The Good and the Bad

When did Swedes get so cool?



Some things that are good and bad:

• Nuclear energy is good
• Nuclear weapons are bad
• Lower taxes are good
• Flat tax is bad
• Conservatism can be good
• Conservative governments are bad
• The decriminalization of abortion is good
• Funding cuts to public reproductive health, including abortion, is bad
• Smaller government is good
• Privatization of basic utilities and services is bad
• The criminalization of drug use, possession and sale is bad
• The legalization, taxation and the control of drugs through the health and education systems is good
• Meddling in foreign governments is bad
• Encouraging change in foreign countries through development projects is good
• Attaching self-serving economic riders on foreign aid is bad
• Recognizing that foreign aid is never purely altruistic is good
• Embracing a secular government in Canada is good
• Refusal to recognize that Canada was nonetheless founded by Aboriginals and Christian Europeans is bad
• A desire to address the over-litigiousness of our society is good
• Curtailments on the right to sue are nevertheless bad
• Combating Global Warming is good
• Fascistic control of our lives in the name of combating Global Warming is bad
• Criminalizing the creation of child pornography and any other materials whose production requires the direct harm of a human being is good
• Criminalizing the viewing of such materials, and indeed the criminalizing of a human being introducing any image or thought --however foul-- into his own mind, is bad
• The desire to punish and restrain child sex predators anywhere in the world is good
• Doing so by establishing a precedent of punishing citizens for their actions committed outside their nation's jurisdiction is bad
• Cowardice is bad
• Enduring being called a coward by refusing to take part in a war of aggression is good
• Securing your nation against physical attack is good
• Doing so by curtailing the basic rights of citizens, to any extent, is bad
• The right to criticize, even mock, philosophies and religions is good
• Exercising that right just to be an asshole (you know who I'm looking at) is bad
• Banning smoking in public, enclosed establishments is good
• Banning smoking in private establishments and in the open air is bad
• Banning restaurants from selling foods containing trans fats is good
• Banning individuals from buying, cooking or consuming trans fats is bad
• Uttering threats is bad
• Not criminalizing the uttering of threats is good
• Proportional representation is good
• Gridlock caused by internally warring coalition governments is bad
• Quentin Tarantino, Director: good
• Quentin Tarantino, Actor: bad
• The fact that Ray still has hair on his head: good
• The fact that Ray now has hair on his ears: very bad

Classic Daily Perv Link... And Other Stuff

I weep for our society, I really do. We get dumber and dumber. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings has come the all too predictable overreaction of officials all over the USA and, pretty soon, Canada. The latest bit of news comes from Cary, Illinois, where an 18 year old high school student has been arrested for submitting a writing assignment in a creative writing class in which he made reference to a potential shooting in his own school.

Was it in poor taste? Maybe. Was it foolish? Perhaps. Was it criminal? Hell no! Schools --and society-- need to match their rhetoric to reality. A "free writing" assignment isn't really free at all, then, is it? And a society that makes police arrests based upon words does not really embrace basic human rights, does it?

Of course, all of this is inextricably linked to the growing litigiousness of American society. If the fellow had eventually gone on to kill people, then the school would be liable for not having taken earlier steps. Schools and other supposed havens of free thought need to be indemnified against such actions where policing clearly conflicts with fundamental civic rights, prime among them the freedom to think.

For you predictable people who will respond with the predictable trope of, "Well, what did you expect? Since when have we lived in a truly free society?" really don't get the point, do you? We will never live in a truly free society until we start demanding that societal institutions live up to the rhetoric of our oft-stated civic values and to the specifics of both the US and Canadian constitutions. And where the letter of the law allows this bull crap, I say the letter of the law needs to be modified. There is no greater threat to the advancement of the civilized human mind and spirit than reactionary restrictions on so-called "improper" thought. (And, lest ye misunderstand, there is a seriously important distinction between thought and action. Society is well within its rights to acknowledge and police improper action.)

So what should have been done with this young man writing troubling things in his "free writing" assignment? Well, schools have counselors, don't they? Why must this necessarily be a police matter? The teacher in this case is a reactionary git who does not understand his job or responsibilities.

Twenty-five years ago, I submitted the following haiku to my grade 10 English teacher, Mrs. Ida Plaskett, when she gave us a "free writing" poetry assignment:

Dear Mrs. Plaskett,
O give me a good mark, please.
Now, or I'll kill you.

Foolish? Maybe. Provocative? Definitely. Assholish? You know it. Criminal? Not then. In fact, Mrs. Plaskett had a good laugh, gave me a good mark, and I ended up being awarded the school's Gold and Silver medals for English, and eventually the Ida Plaskett Award for English upon her retirement. Instead of lauding me with honours and encouraging me towards a professional writing career, Mrs. Plaskett could have easily called the cops and killed my writing bug right there and then.

Instead, we now have a teenager arrested for writing an essay. What do you think the US founding fathers would think of a citizen being arrested for writing an essay? Keep saying that to yourself: arrested for writing an essay. Shades of revolution, I should think.

Classic Daily Perv Link

The following is an excerpt from Plain Tales From the Raj, an excellent non-fiction account of the life of Brits stationed in India before Independence:

"Spike Millgan records the case of a young soldier 'desperately in need of sex who ravished the sacred cow at the temple. The Hindus took great offence at this and he was prosecuted --and the officer who was representing the Crown opened the case by saying, "On the day of the alleged offence my client was grazing contentedly in the field."' The case was apparently dismissed when it was pointed out that 'the cow had been cited in a previous case.'"

A 50-50 Legislature

As much as I loathe the various right wing discussion boards on the 'Net, increasingly I am becoming equally disappointed in the so-called left wing discussion boards, as well. There used to be a time when "right wing" meant "conservative", which is an honourable position embracing fiscal responsibility, small government and extreme individual freedoms; it has mutated in recent years to mean religious fundamentalism, Draconian social control and war-mongering.

Similarly, "left wing" used to mean "liberal", which is also an honourable ethic embracing compassion for the most disadvantaged and, to a large extent, the redistribution of wealth; it has also mutated into something quite unattractive: a fascistic ideological fundamentalism ironically embracing Draconian social control akin to that of the right wingers.

In other words, the two extremes are becoming indistinguishable, at least in attitude, values and approach, if not in specific platform content.

As an example of the decline of the Canadian left, I give you this thread on Babble (the discussion forum of the premier Canadian online leftist site, Rabble.ca, for which I have written several features in the past). The thread is about how to address the supposed crisis of women in Canadian politics, specifically their underrepresentation with respect to the true proportion of women in the country. It is suggested early in the thread that a quota system is best. Most disturbing is the way in which anyone questioning whether quotas are undemocratic is immediately attacked. This is certainly not the "leftist" way in which I attained maturity.

It seems to me that criticism of a quota system is quite valid. A quota system would require parties to field women as 50% of their candidates, ensuring that the voting public has a full plate of options before them. Let us list the problems with this approach:

1. Fielding 50% women in no way guarantees that the elected legislature will be 50% women. What happens if none of the women are elected? Will we happily conclude that the elections were fair and that the electorate got what it wanted? Or will we return to the drawing board and engineer another scheme to increase the likelihood of 50-50 representation? If the latter, then I submit that mandating a quota of fielded candidates is a disingenuous policy when the real goal is a 50-50 legislature and nothing short of that will suffice. Why not then just mandate a 50-50 legislature and be done with it? Or is that too obvious an end-run around democracy?

2. If we are to mandate a candidate spread according to one demographic criterion, why not others? I would argue that sex is among the least important of such factors. Wealth is the most important, in my opinion. And why not age? Or race? Or education? Or language? Or marital status? Sexual orientation? Why not then simply mandate a legislature that precisely mirrors the demographic profile of the electorate? It can be done. Or, again, is that too obvious a rejection of true democracy?

3. On a strictly rational basis, by requiring that half your spots go to individuals of a certain chromosomal characteristic, you necessarily limit the number of candidates from either/both chromosomal groups. In other words, what if in one year there are 100 excellent male prospects and no excellent female ones? You still need to dredge up 50 less-than-excellent females to fill the spots, thus denying the electorate 50 excellent choices. Before you think that this is a sexist argument, consider that the argument also works in reverse: in a year with 100 excellent female possibilities and zero stellar male ones, one is still stuck with having to select 50 dredged up men while leaving out 50 excellent women. Perhaps these are highly unlikely scenarious, but they are nonetheless possible and thus philosophically problematic.

Instead of tinkering with quota systems for candidates, those truly concerned with the underrepresentation of certain groups in the legislature should ask themselves two questions:

1. Is equal representation in government truly the goal? Or is the goal rather a society that will effortlessly elect a truly representative government without having its candidate selection process tinkered with? Let's not put the cart before the horse. A diverse government rendered from a truly fair and un-engineered electoral process is a symptom of a healthy society, not a cause of one.

2. Why do parties not presently field 50% female candidates? Is it because they don't want to, or is it because women tend not to want to run? The latter is clearly the case, so what is it about politics that keeps women from wanting to be a part of it, or what is it about society that prevents women from be able to be a part of politics? And if at the end of these investigations you find that there are no barriers to full participation, and women simply don't want to participate in politics as much as men do, what then? Will we force them? Are you prepared to face these possibilities, however unlikely they might be?

It seems to me that those advocating for quota systems in politics have not given the matter sufficient thought.

Crying Freema

Public request: I'm looking for two downloads: (1) a copy of the movie, Guiana: 1838; and (2) an installation CD for Windows XP Starter Edition. I don't want to buy these things; I don't want to send away for them; I just want to download them now for free. So if you have any leads, lemme know. (And just to be clear, by free I mean I want a perfectly legal review copy; this is especially so for the XP Started Edition... in case anyone from the MicroSoft legal team is reading this).

So I've been watching the first four episodes of season 3 of the reborn Doctor Who, starring David Tennant. I was a great fan of the Doctor's last sidekick, Rose. Since she was removed from the series last year, I've been doubting whether history's longest running science fiction TV show would be the same.

The new sidekick is Freema Agyeman who is simply babe-tastic:



The interesting thing about the new season is that, to be blunt, Freema is black. That means that for the first time the show must address racism when the Doctor and his companion travel backwards in time. They've sidestepped the matter deftly so far. In 16th century England, Freema asks if she's going to be sold into slavery, and the Doctor responds with something to the effect that she shouldn't believe everything she read in history books. In 1930s New York, the duo conveniently find themselves in a hobo shantytown where racial segregation has been artificially suspended, with this fact deliberately mentioned. (TV writers call this "hanging a lantern" on the issue; it's considered a lazy storytelling approach.)

What is not addressed are issues of sexism in Earth's history. In the same 1930s episode, Freema and the doctor both "volunteer" for hard labour in New York's sewers, and no one bats an eye that Freema is the only woman among the pressganged for this very masculine task.

Anyway, it's essentially a kids' show, so I shouldn't expect too much. But the producers made a big deal about expanding the show's sexual dynamic, by introducing many homo-, bi- and omnisexual characters. I think it behooves them to other render attention to other sticky topics.

In Other News...

Finally, soldier types are coming forward to talk about how the US military compelled them to lie about the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch affairs. Why is this important? How is it not important? When the world's most powerful military is so tightly in bed with the world's most powerful government, and while both are increasingly known more for their lies than for their truths, then it behooves all human beings --not just American citizens-- to sue for change at a fundamental level.

So there's this student in Colorado who, perhaps foolishly, expressed an unpopular opinion, specifically that he could understand the source of the anger of the Virginia Tech shooter. What did authorities do? Did they open up the debate? Did they answer him? Did they ignore him? Did they warn him to shut up? No, they arrested him. That's right. In post-9/11 America it is illegal for a student at an institution of higher education to vocalize an unpopular opinion. Note that I wrote "vocalize" and not "espouse"; the distinction is important. If it is the authorities' goal to discourage such attitudes, then all they have succeeded in doing is to prevent those who share them to not identify themselves.

That's the practical issue. The philosophical issue is more offensive, and relates to an earlier comment on this blog regarding whether words can be weapons. I contend that words can be inappropriate and hurtful and ignorant, but --with the exceptions of libel and slander-- they can never be criminal. In a free society that truly believes its rhetoric, an opinion must always be sacrosanct under the law. The Wat has spoken.

Blame The Devil. Or Clinton. Same Diff.

For those living in the Ottawa area, keep May 18th open! That evening will see the inaugural concert of the Canadian Institute for Indian Classical Music, featuring my good friend sitarist (not satirist) Adam Duncan with renowned Pandit Samir Chaterjee on tabla and Kathak dancer Kanika Thakar. Oh yeah, the emcee will be some doofus named Raywat Deonandan. So do come out and join us that evening: Alumni Auditorium at the University of Ottawa, $20 ($15 for students).

In other news, D-Mack sends us this Faux News investigation on whether the Virginia Tech shooter was in fact possessed by the devil. We kid thee not. I'm still waiting for the predictable right wing theories of how the shootings are the result of: Islam, liberals, gun control, environmentalists, feminists and, of course, Bill Clinton.

Of course, no sooner did I write that joke that I sadly found such musings here, here, here, etc. Still waiting to see how they manage to convolutely pin this on Clinton, Gore and Kerry, but I won't be surprised when it finally happens.

Sweet, Sweet Codeine

Here on the first real, functional day of Spring in Ontario, I have been felled by a migraine of Biblical proportions. I get them rarely, but when I do, it's like a neutron bomb seeping radiation from within my skull. The worst one I ever had was when I was living in Washington, DC. I had to leave work early because I felt it coming on, and the 45 minute subway ride was terrifying, as the pain started to build in accelerating increments. By the time I arrived at my stop, I was literally blinded by pain, stumbling --sometimes crawling-- on the street to get to my apartment. That day, tragically, I didn't have any codeine on hand, so instead I took every narcotic I had on hand --cough syrup, etc-- and crumpled, weeping, beneath a hot shower, praying for unconsciousness, which finally took me hours later.

Well today it wasn't that bad. I was at my parents' house in Toronto, home of many of the fun drugs that old people collect, bless their weak atherosclerotic hearts. So I was able to down sufficient codeine to shorten my suffering to a mere 3 hours before the giddy joy of opiate delirium overtook me; and it is in that graceful state that I address you now, my droogies.

Those who've never experienced a true migraine cannot imagine its discomfort. It's not just a bad headache, it's a trembling down to the chromosomes, wherein the source of one's identity --one's very brain-- is under siege. Since I started having them when I was a toddler, I was taken early on for epilepsy testing (since epilepsy often manifests as bad headaches). The test consisted of lying on a slab with electrodes in one's skull while patterned lights are flashed into one's eyes. Now, the night before, I'd watched a documentary on how doctors were experimenting with visual cues to put patients under for surgery, in lieu of anaesthetics. (Yes, that's the stuff I used to watch when I was 8.) So naturally I was concerned that this so-called "test" was just a prelude to surgery.

I kept pestering the technician with frequent questions of, "Um, are you trying to get me to go to sleep?"

He was not a child-friendly type, and always answered, "Yes, yes. Go to sleep. Just be quiet and go to sleep." That, of course, confirmed my suspicions and terrified me even more.

Anyway, I don't have epilepsy. Just bloody migraines.


And now the news...

• Phil G., our "correspondent" from Syndey, directs us to this great aggregator site for his musings and the minutiae of his life ;-)


• For us Grammar Nazis, Phil also points us to this blog, which has regular discussions on the topic.


• Today's Daily Perv Link (TM) is provided by Abeer R.


• The news site of a friend of a friend is now up. It's called South Asian Focus.


• EK Hornbeck sends us this story of a Canadian journalist being assaulted and warned to stop writing negatively about a particular Islamic group. You know, I blog here regularly on tolerance and anti-racism, especially where it concerns the West's newly found hard-on for verbally bashing all things Islamic. But guys, please, help me out here by, you know, not behaving like violent fundamentalist assholes!


• EK also sends us this video clip of John McCain making light of bombing Iran. Et tu, Johnny?

The Hatred of Boba Fett

Courtesy of D-Mack comes the announcement of a so-called "open" online medical journal. This is important because of the reasons for its launch, having to do with recent controversy over the alleged loss of independence of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. A news report about the controversy is here.

As many of my droogies know, I am a fan of the original Frank Herbert Dune books (and not of the anemic prequels churned out by his money-grubbing mediocre-talent spawn.) Last night I re-watched 12 hours of the SciFi miniseries of the original Dune and the sequel, Children of Dune. The latter truly is a tragic and tear-rendering tale for those who can clearly discern the plot from all the narrative contortions. It's helped by the remarkable soundtrack by Brian Tyler, which I am listening to as I watch this.

For those not in the know, much of Star Wars was stolen from Dune. Supposedly, Herbert threatened to sue before finally accepting the similarities as an homage rather than as a theft.

Speaking of science fiction and Star Wars. D-Mack also sends us the uber-geeky Star Wars Personality Quiz. Read 'em and weep, droogies, 'cause Raywat is a kick-ass bounty hunter named....

Meanwhile, EK Hornbeck sends us this disturbing bit of news about how the EU intends to make Holocaust denial an actionable crime.

Of course, I believe the Holocaust happened and that those who deny it are ignorant racist fools. But they are not criminals. I think each of us is entitled to our beliefs, however misinformed, prejudiced or idiotic they might be. It is not society's role to tell us what to believe, but rather to show us the preponderance of evidence that inexorably leads to a given, obvious conclusion. The same argument should be made of evolution: while it is, at this point in history, idiotic not to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of evolution, it is not (and should not) be a crime to nonetheless deny the evidence and embrace the ignorance of unexamined Creationism.

Now, the text of the article is not as inflammatory as its title might suggest. The actual EU legislation seeks to punish public incitement “to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin”. This clearly covers so-called hate crimes beyond the denial of a specific historical event, i.e. the Holocaust.

I have a basic problem with hate crime legislations like this one. It is already wrong and a crime to assault and kill someone. Why is it more wrong to do so with bigotry in one's heart? It is already criminal to incite violence. Why is it more wrong to incite violence for racist reasons? I submit that it is not, and that hate crime legislation is a politically expedient and inciting redundancy.

Moreover the added caveat that the incitement of "hatred" should be criminalised is problematic, for both practical and philosophical reasons. Practically, throwing a hater in jail will not quell his hatred; it may actually exacerbate it and equip the individual to recruit others more surreptitiously. Philosophically, I believe one should be allowed to share one's opinions --however vile or misinformed they may be-- with one's peers. This does not mean, of course, that societal institutions and infrastructure must be made available to such people. (For example, a hater has a right to express his hatred, but a newspaper is under no obligation to publish his hatred, and the hater does not have a right to have his hatred taught in a public school.)

Legislation like that proposed by the EU threatens basic liberties and will ultimately serve to quash intellectual activity while hardly reducing the hatred it intends to eliminate. Let us note the very important final paragraph of the article:

"The proposal draws what is likely to be a controversial distinction between inciting violence against racial or ethnic groups and against religious groups. Attacks against Muslims, Jews or other faiths will only be penalised if they go on to incite violence against ethnic or racial groups, the draft text states."

Draw your own conclusions.

Never Say No?

My latest column over at MicroSoft is now up, titled "Never Say No?"

Anjali sends us this curious bit. Try it:

1. Go to Google Maps
2. Click on "Get Directions"
3. For "from" enter "New York", and for "to" enter "London"
4. Click on "Search Maps"
5. Now scroll down to #23 in the directions and have a laugh

From D-Mack comes this BBC interview with John Bolton. It really requires no set-up from me. Unless you've completely drained the Kool-Aid, you'll recognize hollow neocon bluster for what it is.

I will say this about the interview: Bolton makes a throwaway comment to the effect that he'd rather live in a chaotic, desperately dangerous place with little semblance of security or services than live under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, however stable it might have been. I submit that that is one man's opinion that may or may not be shared by others. But neither he nor anyone else has or had the right to make that determination for millions of Iraqis, 500 000 of whom are now dead because some arrogant Americans assumed that their values were universal ones.

This is the kind of self-serving righteous crap that makes my blood boil.

Tyranny Of The Plurality

This weekend I passed an important milestone in "laddish" male development. I, Ray Deonandan, bench pressed my own body weight (170 lbs!) for the first time in my life. And after the paramedics restarted my heart and re-attached my left pec, I promptly celebrated this achievement by abusing my brain and body in creative manners. In the midst of this celebration, I took time to download and watch an important movie from my youth: Transformers: The Movie

In recognition of this most geeky of moments, I give you the following parody on the rebirth of Optimus Prime. If you're not already a Transformers fan, it likely won't mean anything to you. Oh, and by the way, I retract an earlier prediction I made on this space, that the upcoming live-action Transformers Movie will be watchable. See, I got Michael Bay and Michael Mann confused. It's the former who will be, sadly, directing the film. So it will suck.

Enjoy:



In other news.... today I was informed by my dentist that I, Lord Wat, have cavities. My first ever cavities. I thought I could go through an entire lifetime without any holes in the head, but alas it was not to be. Sigh.

So, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform has submitted their recommendation to the province of Ontario, and We The People shall vote on it presently. They opted for the "mixed member list approach", in which our present "first past the post" system is enhanced with a number of seats set aside for direct party voting. New Zealand and Germany use similar systems, and the details are on the website to which I just linked.

Regular Deonandia readers may recall that I and others met with Judge George Thomson and members of the assembly, via the Maytree Foundation, to voice our opinions on the matter. I was very concerned that they would take the "reserved seats" approach, in which some seats are set aside for women or ethnic minorities. No one in that room supported that path (as it is fundamentally undemocratic), and I'm glad to see that the assembly did not go forward with those ideas.

The current proposal is flawed, of course. Presently, our electoral system allows for pluralities to form majority governments. As one commenter said, "You can get 37% of the votes, which translates to 70% of the seats and 100% of the power". This is not democratic. The new proposed model embraces a bit of proportional representation, which may favour more minority governments and coalition majority governments. And that's fine with me. Coalition governments in Western democracies tend to be more responsive to citizenry needs, and less driven by ideology. (The same may not be said of some non-Western democracies, like India).

The proposed change is, actually, quite minor. I would have hoped for more dramatic modifications and a wider, more profound adoption of the principles of proportional representation. However, it's better than what we currently have, and we need to start experimenting with electoral systems, lest we lose vision of what democracy really is; it is not the tyranny of the plurality.

Spiders On Crack

What happens when spiders go on drugs?



Lest ye forget what I've been saying for the past seven years: Al Gore will run in 2008 and he will win. At last, someone agrees with me.

Now this is a disturbing story. A Princeton Constitutional scholar has been placed on the USA's "no fly list", apparently just because he publicly criticized George Bush's policies. As angering and frustrating as this tale is, what is even more horrific is the airline's quip: "We ban a lot of people from flying because [they've participated in peace marches]."

Auuuughh!!! In The Amerikkka of George Bush, criticism of the state and peaceful public demonstrations are now rewarded with being branded as a potential terrorist. Somewhere in Hell, Joseph McCarthy is enjoying a belly laugh in between having his liver eaten by leprous vultures. And somewhere in a cemetery in France, a headless royal corpse is chuckling, "L'Etat, c'est moi."

Must I say it outright, though I risk being placed on a no-fly list, too? The bigger threat to American freedoms and way of life is not terrorism, but the Republican government of George W. Bush.

Wikimania

R.I.P. Kurt Vonnegut. I will always remember the first book of his that I read --Cat's Cradle. When I was the tender age of 14, it opened my eyes to what science fiction could be when crafted by the hands of a master cultural critic.

Further to this week's earlier discussion on grammar, I've decided to start Deonandia's first wiki. For those not in the know, a wiki is an online document that more than one person can edit. So I invite you, my droogs, to contribute to this evolving collection of grammatical faux pas. You may have to sign up for the (free) service to contribute: http://deonandan.wikispaces.com/Grammar+Nazi

(After my office's first experimentation with a wiki, a girl at a conference once came up to me and said, "I hear you have a winky." I winked and replied, "Yes. Would you like to see it?")

As I'm sure you're all aware, US radio DJ Don Imus is in hot water for using racial slurs on the air. I've never liked Imus. He's not funny. Howard Stern can be offensive, but at least he's funny. Imus is just a crotchety old bigot.

But that's not exactly what I want to talk about. See, quasi-Libertarians like Bill Maher are on record as saying something to the effect that, if this is the biggest issue that civil rights activists have to face, then everything is okay. Or something like that. And, of course, I've been trolling the conservative discussion fora for their reactions. They've been predictably in line with Maher: the real villains are the de-nogginizing suicide bombers out in the desert, not the drunken DJs who make the occasional racist slip; so accept his apology and move on, already!

They all miss the point. First, in the USA and Canada, the airwaves are owned by we, the people. They are not owned by corporations, individuals or even the government. You and me, baby, we're it. We issue licences to companies and individuals to use these frequencies. Thus, the tone and content of what is broadcast on free airwaves should ultimately reflect the heart and soul of our society. Are casual racist, sexist and homophobic remarks the timbre of a society in which you want to live? I'm not suggesting censorship of any kind; far from it. Rather, I point out that the content of what is broadcast is worthy of discussion and contemplation.

See, I've been noticing a steady slide toward the open acceptability of such foulness. In a recent Family Guy episode, for example, Stewie asks, "What kind of man would get a woman pregnant then never call her again?" Brian then responds, "A black man?" And there are no repercussions and there is no depth to the exchange; the insulting comment is offered up solely as a throwaway joke, one rendered at a very high societal price.

This is, I believe, the unavoidable consequence of the groupthink response to a manufactured war. In the wake of 9/11 and the now expected riling up of debasing sentiments toward whomever is deemed "our enemy", it quickly became okay to verbally debase turban-wearing non-whites and Muslims. The terms "raghead", "Mozzie" and even "sand nigger" became commonplace in the verbiage of previously respectable pundits and fora. It was unavoidable that this crack in the seal against intolerance would quickly expand into a genuine rift.

Unbelievably, this week I saw a stand-up comedian on prime time Canadian television refer to homosexuals as "fags" several times. No one gasped. Everyone laughed. Rapper Fifty Cent recently referred to his team of lawyers as his "Jew Unit". He is unrepentant. Epithets are rapidly becoming acceptable again.

So I for one applaud the big deal being made of Imus's comments. Maybe it's been blown out of proportion, but society's response to Imus must serve as a reverse class action suit against a host of other transgressions by all sorts of public figures that have gone unaddressed. The next question we must ask is, Why is vocal racism, sexism and homophobia increasingly prevalent and attractive?


And now the remaining news:

• Gay sheep?


• Finally! The world takes note of my Daily Perv Link with this discussion of the phenomenon.


• Courtesy of Anjali, here's a Star Trek-themed apartment... and it's for sale!


• From EK Hornbeck comes this possible contributor to Iran-UK hostilities.


• Also from EK comes Terry Jones's humourous take on the recent Iranian "hostage crisis".


• Meanwhile, my friend Farah Ally is producing a South Asian music festival in Toronto later this month. Here's a video promo for the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4qoiqnqi24

The Many Faces of Wat

I was play-wrestling with my adorable 6 year old neighbour this morning when she wriggled her way in between my ankles, remarking: "It's good to be skinny!"

I naturally observed: "Yes, I do miss being skinny."

To which she responded: "What are you talking about? You have lots of skin!"

So with that childishness is mind, I give you this superfantastic website sent to us by Anju: The Perception Laboratory's Face Transformer! You upload your own photo and it gets transformed into other races and artistic styles. For example, I uploaded by basic glamour pic:



And, according to the website, this is what I would look like as a white dude:



Creepy, huh? Now this is me as an East Asian fellow:



How about me as an Afro-Caribbean fellow (this is my favourite):



It gets even weirder. This is me as a Japanese manga character:



And this is me if I had been painted by Amadeo Modigliani:



Similarly, this is me had I been painted by El Greco. (Looks like a standard Guyanese dude on the prowl):



Lastly, this is me if I were 50% chimpanzee (assuming I'm not already):

I Axed You A Question

Above is a Faux News clip about a fellow trying to teach inner city black kids how to say "ask" instead of "axe". The fellow is being attacked in some circles as a racist who can't appreciate unique American black language. The controversy has direct resonance for me, as it relates to an unpleasant exchange I had on the Farcebook discussion board I blogged about yesterday. I have since left that board, and all such boards.

See, it is my belief that using "axe" in place of "ask" is poor grammar and bad pronunciation. I was informed by the board's self-proclaimed "expert" that the usage is a perfectly acceptable regional variation; or, in her words, "a dialectical thing". When I wrote that I did not agree, the response I got was, "I'm not seeking your agreement." Yeah, if the so-called "expert" doesn't want to discuss on a discussion board, clearly it's not a place I want to be. I couldn't help but wonder, then, if she is the kind of person who typically says "axe" instead of "ask".

Now, my reason for not agreeing isn't that I don't believe that the use of "axe" isn't truly a "dialectical thing", but rather that the excuse of regional variation can be used to excuse any grammatical error we choose. And, to be candid, eventually it's the regional variants that win out, because ultimately the properness of language is defined by those who speak it, and not by those (like me) who simply debate it. In short, being a Grammar Nazi is necessarily a losing proposition.

But my reason for opposing such things as the use of "axe" instead of "ask" isn't that I don't recognize that many people do it, thus making it a "dialectical thing". Rather, it reminds me of a conflict I had in India 11 years ago. See, a brilliant young lady whom I cared about had a tendency to speak like a 12 year old girl, and I took it upon myself to encourage her to leave out the "likes" and the end-of-sentence "upspeak" when she was to give public presentations. At the time, she was not happy with my advice.

It wasn't till years later that she apologized for her resistance and actually thanked me, because she finally digested my point. It was this: it doesn't matter how valid or regionally pervasive your manner of speech may be; if you cannot speak the language of power, you will never be given power or taken seriously. Moreover, it doesn't matter how brilliant you are; if you don't sound smart, no one will accept you as smart. And smart means embracing standard grammar and standard pronunciation.

I'm a poor kid from a rice farming village in the Third World. I had an embarrassing Caribbean accent well into my school years, and I knew that this tainted the way that teachers and peers perceived me. I am certainly not ashamed of my heritage, and would never counsel others to abandon their backgrounds or native ways of speech. But, like me, I would advise them to augment their speech with the necessary tools to "play with the big boys": become bilingual; keep your native accents and dialects, but also learn to emulate boring, supposedly "accent-free", straight-white-man English. I honestly don't think I would have been afforded half of the opportunities, experiences and successes in my life had I not worked hard to gain entrance into the powerful halls of linguistic acceptance.

Not surprisingly, mine is the same attitude embraced by Garrard McClendon, the fellow in the news clip above. One can seek to make inner city black lingo more acceptable, or one can seek to teach inner city blacks how to speak standard "power" English. Society has, by default, been tending toward the former, but not quickly enough to be uplifting the current generation of disenfranchised young urbanites. The latter tack is, I believe, the more rational approach.

English is an unusual "power" language in this regard. French and Japanese have official standard versions, reinforced by institutes and governments. But standard English has traditionally been defined by the most powerful who speak it --leaders, thinkers, etc. This is changing in the modern era, though. These days, standard English is being defined not by the most powerful, but by the most famous and visible: actors, pop stars and talk show hosts. God help us indeed.

The Grammar Nazi Strikes!

Over on Farcebook, I just joined the discussion group, "I judge you when you use poor grammar" (From which the above image is stolen). In honour of this development, I thought I'd list some of the most common grammatical errors that really peeve me. Feel free to add your own. I may need to start a wiki for this one...

• In grocery stores, it's common to see, "Eight items or less." It's eight items or FEWER, people! FEWER! The rule is that fluid things (like water, beer, etc) are qualified by "less" and "more". But countable quanta (like items, persons, books, etc) are qualified by "fewer" and "more".


• It's spelled DEFINITELY, not DEFINATELY.


• If you prefer item A over item B, you like it MORE, not BETTER. If you say, "I like A better than B", you are commenting on the manner in which you do the liking, not on the quality of quantity of the "like". For that, you must use say, "I like A more than B."


• "WOMEN" means more than one woman. I have seen this error most commonly on dating site profiles. Mind you, if a woman doesn't know how many she is, it's probably a good self-selecting criterion for me.


• GRAMMAR is not spelled GRAMMER, unless one is referring to the surname of the pompous actor who plays Frasier.


• ORIENTATE is not a word; ORIENT is.


• "At" is the most annoyingly common dangling participle, as in "I'm driving to where you are at."


• Sadly, it is more correct to say, "I drank three beer" than, "I drank three beers." Why? because the former is an elliptical sentence in which the words "bottles of" are omitted but implied. (Same goes for any fluid measure. See "eight items or fewer" above.)


• It is more correct to say, "spinach is healthful" rather than, "spinach is healthy" since the latter is a comment on the physiological health of the spinach plant itself, not on the health benefits that is may confer upon its eater. (Courtesy of Yakuta.)


• Irregardless is not a word, even though the new Webster's Dictionary wants to make it such.


• In the new parlance of our idiot youth, CHILL is being used as an adjective, as in, "This show is chill." CHILL is a verb, people. Use it as such.
  


• The words "party" and "network" are not verbs, they are nouns. But society has spoken on these two, and I wave the white flag. I will party tonight and maybe network while I'm at it.


• Why does everyone mispronounce kilometre? It's KILL-oh-mitter, with the emphasis on KILL. It's not kill-AHH-mitter. Why? Because only devices require that we pronounce their suffix as "mitter", as in THERMOMETER and ODOMETER. Units must have their prefixes well enunciated. A kill-AHH-mitter would therefore be a device for measuring kilometres. We don't, after all, say cen-TIM-mitters or kill-AHH-grams, do we? No! The best example of this is millimetre and millimeter. The latter is a device for measuring the former. The CBC is the only media outlet I know of that consistently gets this right.


• Someone who is very good at cards is called a "card SHARP", not a card SHARK. Someone who is good at pool is, however, called a POOL SHARK.


• "To coin a phrase" does not mean to use a well-worn phrase. Rather, it means to use a new or rarely-heard phrase in a speech or article in such a way that it rapidly becomes a meme or cliche.


• There is no such word as ALRIGHT. It's two words: ALL RIGHT.


• IT'S is a contraction of "it is". ITS is the possessive form of IT. There is no ITS'.


• There is no such word as WHO'S. It's spelled WHOSE.


• There is no such word as ALOT. It's two words: A LOT.


• THEIR is the possessive form of THEY. THEY'RE is the contraction for THEY ARE.

And don't get me started on when and how to use a semicolon.

Mmmmm.....Drugs....

During my current trek through Florida, the contents of my medicine kit have come under scrutiny a few times. Yes, I like my vitamins. So, since there's so much curiosity about the subject, here's what I take every morning:

Vitamin C - antioxidant
Vitamin E - antioxidant
B-complex - energy metabolism and anti-stress
Selenium - potential prevention of certain immunological diseases
Tyrosine - anti-stress
Chromium - potential control of blood sugar levels
Zinc - immune system and prostate health
Lecithin - cardiovascular health
Calcium - hypertension control and metabolism
Magnesium - metabolism
Arginine - cardiovascular health and anti-stress
Lysine - immune system
Omega 3 - cardiovascular health
Ginseng - anti-stress
Folic acid - hypertension control
Coenzyme Q10 - energy metabolism and hypertension control

Does it all work? Who knows. Despite my complaining, I am much more healthy than most men my age, and I believe that I look it. So take that for what it's worth. And this morning I mistakenly took Melatonin, so I expect to be asleep in a few minutes....

PS. The free wi-fi I've been stealing just stopped working, so this might be my last post for a day or two.

Iran's Counting Coup

I thought this quote from Eric Margolis was particularly important:

"Europe’s greatest triumph has been to rid itself of mankind’s greatest evil, nationalism."

I don't think Europe has indeed rid itself of that scourge. But I will agree that nationalism is indeed one of our species' least useful and most destructive inventions.

It's nationalism, for example, that is playing a part in the ridiculous "hostage" crisis in Iran.

Here's my take on it. Many in the Middle East, and indeed around the world, maintain a strong distaste for Britain, due to her imperial history. It's the British who re-drew the borders of the Middle East, who decided which families and institutions would rule, and who essentially decided many of the conflicts and oppressions that plague the region to this day. So it's no surprise that British soldiers would be a target.

Secondly, many of the British elite have been among the few voices to side with the Americans in their call for sanctions against Iran. I'm not entirely sure why sanctions are being suggested for Iran; if they withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, then they'd be breaking no international laws. But that's another topic.

Third is the fact that, frankly, the British are weak in the region, relative to both the Persians and --most importantly-- the Americans. There was almost no chance of the British responding belligerently to this provocation. Had the Iranians taken American prisoners, on the other hand, President Bombs-a-lot would have been right there with the Seventh Fleet and a barrage of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. So, if you're going to antagonize a Western power who is already perceived to be anti-Muslim, it had better be the Brits and not the Americans.

Fourth, and least likely, is the possibility that the Iranians actually expected the Brits to apologize for their alleged infractions on Iranian territory. I really don't see this as being likely.

Fifth, and most important, is that all politics are local. Iranian leadership has committed this "counting coup" in order to strengthen their image among their own citizens, and to position themselves as the singular defenders of non-Western independence within the Islamic world and beyond.

Was it a wise move? Only time will tell. All indications thus far point to.... no.