secretary Tony Snow think he is?
As mentioned above, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow parroted the Bush administration's talking points to justify the program of tracking millions of financial transactions while stressing the non-truth that it was not an invasion of privacy of Americans. When pressed hard by veteran reporter Helen Thomas with pointed questions concerning the legitimacy and actual usefulness of this operation, Tony Snow not only evaded those questions to instead repeat the talking points, but also at one point became testy by saying the following: "Helen, will you stop heckling and let me conduct a press conference (...) Well no, I'm making an argument and you're pestering the teacher (...)".
Conclusion: Tony Snow still thinks that he is running a pundit-like show on Fox news with the rudeness, bravado and lack of civility and respect for others that come with it, à la Bill O'Reilly et al.
Ergo: Someone in the WH will definitively have to teach Tony Snow the inherent responsibilities and codes of proper conduct befitting a WH Press Secretary. Otherwise, let the WH can his intellectual sloth-driven, arrogant behind already.
Item 3: WMD's! WMD's! ... WMD's?
Also in the news was Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) proclaiming that WMD's were indeed found in Iraq, thus justifying the whole premise for the war in Iraq. The evidence? A document that describes 500 rusting cannisters of degraded sarin and mustard gas. Forget that these date back to the Iraq-Iran war of the 80's and that the condition they were found in make each of them no more harmful than a big splash of corrosive cleaning bleaches or acids. Forget that these have been already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed. Also forget that the Bush administration has long let go of the WMD's-in-Iraq rationale for going to war and has admitted already the non-existence of WMD's in Iraq. No, no, no. The "wise and knowledgable" Senator Santorum keeps on insiting that these cannisters represent proof of stockpiles which could be sold to terrorists, thus at the same time attempting to re-instate the completely-false-rationale of ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. All right - I have an open mind, so let me "do the math" here. 500 rusting cannisters = stockpiles? 500 cannisters of degraded sarin and mustard gas = WMD's? Well, unless math has changed into a discipline derived from a warped, parallel universe where 1+1 = 3, I don't think so.
Conclusion: Senator Santorum has made an ass of himself, and so do all of those who repeat his intellectual sloth-driven, ignorant chant.
Ergo: The right-wingers like Santorum and his ilk have become pathetic and desperate in their usual fear-mongering tactics to sway the American electorate in their favor.
Item 4: After the Toronto 17, now the Miami 7 cometh.
Seven men from Miami were arrested by the F.B.I. last Thursday on terrorist plotting charges. These alledged Miami 7 are of Haitian ethnicity and without any actual ties to Al'Qaida, let alone being true muslims, despite initial informations to the contrary. Upon the news of these arrests came the expected outcries, dire warnings and calls for increased security measures (see here for instance) from Chicken Littles and MadHaters, including U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney himself. Interestingly enough, all seven men were first-, second- or even third-generation immigrants, just like our own Toronto 17. Also noteworthy is the evidence which indicate that the Miami 7 appear to be even less competent than our Toronto 17.
Conclusion: The arrest of the Miami 7 clearly illustrate one of the many points I made in a previous post concerning home-grown terrorism and fear, i.e. that the U.S.A. is indeed no more exempt from home-grown terrorism than we are in Canada.
Ergo: The Chicken Littles and MadHaters from the U.S.A. should stop pointing their crooked accusing fingers at us Canadians concerning our so-called liberal immigration laws, and instead take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror. Shame on them indeed.
And on this note thus ends Conclusions and Ergos for this June 24, 2006. Stay tuned ...
(entry originally posted 24/06/06)
(Google cache of the original post - here)
Each time that I hear police officers or detectives talking about suspects "failling", "passing" or "refusing to take" a lie-detector test, I simply boil with outrage.
Why? Because polygraph tests are nothing more than pseudo-science.
As if the basic premise of polygraphs tests is not bona fide pseudo-science enough, i.e. that variations in blood pressure (and whatnot) are indicative of lying, the interpretation of a polygraph test is pretty much a matter of being in the eye of the beholder (in this case, the one administrating/analyzing the "results" of the test).
In other words: the interpretation of lie-detector test results is art. Not science.
Case in point: read this article here about how NSA testers do not recognize the validity of the CIA or FBI tests, and vice and versa. The article in question clearly illustrates the rampant subjectivity in the administration and interpretation of polygraph tests. However, this article errs by missing the actual point: "quality" of lie-dector tests is not a matter of who or what agency designs them, but rather it is just that there can be no objective, sound, reproducible "quality" for polygraph testing period.
This situation of prevalence of lie-detector tests, either within "intelligence" agencies or as a means to rule out crime suspects, is quite alarming.
How many innocent people have remained suspects because they "failed" their lie-detector test or because their test was deemed "inconclusive"? How often is the refusal to submit oneself to such voodoo science being used as an argument for "having something to hide"?
How many excellent prospects for intelligence agencies have been turned down for employment or actually dismissed - for no reason other than having a pseudo-scientific gimmic imposed on them and for which the results were "judged" a failure?
I can have nothing but poor confidence (at best) in so-called "serious" detectives, police officers or intelligence agencies who keep espousing voodoo science as a technical tool to perform their jobs.
You think we are safe from this, because results from polygraph tests are not admissible in a court of law? How's this, then: employers increasingly use this pseudo-science for so-called job interviews.
But wait - almost each year anyone of our duly elected officials keep bringing back the idea of legislation to entrench mandatory polygraph testing for government employees and prospects.
So, when do you think will come the time when lie-detector tests become admissible in court because of an intellectual sloth-driven judge allowing it, thus making jurisprudence to this effect?
The fact that the sloppy journalists of the MSM all too often make "reports" on polygraphs without ever failing to sell their (non-existent) merits, instead of decrying their use as they should, is cause for much concern in itself.
Considering all the costly trappings which come nowadays with a polygraph test, I have a suggestion for all those fools who keep relying on this pseudo-science:
Make those tests quicker and cheaper by simply binding weights to the testees and dropping them in any body of water, like a swimming pool or a lake. If they sink, then they had nothing to hide. If they float, then this will prove that they have indeed a lot to hide.
You think this is silly? Then dwell on this in parting: it is the same basic principle as any polygraph test, however much better "designed" it may be.
(entry originally posted 20/06/06)
(Google cache of the original post - here)
As the Harper conservative (if not practically neocon) minority government keeps backtracking and spinning on the Kyoto Accord while standing against reducing (let alone getting rid of) tax breaks to oil producing companies, and with coal, gas plants and tar sand operations in Alberta now being the worst greehouse emitters of the country, it looks as if Canada's earned reputation as a world-leader on the environment question is gradually going down the drain.
But we are not quite yet from going all the way of the Bush administration and its love for, to paraphrase former Vice-president Al Gore, "Big Oil, Big Energy and Big Corporations".
Now, I am all for a free market-based economy. Competition drives initiative and creativity, leading to better (or new) products as well as to better (or new) services, and henceforth to a better and greater choice for consummers. This in turn will usually translate well into job creation or maintenance, along with better salaries. And this in turn will usually translate into better individual spending powers and higher standards of living.
However, trusting in corporations to "do the right thing" with regards to the welfare of society and/or the environment is pure nonsense. The reality is that companies live by one thing and one thing only: the bottom line. Hence, companies will do anything, regardless of whether they initially had good intentions or not, to keep profits not only high but also to increase them as well. In other words, companies will cheat, lie or steal, even go as far as to use spying, sabbotage and violence, as means to protect and increase their profit margins. This is simply the nature of the beast.
Therefore, just like societies need laws to place clear definitions of what is acceptable, non-criminal conduct for their citizens, so must there also be laws to place clear definitions of what is acceptable, non-criminal conduct for companies.
Some call these "regulations". I call these necessities, just like criminal laws for the citizenry. After all, laws serve to maintain the welfare, peace and prosperity of society overall.
That is where comes the recent consideration from Québec's government to levy a "carbon tax" on oil and gas companies to help fight global warming. Carbon taxes are also being discussed elsewhere and at large. There is even talk of imposing a tax on gas-guzzling SUVs and cut the sales tax on hybrid vehicles.
Of course, Big Oil and Big Auto are against such initiatives. Their peddlers have even gone as far as to propose "voluntary measures", pure nonesense which keeps perpetuating the myth that companies will do the right thing only if we allow them to volunteer to do it. Talk about forgeting everything about human nature and the nature of the corporate beast.
Case in point: the current disinformation ads being run on tv's everywhere by Big Oil companies and their lackeys in their sad attempt to spin global warming, especially in light of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie and the belated ressurgence in environmental concerns.
Another case in point: paid-for lackeys of Big Oil going on news programs or writing articles to, as always, not only keep denying global warming but also to attack those warning against it - including the overwhelming majority of scientists having demonstrated its reality (see examples here and here).
The fact is that what we are witnessing is what we witnessed already of the saga of tobacco smoking and tobacco companies. This is all history now: disinformation about the dangers of tobacco smoking and outright lying about said dangers by Big Tobacco and their shills, then overwhelming scientific evidence which eventually became undisputable (after all, reality is reality, however one might not like it or fool himself into not accepting!), then taxes on cigarettes and related tobacco products which gradually contributed in decreasing the numbers of smokers, then laws against ads for tobacco products, bans against smoking in public places, and so on.
So, all I can say is: here we go again.
And if we remain standfast and especially vigilant of our politicians and medias, the battle to turn the tide on our destruction of the environment will ultimately prevail.
Just like society did against Big Tobacco.
We will not only change our own attitudes and awareness for the better, we will make laws to curb the nature of the beast of Big Oil and Big Auto. This in turn will facilitate and accelerate the implementation of better technologies and products that do not contribute anymore to pollution and global warming.
Societies need the Rule of Law for their continued peace, welfare and prosperity - all the while remaining modern, democratic societies with free market-based economies.
And to live on a safer and healthier planet at that.
(entry originally posted 17/06/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
I have many things on my mind and tidbits of news for which I have opinions and, like today, I will from time to time deal with such in a roundup way within one post. Henceforth, here is Conclusions and Ergos for today. (Updated below)
Item 1: The more things change ...
The U.S. House of Representatives will be holding a debate on the Iraq war tomorrow. That in itself is rather belated, considering the lies told by the Bush administration to goad the U.S.A. into going into this wasteful and disastrous war. Remember the non-existent links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and/or Al'Qaeda? Remember the non-existent WMD's? Well, according to Think Progress, an alledged confidential memo from Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) emphasizes the following strategies to be used throughout the upcoming debate by republicans: A) debating Iraq in the context of 9/11; B) attack opponents of the war ad hominem; and C) create false choices between supporting President Bush and leaving way to terrorists (the entire memo can be read here).
Conclusion: If this memo is real, this means that the republicans will be using the same disingenuous debating tactics from 2002-2003 which were used to have Congress support the Bush administration and the Iraq war to begin with.
Ergo: The G.O.P. is now officially out of ideas and out of touch with reality.
Item 2: Neocon G.O.P. franchise thriving in Canada.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper keeps complaining again and again that the media has a liberal bias and at one time went so far as expressing his feelings that it was said liberal media that stopped his momentum and prevented him from getting a majority. Liberal-biased media? Now, where have we heard that before? Oh yes: we've been hearing this for years from the U.S. G.O.P. and neocons, who still complain about this mythical liberal bias in the media despite the obvious facts to the contrary. Considering the declared policies of Haper's New Conservative Party, his government's stance on Big Company and Big Oil tax breaks and cuts, his government's demured response to U.S. Chicken Littles and MadHaters concerning terrorism in Canada, his "problems" with the Kyoto Protocols, his stance on Afghanistan, his renewal of the debate on same-sex marriage, and so on and so forth, we are now left with no other choice but to conclude that the "New" Conservative Party is indeed borrowing exclusively from the same playbook as the U.S. neocons.
Conclusion: The Canadian neocon G.O.P. franchise is alive and well.
Ergo: PM Harper and his ilk must wake up to the reality that Canadians are not Americans.
Item 3: Hyperbole rhetoric, anyone?
Québec's liberal Jean Charest's government yesterday signed off on a bill that imposed a pay settlement on Québec's 8,000 specialist physicians. Reaction from the President of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ), Yves Dugré? "This is governmental terrorism!". Excusez-moi? Bad enough the physicians's Fereration had been running outrageous tv and newspaper adds lately at a cost of $1.4 millions, and which equated loss of quality health and specialized care (as in the case of cancer) with not getting what they wanted during negociations with the government, now they cry terrorism for being imposed a settlement? Talk about overblown hyperbole rhetoric! Where was such grandiose indignation when physicians here and there began leaving Québec's Health Care System to go private and make even more money than they did already, despite the fact that the Québec society paid in full their training with generous salaries (as for all physicians)? Where was your hyperbolic condemnation then? Where is it now? It would seem that the culture of selfish, instant gratification is alive and well within the medical community. Sadly enough.
Conclusion: Yves Dugré and the FMSQ are acting like spoiled drama divas.
Ergo: Yves Dugré and the FMSQ should get down from their ivory tower and take a long, hard look at what is going on outside, before acting like intellectual sloth-driven brats ever again.
And on this note, Conclusions and Ergos for June 14 2006 draws to an end.
Until next time, stay tuned ...
************************************************
UPDATE JUNE 15 2006: the G.O.P. memo was real and the republican senators did exactly according to its instructions. So sad for the G.O.P. ...
(entry originally posted 14/06/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
The Bilderberg Group organizes "unofficial" annual conferences where attendees (by invitation only) are world leaders, decision makers and persons of influence (in business, media, politics, academia, etc.). The 2006 Bilderberg Conference is now happening in Ottawa, over the week-end.
What sets the Bilderberg Group apart from any other get-togethers of similar panache (e.g. G-8, World Economic Forum (WEF), World Trade Organization (WTO), etc.), is its percieved cloak-and-dagger secrecy and mystique.
What are the goals and purposes of these Bilderberg conferences? Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the original idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes. Born from the Cold War, its original focus was kept on the former U.S.S.R. and communism at large. Since the late 80's-early 90's, Bilderberg meetings have solely taken on world-wide issues. Each year, a committee devises the main topics to be discussed and a list of attendees to be invited, in order to discuss said topics. Invitations are usually extended only to residents of Europe and North America. The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public through a press release, but the minutes of the meetings are kept secret and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed. The group's stated justification for secrecy is that it enables frank and open discussions without the need to carefully consider how every word might be interpreted by the mass media. Hence, reporters are not allowed. Lastly, the minutes of the meetings are compiled into a report which, not surprisingly, is not meant for public disclosure but for attendees only.
For the 2006 conference in Ottawa, a Bilderberg press release stated that the meeting would deal with energy issues, Iran, the Middle East, terrorism, immigration, Russia, European-American relations and Asia.
Not surprisingly, conspiracy theorists world-wide, from the far right to the far left, consider the Bilderberg Group to be a shadowy cabal bent on manipulating the world in order to "create a one-world government where you don't have individual nations - you have one region, one religion, one constitution, one church, one currency and one country." In other words, the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg. Numerous events, like the move to a common European currency, getting Bill Clinton elected after he agreed to sign onto NAFTA, the war in Yugoslavia that led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic, and the more recent Iraq war, are all alledged manipulations by the Bilderberg Group. Similarly, anti-globalization proponents often accuse Bilderberg of working to establish elitist supra-capitalism over equality and democracy world-wide.
Talk about fear-inspired, paranoid drivel. But at least, right-wing and left-wing radicals do finally agree on something.
On the other hand, there are many who criticize the secrecy and lack of openess of Bilderberg for transparency's sake. Some consider the elite and secretive nature of the meetings antithetical to the principles of inclusion and populism fundamental to democratic societies. Others think that the public is owed an explanation of what is going on in such meetings because so much of the world's elite get together in one place.
Excuse me?
It does not matter that so many rich, influencial and knowledgable people meet annually to discuss world-wide issues in privacy. In fact, I for one agree with such exercise, just like I agree for anyone of us choosing to discuss the same things (or others) in the privacy of our intimate circles of acquaintances. Beside, how is it any different with any other kind of private discussions, whether in non-public boardrooms, committees, etc. Who am I to demand, or to think, that I am owed any explanation because these folks get to meet together in a Star Chamber-like manner? Just like who would they be to demand explanations of me when I participate in private meetings? They owe me nothing just like I owe them nothing.
In the end, whatever may come out of such meetings, let us not forget that any of our elected officials privy to Bilderberg reports (or any such other kind) are answerable to no one but us. Whenever a bad policy is enacted, or a bad law is voted, it is up to us to rectify things in the following elections. Or petition en masse to reverse such undesirable decisions by those we have elected. Period.
In other words, the ultimate responsibility is ours to watch over our democracies.
Anything else is just fear-mongering based on ignorance. As I already enjoined in the case of terrorism: let's get a grip here.
Instead of worrying about Bilderberg, maybe we should instead focus our vigilance, worries and calls-to-actions when elected officials dare to act in a real Star Chamber-like manner. Now, I am not talking here about WTO, WEF, G-8, et al. types of meetings, since these are open to scrutiny - quite unlike Bilderberg.
No, I am speaking here of truly shadowy exercises by elected officials. Things like U.S. Vice President Cheney's 2001 energy task force, the report for which remains largely secret ... along with its participants.
Where was the outrage for this when it occured? Where was it in 2004 when the Bush-Cheney ticket got re-elected? Where is it now? The American electorate remains rather timid-still concerning this.
But we Canadians should not fool ourselves: we are equally capable of complacency, even going as far as to mobilize ourselves for nothing (the Mount Orford affair in Québec is a good example) while remaining blind to real Star Chamber-like dealings by our elected officials (as in the case of Jacques Parizeau setting up the seizure of la Caisse de Dépôt du Québec, i.e. our retirement savings in Québec, in order to buy Canadian dollars en masse and stem its fall, in the advent of a "Yes" victory for the 1995 Québec referendum; or like the recent canadian softwood lumber deal with the U.S.A. - I haven't heard that much indignation in the streets concerning these shadowy machinations).
(I better stop here, otherwise I will write exactly what I posted already concerning democracies and intellectual sloth).
Bilderberg conspiracies indeed ...
(entry originally posted 10/06/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
I have purposely waited almost a week before commenting on the arrest of some 17 "home-grown" terrorists from the Greater Toronto Area. The reason for my self-imposed delay was intended to allow the time for my poor brain to digest the ensuing media and blogging coverage (if not storm) concerning this development.
One of the very first questions that initially came to mind was, of course, how could anyone living in a modern and free society turn to terrorism against that very same society?
The easy, intellectual sloth-driven answer is to remain on the surface of things. In this specific case, the 17 men arrested are Muslims and were allegedly inspired by online pseudo-Al'Qaeda web sites. Ergo, the "conventional wisdom" is to conclude that this is one more example of Islam being staunchly anti-democratic and hostile to anything from our so-called Western culture, therefore explaining why first-, second- or even third-generation Muslim immigrants (as in the case of most of those 17 arrested) ever remain potential Jihad-spurred terrorists. Right?
Well, this is what Prime Minister Steven Harper seems to think, by his declaration that Canada (like the U.S.A.) was targeted because of “who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity, and and our values - values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law - the values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish.” This is also the typical generalization that is kept being (ahem) harped out by, borrowing from Michael Nickerson's most recent editorial, a minority of Chicken Littles (see here as example). The same generalizations make-up the chants that are heard from the Chicken Littles (here's an example) and MadHaters (see here and here for examples) of the U.S.A.
All of this could not be more asinine and insipid. This is the same kind of intellectual sloth-, ignorance- and fear-driven generalizations that lead most folks back in the period between 1963 and 1970 (and for a too long while after) to think that all separatists québecois were potential terrorists because of the F.L.Q., which was a home-grown terrorist group advocating the separation of Québec from Canada and which committed terrorist acts in the name of this cause. Same thing happened with the Irish because of the home-grown I.R.A. and I.N.L.A.. Must we then assume by such logic of generalization that all teenagers who embrace the goth subculture are potential Columbine-like terrorists? That all right-wing republicans are potential survivalism-movement terrorists à la Timothy McVeigh, because he was a survivalist and a republican? That all Canadian soldiers are brutish thugs? That all American soldiers are torturers and slaughterers? (I could go on and on and on with this).
"Preposterous!" you say, upon hearing such blatant generalizations? Then you are quite right - good for you and thank you! And please do think the same thing, the next time you hear or read someone generalizing that all Muslims are radical jihadists and potential terrorists. However, for those who steadfastly agree with such generalizations, then I strongly advise them to do themselves an enormous favor and start doing something about that severe case of intellectual sloth that they are guilty of. You are quite welcome.
The fact is that so-called home-grown terrorists are no different that our basic anti-social murderers or maladjusted violent criminals. This more or less also goes in the same vein as those demonstrators who go on a vandalism spree, or rioters raging throughout the streets, or on-strike union members sabotaging or vandalizing equipment or buildings. In short, it simply does not matter that such violent individuals (or groups thereof) espouse or not a philosophy, a religion, a political ideology, or whatnot. Why? Because the real underlying motivation remains the same: the want or need to act out violently.
And such people we will always find in any society, in any community or in any neighborhood, regardless of ethnicity, religion, class, education or creed. Period. As for the case of political/religious radicals who use violence (whether recently or in the last decades), all I can say is that they are supreme examples of the principle that violence is the last refuge of incompetence. And sadly enough, such arrogant - or totalitarian - cowards will always be found in our societies as well.
So, let us stop asking ourselves ad nauseum the question of "Why, how, why?" and bog ourselves down in never-ending, circular debates about this specific question and the overall, unrelated (but always associated) question of integration of ethnic communities (although I would like to point out here that the integration of any ethnic group or culture into our Canadian Multicultural society works better for wanting to be integrated, instead of aggregating in self-enclosed communities ... but I digress). Let us instead continue on with our lives, unafraid but vigilant, just like we, and our police and security organizations, have been going on about since 9/11.
Incidentally, this is exactly what C.S.I.S. and the R.C.M.P. did by apprehending those 17 would-be terrorists without circumventing our Constitution or our Charter of Rights, and before they committed any terrorist act at that. As I write this blog, these 12 adults and 5 minors have already been accused under our Anti-Terrorism Act and now it is time to let our System of Justice take its course.
So, while there was this chorus of self-questioning concerning these 17 home-grown terrorists, then of course came the expected cries and condemnations, especially from the U.S.A., about how Canada: A) is too 'liberal' in its immigration policies; B) has become a haven for terrorists; C) must beef up its security; and D) etc., etc., etc.
Allow me to address A, B and C (I will leave D to those who would be more inclined than I to discuss this item).
A) Canada is too liberal with its immigration policy. You see, we Canucks have this "thing" about opening our arms to the poor, the tired, the refugee, et al. Of course, we do exert controls in allowing exactly who can enter our country and/or eventually become a citizen. Hence, it is highly unlikely that an identified terrorist will be allowed to come in - especially since 9/11. We are a Nation of Laws with a Constitution and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both which are highly prized and cherished by us Canucks. Hence, we treat anyone (except those that have been identified criminals and terrorists) as fairly as we can. Therefore, if all of these make our immigration policies and practices as "too liberal", then we are guilty as charged. And proud of it.
Say ... didn't those of the "infamous 19" responsible for 9/11 actually entered the U.S.A. directly (i.e. not through Canada)? So, please - enough of that intellectual sloth- and fear-driven rattle about our immigrations policies being too liberal. In the meantime, those who - sadly enough - remain inclined to keep on blowing their fear-mongering horns will have to be content with the fact that we also have this thing called a Security Certificate under our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allows for the removal of any non-citizen who poses a security threat to Canada (such as suspected terrorists). Incidentally, this Security Certificate was deemed constitutional in 2004 in Federal Court of Appeals and has been used quite a few times already since its inception in 1991. However, it remains to be established whether the litmus test of probable cause was met or not in some instances of its usage and application, especially since 9/11. But this is a debate that is still going on between us Canadians.
B) Canada has become a haven for terrorists. Let us drown in fear-driven exaggeration, shall we? (Sigh). Is Canada susceptible to have home-grown terrorists? Definitively and the arrests of past June 2-3 2006 are proof enough of this. But the point is that Canada is no different than the U.S.A., England, Spain, or virtually every country of the so-called "Western world". As for international terrorists, I suggest you read back what I just wrote in item A. So again, enough with the fear-mongering and/or the finger pointing ... which leads me to:
C) Canada must beef up its security. Why? Didn't C.S.I.S. and the R.C.M.P. just catch 17 would-be terrorists (see above), and without trampling on our Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In fact, Canada's security forces have been doing well and good, thank you very much. Don't believe me? Then believe them: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, Suzanne Trevino of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, James Kirkhope of the Terrorism Research Centre in Washington, and U.S. Homeland Security officials. Oh, and U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins also.
But in the case of all those U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen, pundits and so-called security experts who keep on fear-mongering and exaggerating based on ignorance (see here as yet another example), as well as all those Chicken Littles listening attentively: I enjoin them to get a grip. They are the ones who would see civil rights and due process thrown down the toilet, whether they be Americans or Canadians. I strongly suspect that they must be giddy with what the N.S.A. has been up to lately, in the holy name of Security. Any would-be terrorist found and shackled since? Well, in any case, all those fear-mongers and Chicken Littles can pat themselves on the back for a "heck of a job" done.
Better yet, I enjoin them to rid themselves of their ignorance-induced fears by remedying their intellectual sloth.
In conclusion? Canadian security forces have arrested 17 alleged home-grown terrorists, whom they had under investigation for months. The system works. End of story.
Let's not try to fix what is not broken.
And let life go on.
*******************************************
UPDATE June 9 2006: read this very interesting article by John Chuckman, as well as Chantal Hébert's post of the day here.
Also, look at this editorial cartoon posted today here. I think it says it all.
(entry originally posted 08/06/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
(Note: It was not my intention to post today, but then my daily round of news foraging made me stumble upon some choice quotes which fueled in my being an irresistible urge to comment upon.) (Updated below)
Oh, U.S.A.!
First, there is this New York Times article by Maria Newman, which concerns the so-called constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage that is set for debate by the U.S. Senate. For those of you who do not know much about these developments, President George W. Bush has decided - like the great Decider that he is - to call upon both Houses of the Congress to pass said amendment so that same-sex marriage would become constitutionally illegal. Now, practically every newspaper, blog, radio show and news show out there has been reporting/commenting in the last few days on this second and disingenuously-timed attempt by the Decider to push for a ban on same-sex marriage. However, what caught my attention in the NYT article in question was what one Senator Sam Brownback (Republican; Kansas) was quoted as saying in response to the charges that such an amendment smacks of bigotry:
'Another Republican, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, said that he would support the amendment, and that he was disturbed that some critics of it said the measure amounted to bigotry against one group in society.
"What people are trying to do here is make fundamental policy for the country on a fundamental issue, and that's marriage," he said. "It is not bigotry to define marriage as between a man and a woman."
If that were the case, Mr. Brownback said, then people would have to conclude that people in the states that have banned gay marriage, as well as the many religious leaders who backed them, were bigots.'
(bold-emphasized lines are mine).
Not bigotry, Senator Brownback? Really? Well, I must admit that my understanding of the English language might be imperfect. After all, as a French-Canadian, a Québecois, it is Molière's langue which is my first spoken, written and read language - and consequently, not Shakespeare's own. Therefore, allow me to verify this with the help of my trusty online pocket dictionary:
Bigot: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. (...) Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views. (...) See also: ageism, chauvinism, discrimination, fascism, feminazi, hate group, homophobia, nazism, racism, religious persecution, sexism.
Well, Senator Brownback, could you have been off-base here? No - surely, this has to be some sort of terrible misunderstanding. It is simply inconcievable that an esteemed U.S. Senator would not know the definition of commonly used words from his very own language! Why, such a thing would be preposterous, wouldn't you agree Senator? Let me then perform one further verification on your behalf, sir:
Discrimination: To discriminate, to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples include racial, religious, sexual, disability, ethnic, height-related and age-related discrimination. Distinctions between people which are based just on individual merit (such as personal achievement, skill or ability) are not discriminatory.
Oops? It would seem, Senator Brownback, that you are indeed dead wrong. How do you respond to this?
"(We)'re not bigoted individuals," he said. "(We)'re simply seeking good public policy. Let's watch our language here."
Indeed, Senator - and quite right you are. I apologize for even thinking of the word bigot as a definition for people like you, and like all those others who have pushed, are pushing, have voted, or will vote, for a ban of same-sex marriage. I am sincerely sorry for this sad situation, sir. Henceforth, I shall endeavor to call all of you "good and decent folks" what you really are: heterosexists.
(Oh, and Senator Brownback? Perhaps it would be best that you urgently do something about the advanced case of intellectual sloth that you are guilty of, as evidenced from your nonsensical arguments reported in the above-mentioned NYT article. Have a good day.)
And now, onward to a related subject ...
Oh, Canada!
Almost a year after the debating and voting in the House of Commons, and subsequent ratification by the Senate, of the Civil Marriage Act which legalized same-sex marriage, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced last week that he will introduce another voting resolution this fall in the House of Commons to annul this law of the land. Talk about déjà vu, eh? And what about the timing of this announcement, considering what is now going on (again) in the U.S.? Purely coincidental, of this I am ... not convinced at all.
Here's a quote from a dispatch of The Canadian Press:
'Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday a free vote on same-sex marriage will be held in the Commons this fall.
Harper said the vote was a promise he made during the election campaign that led to his party forming the government.
"A vote will be in the fall," Harper told reporters after a speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. "It will be a free vote. We committed to that in our platform."
He said no date has been set.
Harper wouldn't comment when asked about a number of Conservative MPs who say they don't want to revisit the controversial issue.
On a related matter, the prime minister said he's not sure whether he will accept an invitation to attend this summer's World Outgames, which will bring thousands of gay athletes to Montreal.'
(again, bold-emphasized lines are mine).
I wonder if double déjà vu equals déjà vu-squarred or déjà vu-to-the-4th-power?
Now, the confident heterosexual that I am has no issue whatsoever with regards to same-sex marriage - it is, simply put, a right for two consenting adults to formalize a civil union, regardless of sexual orientation, period. End of discussion. However, no one has the right of being a bigot - oops, apologies again, Senator Brownback! - I mean, a heterosexist.
(And speaking of civil rights: I hope this little discussion on mine herein will have been of help to you, Mr. U.S. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, to understand and define what are civil rights. But I digress.)
One would think that instead of acting like a President of the U.S.A. by throwing "God Bless Canada" here and there, Prime Minister Harper would actually endeavor in carrying out the right honorable tradition of representing all Canadians, as is the sworn duty of a Prime Minister deserving of the title ... Especially when said PM happens to be heading a minority government, instead of a clear mandate normally supported by having won a definite majority of seats! And what is this about insisting that this fall's vote will be a free vote - is this meant somehow as a clear distinction to ... the free vote that took place in the Commons the last time?
I think it is now official: truthiness has crossed the border to invade Canada!
More than ever, I find myself in agreement with the growing opinion that P.M. Harper is using the same old, worn and defective playbook as that of the U.S. neocons, even going as far as shadowing the Decider himself. A good number of convincing articles to this effect can be found here, especially with regards to the Kyoto Protocol, fixed-date elections, fighting with the media, and so on.
Ah, Monsieur le Premier Ministre? It would seem that your evident lack of imagination and novelty of ideas has reached a critical threshold, sir. Could we Canadians please have our good old Progressist Conservative Party back, in lieu of the neocon G.O.P. franchise that this Alliance Reform-Conservative Party of yours is now?
(Oh, and while I have your ear - you might also want to do something about this chronic bout of intellectual sloth that you are guilty of. Best regards.)
****************************************
UPDATE June 7 2006: the U.S. Senate voted against actually having to vote on the definition of marriage amendment. I guess it is back to the drawing board for all those bi- ... ah ... heterosexists out there.
(entry posted originally 05/06/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
(Note: this entry constitutes the last part of a series of five.)
Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw. It pushes any person who is guilty of it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith or various dogmas, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. A person guilty of intellectual sloth is constantly in search of the quick-and-easy and instant gratification: such a person will therefore want (consciously or not) to be serviced an opinion, either by political, journalistic, religious personalities or any notable celebrity, rather than to make the effort of actually forging an informed one for him (or her) self.
Incidentally, a person guilty of intellectual sloth is egocentric and selfish, even greedy, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Furthermore, such a person refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's “convictions”. To this effect, such a person will be arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth. Hence, this is why such people will seek to bring all those around them to their level, by all means necessary. And since arrogance and contempt, through ignorance and fear, inevitably bring intolerance, hate and loathing, the people guilty of intellectual sloth sooner or later will make use of violence - verbal or physical - in order to promote or defend their “convictions”.
In short, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is guilty of it into an irresponsible and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow". Such a person thus becomes incompetent to deal with reality, or to even attempt at understanding it.
Intellectual sloth is a scourge which acts upon all levels of human activity. As examples, I discussed the pernicious effects of intellectual sloth in people of faith, in the maintenance of our democratic values and institutions, as well as in the cultures of our modern societies. However, I could just as easily have chosen to discuss the effects of intellectual sloth on the governorship of our countries, international relations , trade unionism, the fight against poverty, buisiness and corporation management, in solving social (or global) inequalities, in the protection of the environment, etc., etc., etc. In short, the scourge which is intellectual sloth strikes through the entirety of the human population, as much at democratized societies than at those which are not, regardless of the baseline culture (i.e. the Western culture, the Oriental culture, the Middle-Eastern culture, the Native American culture, etc).
Hence, intellectual sloth is seemingly everywhere, every day. Terrorism, neoconservatism (whether American, Canadian, or other), the application of “divine” laws by religious fundamentalists, the 2003 war of Iraq, extremism, racism, vandalism, and so on ... all vivid illustrations of intellectual sloth being carried out, by the ignorance it festers, to its ultimate conclusion: violence.
Considering that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, we therefore have not much choice but to conclude that incompetence - via intellectual sloth - reigns supreme indeed ... and not only nowadays, but since always at that.
Now, it must be clearly understood here that intellectual sloth does not equate with stupidity. Indeed, intellectual sloth has nothing to do with cognitive or intellectual faculties in themselves, but rather with motivation - motivation to question, to reason, to discern, to gather information, to contextualize, to criticize, to evaluate/re-evaluate, to think. One indeed finds intellectual sloth as much among educated people (professionals, politicians, “white collars", etc.) than less, little, or non, educated people (day laborers, “blue collars”, etc.). In fact, the only motivation which intellectual sloth actually stimulates, in anyone who is guilty of it, is that to defend and promote with arrogance and by argumentation, or violence, one's convictions founded upon ignorance - ignorance of facts, ignorance of consequences, ignorance of reality. And such “motivation” by intellectual sloth has but one goal: that to alleviate the fear of the unknown and the uncertain, thus remaining secure and blissful in one's arrogance, one's egotism ... and, of course, one's intellectual sloth.
So then, what to do to keep intellectual sloth in check? I offer only one word as an answer to this question: education.
Yes, it is through education that the character flaw which is intellectual sloth can be countered. Now, it goes without saying that I am not promulgating the transformation of our societies as purely scientific ones - let's be serious, after all. Free choice is a basic human right and such free choice includes, of course, the choice of work, of profession and of career. Individuality - read: diversity - cannot be circumvented, if only for the continued well-being of not only our societies, but of our species as well. However, the inculcation, beginning in childhood and throughout the educational process, of the need for questioning, for reasoning, for discerning, for gathering information, for contextualizing, for criticizing, for evaluating/re-evaluating, for thinking - in short, for the need of intellectual activity - constitutes the best vaccine against intellectual sloth.
The purpose of the educational reforms of the last 25-30 years in our modern societies will have had as the primary goal to make education less strict and authoritative, and rather more motivating, enriching and inclusive. That in itself is all well and good. Unfortunately, the reforms put in practice over these years will have brought us to the present situation whereby intellectual sloth is not only encouraged but, even more so, actually rewarded. Indeed, any effort that is slightly substantial is regarded as being incompatible with the cognitive development of a child (or of an adolescent) and, still worse, with the blooming of those who have “difficulties in learning” - in other words, our reforms will have lowered the bar to the lowest common denominator. Point in fact is that any difficulty of learning (except in specific situations like dyslexia) draws its origins from several factors: poverty, parental situation, traumatisms experienced, etc., and thus require specific teaching methods which take into account these factors. But nevertheless, we seek to motivate all children without requiring of them any truly significant effort: this amounts to seeking to motivate an employee into being willing to work with never ending promotions, while without requiring of him to perform his tasks decently. Ridiculous, no? But this is exactly how things are being done in our schools today.
In short, we are trying to teach knowledge while doing everything possible to make knowledge interesting and easily understandable, consequently lowering the bar by standardizing intellectual sloth. Moreover, we are at the point where we are actually making students practice important exams with the aim of improving their performances during these same examinations - what could be more ridiculous? And of course, each successive reform fails in its attempts to increase the motivation, to reduce the rates of failure, or to reverse the dropout rates. Why? Because at the base, all these reforms entrench in their new methods and teaching approaches the rewarding (direct or indirect) of intellectual sloth, as well as its by-products, the search for facility and for instant gratification. In other words, we perpetuate and accentuate the problem!
If this is not intellectual sloth in itself on the part of our educational leaders and decision makers ...
Should one therefore be surprised by the preponderance of the promotion and exercise of leisures and hobbies, in the house as well as outside? As with everything, too much of a good thing is bad. If intellectual sloth is silently (or by negligence) encouraged by parents and at school, how can the children, and their own children, and so on, do anything else but perpetuate this vicious circle at all levels of society?
My solution is that we must inculcate intellectual activity, as defined above, as soon as possible in children. Let us not wait until college or university to do so like we have always done so far, for by then it is visibly too late and intellectual sloth has already set in too many students - not mentioning all those who dropped out or ended their education after high school.
Inculcating intellectual activity in our schools as it should be, i.e. without encouraging intellectual sloth in any way whatsoever, is a matter that holds the very future of our modern societies at stake, including that of our cultures and our democratic values and institutions as well. It is by countering intellectual sloth that we will eventually allow the emergence of future leaders who will make better use of reason in establishing the application of true and durable solutions to the problems facing our societies and humanity as a whole.
In conclusion, it is by countering intellectual sloth that we will make way for the inevitable emergence of a majority (in the least) of competent citizens in all spheres of activities within our societies - and the latters will only be the better for this.
And we as well, incidentally.
So ... what do you think?
(Reposted as a DKos Diary)
(this entry was originally posted 04/06/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
(Note: this entry is the fourth part of a five-parts series.)
In my last blog (Democracy and Intellectual Sloth), I discussed of the insidious effects exerted by intellectual sloth in our modern societies, as well as the grave dangers it poses in the maintenance of our democratic values and institutions. Indeed, the prevalence of intellectual sloth results, among others, in the recurrent election of too many incompetent (or even dangerous!) demagogues who "make us feel good, make us feel secure, make us feel at ease".
To this effect, I concluded that we need to bring critical changes to our cultures.
I must specify here that I am not referring to collective cultures which are proper to our different democratic societies, but rather to specific elements - or memes - which are shared by them.
Herein, today's blog will deal with only one of such common memes to our democratic cultures: the search for instant gratification.
As I mentioned previously (A Brave, New (Old) World ...), intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult person into an irresponsible, selfish, reactionary, intolerant, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child (or adolescent). Ergo, an adult person who searches for easy and absolute answers, who demands his/her instant gratifications.
Incidentally, the search for the quick-and-easy and instant gratification fuels egotism, lure of gain, covetousness and greed which, in turn, stimulate further the search for instant gratification ... and so on. We are therefore in the presence of a synergic loop of stimulation.
Or of a vicious circle, if you prefer.
You say you doubt that the search for instant gratification constitutes one of the memes of our democratic cultures? Allow me therefore to expand on this topic.
By definition and analogy, a meme is to a culture what a gene is to a living organism. As is the case of all life, our civilizations, societies and cultures evolve - it is through mutation, disappearance or expansion of memes that cultural evolution occurs. Having said that, let us take a closer look as to how the search for instant gratification, as a meme, has transformed some key aspects of our democratic values, institutions and cultures.
Televised entertainment:
Serious, thought-provoking shows of the forum, review and documentary types are now practically gone. This quasi-extinction occurred gradually over the last 25 years or so. As their replacements, we now have sports or tabloid shows which dominate tv programming, such as talk-shows (from the "feel good" to the "scandalous and confrontational" categories), or info-tainments which deal only with ... entertainment (tv, movies, fashion, etc.) and the celebrities related to it. How did this happen? Ratings and profits. What drove (and still drive) said ratings and profits in a way which caused the quasi-extinction of those more serious shows? The search for instant gratification. Incidentally, it is this very same meme which is also responsible for the current prevalence of those insipid reality-tv shows upon which we are now throwing all of our democratic passions.
Thankfully, there are still drama shows out there that are complex and which appeal to our intelligence (such as the CSI or Law and Order series) ... but when will such shows disappear as well? The question is quite germaine, considering that the search for instant gratification has dramatically dumbed-down tv programming at large. Case in point: specialty channels like the Discovery Channel were good for a while, but ultimately began to wallow in house makeovers, body makeovers, bogus documentaries meant to push pseudo-sciences, et al. They had no choice to do that in order to keep ratings and advertising sponsors. And what about the "further" specialty channels (e.g. Science Channel, Civilization Channel, etc.) you ask? They are suffering the same problems, i.e. having to dumb things down in order to keep ratings and advertising revenues or disappear.
Journalism (all media confounded):
Similarly and in parallel to tv entertainment, the serious aspects and the integrity of news in tv, radio and newspapers has gradually left way to tabloid products, not only imitating the talk-show and info-tainment formulas but their practices as well. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Do tell! It is simply impossible to ignore them by virtue of the fact that they are in all the news (all media confounded) lately! And what about Darfur? Or Haditha? Or George W. Bush's very latest lie? Etc.? Barely a mention, if mention there actually is. No, no, no - let's talk instead of celebrities, of crimes, of sports, of "heartwarming" stories and, especially, of the fear du jour. And forget about verifying facts. Why do you think the majority of journalists seems nowadays only able to regurgitate propaganda (or spin) from our leaders, from corporation-paid-for organizations or corporations proper? Three reasons: a) to preserve a supposed "access" (which constitutes the formula used by info-tainments with regards to studios, celebrities, etc.); b) too many journalists, editors, or producers search for the quick-and-easy; and c) too many journalists, editors or producers have fallen under the lure of gain and fame (after all, we should not forget that they too come from the same cultures as ours). Incidentally, the majority of those presumed investigative reporting shows are likewise suffering from superficiality or propaganda regurgitation, even disinformation (to this effect, here is a blog which discusses the case of an irresponsible and greedy ABC network investigative reporter).
And what of the forum-type shows mentioned previously? Once again, we find ourselves right in the middle of the tabloid universe where the one who screams the loudest, who is the most incendiary, and/or the most controversial, turns out to be the one most watched or listened to - all media confounded. Lastly, I will spare you the explanations as to how some of those televised news networks, especially Fox News, constitute paragdims of tabloid tv, bias, propaganda regurgitation and disinformation. The fact is that too many journalists nowadays simply do not bother to report the truth and reality anymore. Instead, they play the spin game while nitpicking facts and discarding those deemed "unpleasant". Once again, how have we come to this? Ratings and profits, baby. And, of course, the prevalence of the search for instant gratification which dictates said ratings and profits.
As I said previously, the majority of us would rather be serviced an opinion, like being served fast-food, instead of making the effort to forge one (and an informed one at that!) for ourselves. Thankfully, we have independent news agencies, the internet and blogs - otherwise, we would be in real trouble ... nonetheless, a pillar of our democratic institutions is now dangerously close of collapsing.
Politics:
As in the case of journalism and televised entertainment, politics are now nothing short of a product that is pushed to the spoiled, instant gratification-searching children that we are. Election campaigns? The time has long passed since the days when public debates (televised or not), characterized by their depth of content, were the norm. Nowadays, it is all about easy formulas and easy answers. Everything is about the 30 seconds soundbyte that can be shown in those degenerated news shows which now predominate the waves (see above). The same applies as well to the political messages - my apology, I should have written "political advertisements" - which cost millions upon millions of dollars. Should we be thereafter surprised and shocked by the monetary collusion between special interests and too many politicians? As for too many journalists, there is a too high number of politicans who also go for the quick-and-easy way: indeed, there is nothing easier than using fear, corruption of facts and attacks against opponents - especially since intellectual sloth, ignorance, fear and the search for instant gratification are prevalent among the electorate.
Now, what about government accountability? Same problem here. Everything is about spin and to hell with facts and reality. However, let us not be too quick in judging our politicians: like our journalists, they are from the same culture as ours. In other words: they are only a reflection of ourselves.
In summary, our intellectual sloth generates our ignorance, our fear, our selfishness, our intolerance, as well as our search for instant gratification. To this effect, the search for instant gratification is most likely a meme of our current cultures, and one which has greatly expanded over the last 25 years or so. Consequently, we have become akin to spoiled children with short attention-spans and which must be serviced, instead of the mature human beings endowed with capacities for reasoning, discerning and critical thinking, that we are supposed to be. Hence tabloid tv, tabloid news and tabloid politics - hence the prevalence of the lowest common denominator.
For indeed intellectual sloth compels those that are guilty of it to bring others down to their piteous level. A typical example of this are religious fundamentalists. Such dynamic is no different than the pressure bore down by unmotivated (or lazy) workers upon their motivated colleagues, in order to make the latters adopt the attitudes of the formers. The same goes in every aspect of activity in our societies, with regards to intellectual sloth. And the search for instant gratification is that much more contagious as a cultural meme.
(Not convinced by this? Then I offer to you the current anti-intellectualism mood prevailing these days ...)
In short, everything today is about marketing and easy, quick and low-cost solutions - instead of those complicated things that we should be doing, like reasoning, dialoguing, discussing ideas and searching for solutions that are both practical and durable, however complex and difficult these may be.
I repeat this: everything today is about marketing. We are therefore offered only what the majority apparently asks for.
Hence, our selfishness and search for the quick-and-easy make us prisoners of the "now" while at the same time rendering us blind to yesterday and, even worse, to tomorrow.
Just like children and adolescents.
Now, does this mean that intellectual sloth is in itself a cultural meme? No. Intellectual sloth is a character flaw that breeds as a by-product the search for instant gratification which, indeed, has gradually transformed into a cultural meme in our modern and democratized societies.
Conversely, considering that intellectual sloth is a flaw, however much of a scourge it may be, this therefore leaves open for the possibility of keeping it in check - if not of actually eradicating it ... eventually.
Which will, as you have already guessed, comprise the subject of the last blog of this short series. Stay tuned ...
(this entry was originally posted 31/05/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
(Note: this entry is the third part of a five-parts series.)
As I put forward in my first blog (A Brave, New (Old) World …), intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult person into an irresponsible, reactionary, intolerant, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child (or adolescent). One who searches for easy and absolute answers, who demands his instant gratifications.
In short, intellectual sloth renders anyone guilty of it incompetent - incompetent in dealing with reality, incompetent in at least trying to understand it, incompetent in the inevitable choice of using violence (verbal or physical) as the mean and last refuge to remain secure and blissful within one's own intellectual sloth.
As a first example of what I am trying to convey, I discussed in my last blog (Of Faith, Fundamentalism and Intellectual Sloth) of the pernicious influences exerted by intellectual sloth on faith in proclaimed self-righteous people, and why they seek to impose their values and faith on all aspects of society by any means (including violence).
However, are people of faith the only ones susceptible to be guilty of intellectual sloth? Of course not. Tragically, the prevalence of the search for the quick-and-easy, and thus prevalence of intellectual sloth, constitutes a genuine scourge that affects all human activity in our modern societies.
Which brings me to discuss of the dangers of intellectual sloth in the maintenance and preservation of our democratic values and institutions.
Intellectual sloth is by nature selfish. That is why the most popular mantra in 2006 is: "it's my right to (insert choice)". In other words, living in a democratic society means that anything goes.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Because of the ignorance and egotism fostered by intellectual sloth, too many people forget a fundamental principle which underlies the very definition of any human right: the rights of one end where those of another begin. Period.
Right to freedom of speech? Yes. Right to incite hate? No.
Right to freedom of faith and religion? Yes. Right to impose your faith and values? No.
Right to defend one's opinions? Yes. Right to use violence (verbal or physical) in order to do so? No.
Right to get rich? Yes. Right to do so at the expense of others and/or society? No.
And so on.
In addition, too many people today define for themselves rights which, in fact, are nothing more than excuses to justify their intellectual sloth, their ignorance, their selfishness and, consequently, their search for the quick-and-easy.
Right to own a house? Right to study in a university? Right to own a computer? Right to own a car? Yes - provided that you can pay for these: it is certainly not up to society to pay for them. Nonetheless, there are too many people out there who would be demonstrating in the streets tomorrow morning to defend those "rights", should anyone would entice them to. Incidentally, there have been demonstrations already to demand some of those false rights!
Nowadays, everything is about Me, of what I perceive to be My rights, My needs, what I find acceptable, of how I feel, of how I intend to live My life. And to hell with the others!
The sad reality is that, in addition to forgetting the aforementioned fundamental principle, too many people also forget a corollary which is directly linked to the very concept of what is a "right": responsibility.
Responsibility to your neighbor. Social responsibility. Responsibility to yourself. Responsibility as a citizen of a democratic society.
So here we are, in 2006 ... and where are we? Complacency reigns supreme: don't-give-a-damn during electoral campaigns; voter absenteeism; lack of caring with regards to the issues facing our societies; hanging of "Do not disturb" signs in the face of global issues such as the environment, the economy, the convergence (of media, telecommunications, etc.), wars, genocides, diseases, etc.
Unless, of course, anyone such thing happens to play up to our intellectual sloth-driven fears.
We would rather be serviced an opinion, like being served fast-food, instead of making the effort to forge one (and an informed one at that!) for ourselves. We prefer to wallow body and mind into reality-tv shows and the local version of American Idol (Canadian Idol in Canada and Star Académie in Québec). Thus, therein now lies our democratic passion, whereby we discuss, analyze and evaluate which participant to support and then vote for him/her.
But, to do such things in the exercise of our duty as citizens of democracies? Forget it!
I often hear mention of "cynicism" and "indifference" to explain the prevalent apathy among the electorate. Too many folks think that their one vote can not change much of anything. Oh really? Tell this to Al Gore in 2000 and to John Kerry in 2004. In my opinion, all these supposed explanations and justifications for not going out to vote are nothing more than excuses for intellectual sloth.
In the meantime, what of real reality, meaning the one that has this knack of biting you in the ass when you least expect it? We act like ostriches in the face of it. It is too complicated. Too discouraging. Too unsettling.
In short, reality confronts intellectual sloth.
For indeed, the fact remains that such an ignorant and selfish attitude has intellectual sloth as sole progenitor. In addition, this generalized attitude brings grave consequences to any democratized society. In fact, let us not forget that ignorance breeds fear and, when under its yoke, it renders us irrational ... even willing to embrace happily any easy, quick-fix solution, thus allowing us to remain cozy and blissful in the admiration our own little navels.
Consequently, such prevalent attitude leaves our societies vulnerable against any demagogue who, furthermore, sees his work made that much easier!
You have doubts about this? Take a long, hard look at what is going on today: lies, disinformation, spins, corruption, scandals, media paid-for by leaders, illegal monitoring of phone calls, attacks against media that remain "free" (like blogs), use of fear to spearhead agendas, cryonism, repeated attempts at information containment or stifling, little or lack of governmental transparency and accountability, etc., etc., etc. Now, try to remember if there has been any demonstrations against such grotesqueries anywhere in our societies ... Recall any? I did not think so as well.
We would rather demonstrate to be given superfluous entitlements like spoiled children, or stand up against things which we fear through ignorance and intolerance (name it: abortion, gay marriage, so-called indecency on tv, illegal immigrants, etc.), than demonstrate vehemently to denounce such blatant attempts to diminish our real rights.
And all of this is happening in our own societies. All of these attacks are being perpetrated willfully (or because of intellectual sloth) by elected people, helped by the fear-criers on the radios, in the papers and on tv.
(Is it me or is there an evident similarity here with the tactics used by religious fundamentalists to impose their views?)
Thus I ask the following question: what is the point of living in societies where free-flow of information is the norm if the majority of the citizens will not even bother to pay attention to it?
We are living in a dangerous period of the history of our democraties. You can blame the politicians, the media, the corporations, the lobbying groups, or anyone else, yet the painful and ever so tragic truth remains this: we have only ourselves to blame.
Point of fact to this: it is we (at least, those of us who actually bother to get off the tv couch and go out to vote) who elect demagogues that "make us feel good, make us feel secure, make us feel at ease" while rejecting with disdain and mistrust the genuine candidates that are actually knowledgeable and better qualified as leaders.
So, let it be known ad nauseam: living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility.
And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)? We must not wait until it is too late to remember that one who uses fear and seeks to control information is one who would see himself as our master.
In conclusion, I say again: anything which interdicts critical thinking and the acceptance of facts (and reality!) is nothing short of tyranny.
It is therefore up to us to be vigilant if we are to preserve our democratic values and institutions ... just like it will be up to us to bear the shame of having forsaken them because of intellectual sloth, ignorance, selfishness and the search for instant gratification.
Hence, we have to make critical changes to our cultures - which just happens to be the subject of my next blog. Stay tuned ...
(entry reposted as a DKos Diary)
(this entry was originally posted 27/05/06)
(Google caches of the original posts - in English and in French)
(Note: this entry constitutes de second part of a short five-parts series.)
In my first blog (A Brave, New (Old) World … ), I defined intellectual sloth as a scourge which fosters ignorance, which in turn breeds fear, which begets intolerance and hate, and which begets, at last, violence (in any of its forms, verbal or physical, however “mild” or “deadly”). Considering that intellectual sloth renders one guilty of it incompetent to deal with facts and reality, I suppose this confirms the principle that violence is the last refuge of incompetence (a principle I first read about in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation).
Which brings me to dwell upon the pernicious consequences that intellectual sloth exerts on faith.
First off, I would like to state here that I respect any person who has faith in a benign, good-willed and loving Divine Creator, regardless of religion. Faith in itself is not a problem as far as I am concerned.
The problem rather lies with those people who have faith and who are guilty of intellectual sloth. Indeed, these are the folks who refuse to accept reality and scientific facts. They are the folks who view their faith and religion as the Truth (whereas everything else is “wrong-headed” religion or heresy), who take their Holy Books literally and who accept no reality aside from the one described in said Holy Books – i.e. the universe and the world was created a few thousands of years ago and, of course, the Divine Creator made mankind in His Image. In short, these are the fundamentalists. Such people would be usually considered as harmless and would be simply left unbothered on the fringes of the mainstream thinking of our modern, democratic societies - who happen to value free speech and freedom of faith.
Hence, all would be well and fine, right? Unfortunately, no. The tragic fact is that those people are far from harmless.
Humanity’s history is filled with such people. In their immature need for absolute and easy answers, caused by their intellectual sloth, they fear any fact which even remotely challenges their tenets of faith. They are incapable of questioning anything of their faith because of this and, consequently, are unable to adapt their beliefs with each new understanding of the universe and of life that we reach. Inevitably, these people express their incompetence by seeking the last mean and refuge to secure their cozy and warm intellectual sloth: violence.
Sadly, this remains ever true in 2006.
Blinded by their self-righteousness, they seek to impose their faith and “values” on everyone – after all, if no one dissents or questions, everyone can remain undisturbed in their intellectual sloth. All are secure and unafraid. All are oblivious and content. Everything about the universe and life remains simplicity. All is about God’s Will, His Word and His Laws.
Again, this would be in itself harmless. However, it is the means that they use to impose their intellectual sloth-driven and intractable views which cause problems. They appeal passionately to those of similar beliefs who are not as stringent, promulgating dire warnings of being swarmed by demonized, so-called “Godless” concepts such as “(pick a choice: secular humanism, technocratic science, elite intellectualism, evolutionism, heretic thinking, etc.)” and thus running the risk of being forced to abandon their faith. In other words: of being denied their right of freedom of religion. The danger here is that anyone sensible will agree that being denied the right of freedom of religion is unacceptable … and thus many “common-sense” people will support to some extent the fear-driven decriers without examining more closely their real agenda: that of imposing by any means necessary their fundamentalist views of faith on all aspects of society.
Then, the fundamentalists turn around and point angrily their self-righteous fingers at anyone and anything that does not fit, or agree, with their views. All is fair game with them: race, religion, lifestyle, art, literature, et al. They are afraid of what they perceive as different, they are afraid of the unknown and the uncertain. Any challenge against their intellectual sloth causes a reactionary attitude of fear and loathing. Thus, they hate.
And with fear and loathing comes the inevitable violence – in words and in actions.
The list goes on and on about the violence perpetrated by those “good, humble, God-loving and God-fearing” folks. From any and all religions: the persecution of Christians by polytheist Romans; the Muslims’s invasions against the Infidels; the Christian Crusades against the Muslims; the Inquisition against heresy (witches, scientists, scholars, dissenters, etc.); the persecution of Jews by Christians and Muslims; the Church-sanctioned slaughter of Aztecs and Incas by the Conquistadores; Ghandi's assassination by a fundamentalist Hindu; Algerian Muslims massacred by their fundamentalist Islamic brethren; the assassination of Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish radical; Shiite mosque bombings by Sunnis (and vice versa); bombings and shootings against abortion clinics (and/or staff) by fundamentalist Christians; etc., etc., etc.
Violence against different faiths. Violence against those that think, look or live differently. Violence against those of the same faith but who disagree with the fundamentalist point of view. All of this, in addition to the typical fiery and violent rhetoric of condemnation used by those same “people of pure faith”.
All of these constitute more than enough proof that intellectual sloth renders those guilty of it irrational. What clearly illustrate this sad fact is the shocked reaction of too many catholic bishops and faithfuls when Pope John-Paul II acknowledged the reality of evolution in 1996. Then years later, Christian and Muslim fundamentalists still deny this reality and are quite incendiary about the subject, using their ignorance to formulate baseless biblical or pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution, still trying hard to cast it as heretic religion instead of the science and fact that it is.
In conclusion, self-righteousness is nothing more than a defense mechanism to remain secure in one’s intellectual sloth – which reaps ignorance, then fear, then hate, then incompetence. Of course, we now know all too well that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent – hence the inevitable use of it by religious fundamentalists.
Even still in 2006.
Nonetheless, I find solace in the fact that fundamentalists world-wide remain a minority. A forcefully vocal and all-too-often violent one, yes – but a minority all the same.
The real danger lies with the majority’s complacency – a milder form of intellectual sloth.
It is therefore up to all of us “tolerant” and “free-thinking” folks, whether of faith or otherwise, to remain ever vigilant and watchful of not being conned by the fundamentalists – otherwise, we will allow our democratic societies to be transformed into theocracies.
And make no mistake about this: anything that does not allow critical thinking and acceptation of facts (and reality!) is nothing short of tyranny. Pure and simple.
Which, incidentally, leads to my next blog. Stay tuned.
(Reposted as a DKos Diary)
(This entry was originally posted 23/05/06)
(Google caches of original posts - in English and in French)
(This entry was originally posted 22/05/06)
Although we are fortunate to live in this current modern era of ours, defined by continuous technological and scientific advances which should increase the chasm between ourselves and our tribal (if not primitive) superstitions, I find myself obligated to acknowledge with sadness and disappointment the persistence of ignorance in our supposedly civilized societies.
More than ever, too many people wallow in superstition and the super-natural in order to sustain a so-called spiritual need for guidance in life – the prevalence of seers, astrologers, mediums, and other quacks, illustrates well this tragic state of affairs. The same goes with regards to the belief in ghosts, haunts and spirits. Ditto for pseudo-sciences (e.g. homeopathy, crystals, pyramids, chelation, etc.) and the quacks who keep making a fortune in selling their placebo-remedies which are supposed to be miraculous. And let us not forget about everything related to "new age" religions and religious fundamentalism (whether christian, muslim, or any other).
Seems like we are still in the Middle Ages, eh?
Hence, I find myself asking this question: "How have we come to this?". For instance, how is it that, in 2006, evolution is perceived not as the fact and science that it is, but rather as a matter of "competing" religion and faith? Why are there so many people out there willingly and gratefully letting themselves be conned by all those demagogues and quacks of the day?
I suspect that the answer lies in the predominance of intellectual sloth and one of its by-products, namely the infantile search for instant gratification.
Intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child or adolescent. One who searches for easy and absolute answers. One who demands gratification now. One who is spoiled.
And such intellectual sloth, through the fear which it causes in those people guilty of it, eventually brings in turn the incapacity (or lack of willingness) to deal face-to-face with the unknown and the uncertain. Thereafter, the table is set at last for intolerance and hate to arise: the eternal and real justifications (although never self-admited) behind violence in any of its shapes or forms.
Should one therefore be surprised that, as one example among so many, the movie The Da Vinci Code caused so much « controversy»? At first glance yes, considering that we live in a modern society. However, the true question behind all such kind of brouhaha remains why is an act of imagination (work of fiction), or of intellectual research (scientific method), perceived as an assault on beliefs and faith?
Answer: such acts, as well as any scientifically demonstrated fact, demand self-reflection and questioning. Such acts directly confront intellectual sloth.
Consequently, such things are fearful. Even still in 2006. Sadly enough.
Intellectual sloth is a human scourge which denies all that has allowed our ancestors to change their role as preys into that of hunters, to domesticate animals, to invent agriculture, to construct shelters, to colonize the planet ... and to seek understanding of life and the universe.
In short, intellectual sloth renders anyone guilty of it incompetent - incompetent in dealing with reality, incompetent in at least trying to understand it, incompetent in the inevitable choice of using violence (verbal or physical) as the mean and last refuge to remain secure within one's own intellectual sloth.
Tragically, such incompetence-by-intellectual sloth impacts on all our societary activities – I will therefore indulge in exploring more of this scourge in the next four follow-up entries.
(Reposted as a DKos Diary)
(Google caches of original posts - in English and in French)
The Another Point of View blog is licensed by Mentarch (Pierre H. Vachon) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
