Some commonsense from those who are charged with overseeing French in Quebec: immigrants shouldn't be forced to learn French (CBC). Preserving a language can't be done through coercion and punitive laws. That's just a way to get the language hated and drive people away from Quebec. The PQ's dictatorial stance on this issue is unjustifiable, yet they still try to defend Bill 195 despite the failings in the French teaching system.
Personally I'd love to learn to speak French better, but I haven't got enough opportunities and time. Does this make me a bad student immigrant?
Come on, pequistes! The intelligent people in the province, all other political parties and even the language watchdog are against you. Plus royaliste que le roi, eh?
Monday, 29 October 2007
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Viruses to cure cancer
Scientists have reported having engineered very potent viruses to target exclusively cancer cells and cause them to die (from the Globe and Mail). This is another demonstration of the power of biotechnology and the endless therapeutic opportunities it offers.
But I say tread carefully, for the world of viruses is very murky and they are darn smart and flexible beasts. Many of them can mutate very fast, so tight safety must be in place. Results are promising, but one shouldn't rush into human trials straight away, at least not before having ruled out the possibility of mutations that would make the virus deadly. Keep in mind it is a smallpox virus they're tinkering with. Some viruses can even act as carcinogenic agents themselves. There's a whole world out there and we've just peeked through a hole in the curtain.
Again, I will reiterate the essential role PR and communication play in science: this discovery could save lives, but it needs to be communicated and promoted openly and appropriately. Please spare us the company marketing of the sort we've seen with a completely different class of product, Gardasil.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/26/cancer-virus.html
But I say tread carefully, for the world of viruses is very murky and they are darn smart and flexible beasts. Many of them can mutate very fast, so tight safety must be in place. Results are promising, but one shouldn't rush into human trials straight away, at least not before having ruled out the possibility of mutations that would make the virus deadly. Keep in mind it is a smallpox virus they're tinkering with. Some viruses can even act as carcinogenic agents themselves. There's a whole world out there and we've just peeked through a hole in the curtain.
Again, I will reiterate the essential role PR and communication play in science: this discovery could save lives, but it needs to be communicated and promoted openly and appropriately. Please spare us the company marketing of the sort we've seen with a completely different class of product, Gardasil.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/26/cancer-virus.html
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Iraqi insurgents clash. No US victims. Good!
That's some good news at last: the bad guys in Iraq shoot the crap out of eachother. About time it started. Groups linked to Al-Qaeda were set on by Sunni insurgents and got their backsides kicked. And reports have it that some insurgent groups are actually cooperating with US forces with fighting against Qaedists. (Source: Reuters).
This is another show of the dis-unity of the insurgence and the different souls of Iraqi anti-US fighting. I don't know what the Pentagon strategists are planning, I would recommend a nice "divide and rule" approach. Let the insurgents nail the Qaedists, then have the various rival groups fight until both are too exhausted to oppose any resistance to the US Army. Surely any of these groups, when taken separately, would gladly throw grenades at any vehicle bearing the US flag. Why not let them use those grenades on eachother while watching from a distance munching popcorn?
Once an insurgent always an insurgent, at least don't risk US men when ridding Iraq of that plague. Dividi et Impera: worked for the Romans, will work again.
This is another show of the dis-unity of the insurgence and the different souls of Iraqi anti-US fighting. I don't know what the Pentagon strategists are planning, I would recommend a nice "divide and rule" approach. Let the insurgents nail the Qaedists, then have the various rival groups fight until both are too exhausted to oppose any resistance to the US Army. Surely any of these groups, when taken separately, would gladly throw grenades at any vehicle bearing the US flag. Why not let them use those grenades on eachother while watching from a distance munching popcorn?
Once an insurgent always an insurgent, at least don't risk US men when ridding Iraq of that plague. Dividi et Impera: worked for the Romans, will work again.
Friday, 26 October 2007
If discrimination doesn't pay let the market act!
Barbara Hall presents us in today's online Globe and Mail with a very interesting opinion on the nature of human rights and their importance. Despite agreeing with many of her points, I feel she places too much emphasis on legislation and not enough on the individual and the distinction between right and freedom.
While it is true that many episodes of intolerance stem from prejudice and stereotypes, the point Hall seems to be pursuing is the need for state legislation and its enforcement. I disagree. It is the duty of the State to promote a peaceful and cohese society through education and awareness campaigns, a.k.a information. It is not the duty of the State to dictate people's behavior. There is the justice system to deal with the infringement of people's rights such as harassment, racism, bullying and other kinds of physical, verbal or psychological violence.
A formal and legal hierarchy of rights is not the mistake Hall presents it as. It would merely be a statement that certain rights that everyone is entitled to override the freedoms that certain groups can claim. For instance demanding that the local school serve halal meals is a reasonable request, however there should be no imposition on the school to do so. Enrolment of the child in the school implied acceptance of the terms (i.e. the school doesnt serve halal), while prior to enrolment the parent can choose a school based on that criterion or choose to supply the child with a home-prepared lunch. This is an option that allows parents to prevent their children pigging out on unhealthy food in the school lunchroom.
The above is just an illustrative example of how the right of others to choose what to serve (and any other choices they may make) cannot be trumped by demands stemming from a privately held belief. Needless to say in a true choice system schools failing to meet customers' demands will see less enrolment from those particular groups.
Hall's further elucidation on equal treatment not resulting in equal opportunities contains a few fallacies as well. It is not true that a company's policy banning religious garments will deny opportunities to Muslim women who choose to wear headscarves. A company is a private institution, and as such has the right to impose any policy it wishes. Being employed by this company is a rational choice people make and implies acceptance of the rules. As much as employing a person is a decision which is entirely up to the boss. In a true free market system discriminatory bosses would exclude talented individuals from their company and ultimately be overwhelmed by more talented competition, or be boycotted by rights-conscious consumers.
In the public sector, in any case, equality must be strictly enforced because the State has no right to discriminate against those who pay taxes just like everyone else. This equality however cannot trump other people's rights and choices. This difficulty in balancing rights and freedoms is exactly why the public sector should be reduced as much as possible, leaving the maximum space for an efficient competitive market.
I am first in line saying that discrimination is evil and merit and equality should be valued. But I also believe the market is the best enforcer of equality because it drives uneconomic and unviable choices (such as discrimination) to open failure. If Quebec passes the ridiculous PQ law it will drive skilled immigrants to other provinces, thus draining skill from Quebec and leading the province to decline and the PQ to failure.
Human rights advocates, as Hall says, still have a long way to go before achieving the society they envision. However I propose their focus be on education and promotion of awareness rather than legislation. Let the market fail out the discriminators.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wcomment1026/BNStory/National/home
While it is true that many episodes of intolerance stem from prejudice and stereotypes, the point Hall seems to be pursuing is the need for state legislation and its enforcement. I disagree. It is the duty of the State to promote a peaceful and cohese society through education and awareness campaigns, a.k.a information. It is not the duty of the State to dictate people's behavior. There is the justice system to deal with the infringement of people's rights such as harassment, racism, bullying and other kinds of physical, verbal or psychological violence.
A formal and legal hierarchy of rights is not the mistake Hall presents it as. It would merely be a statement that certain rights that everyone is entitled to override the freedoms that certain groups can claim. For instance demanding that the local school serve halal meals is a reasonable request, however there should be no imposition on the school to do so. Enrolment of the child in the school implied acceptance of the terms (i.e. the school doesnt serve halal), while prior to enrolment the parent can choose a school based on that criterion or choose to supply the child with a home-prepared lunch. This is an option that allows parents to prevent their children pigging out on unhealthy food in the school lunchroom.
The above is just an illustrative example of how the right of others to choose what to serve (and any other choices they may make) cannot be trumped by demands stemming from a privately held belief. Needless to say in a true choice system schools failing to meet customers' demands will see less enrolment from those particular groups.
Hall's further elucidation on equal treatment not resulting in equal opportunities contains a few fallacies as well. It is not true that a company's policy banning religious garments will deny opportunities to Muslim women who choose to wear headscarves. A company is a private institution, and as such has the right to impose any policy it wishes. Being employed by this company is a rational choice people make and implies acceptance of the rules. As much as employing a person is a decision which is entirely up to the boss. In a true free market system discriminatory bosses would exclude talented individuals from their company and ultimately be overwhelmed by more talented competition, or be boycotted by rights-conscious consumers.
In the public sector, in any case, equality must be strictly enforced because the State has no right to discriminate against those who pay taxes just like everyone else. This equality however cannot trump other people's rights and choices. This difficulty in balancing rights and freedoms is exactly why the public sector should be reduced as much as possible, leaving the maximum space for an efficient competitive market.
I am first in line saying that discrimination is evil and merit and equality should be valued. But I also believe the market is the best enforcer of equality because it drives uneconomic and unviable choices (such as discrimination) to open failure. If Quebec passes the ridiculous PQ law it will drive skilled immigrants to other provinces, thus draining skill from Quebec and leading the province to decline and the PQ to failure.
Human rights advocates, as Hall says, still have a long way to go before achieving the society they envision. However I propose their focus be on education and promotion of awareness rather than legislation. Let the market fail out the discriminators.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071026.wcomment1026/BNStory/National/home
Thursday, 25 October 2007
It'll take longer, but don't give up!
As much as one can't spend his way out of trouble, there's no magic wand to fix any problem overnight. CBC reports Gen. Rick Hillier giving a longer timescale for building up an efficient Afghan army to protect the security of the most rebellious provinces and guaranteeing efficient government control over the whole territory.
This does not surprise me, although it will disappoint any optimists who still saw a successful end to the Afghanistan mission in the short term. The country has been torn by conflict for decades, and the transition from being a country at war to being a country at peace is usually difficult. Even in economic and social terms conflict is a powerful destroyer. A war society is likely to be founded on an individual's survival and present safety, with a more short-term focus. Long-term investment and faith in the future tend to be relegated to lower positions on the priority list. That's at least how I see it.
One of the duties of the mission (explicit or implied) was to begin helping people regain confidence in lasting absence of conflict and danger. Many of us, I suppose, would testify that for one to regain our lost trust is quite a difficult process. Imagine how hard it could be for an abstract notion such as "lack of conflict".
The loyalty structure of Afghan society, imho, doesn't help either. From my knowledge tribal and ethnic loyalties tend to be prioritized, possibly followed by local and individual ones. Rebuilding a functioning, present and trusted State in what decades of conflict and volatility turned into quite a civic wasteland will require decades, and training up an army is just the beginning.
Despite all difficulties, we have a duty towards the Afghans. We took up the call to come in and help them. Whatever defects some, and only some of them may display we cannot abandon them before being sure their country can run itself one way or another. Otherwise they'll once again be left alone in the face of greater dangerous power games.
The combat mission must end if this is the will of the Government and Parliament. However, I think Canada should not disengage from Afghanistan. Setting up a big military training centre in a safer area, beefing it up with training personnel and getting down to improving the throughput would be an excellent step in the right direction.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/25/hillier-afghan-mission.html?ref=rss
This does not surprise me, although it will disappoint any optimists who still saw a successful end to the Afghanistan mission in the short term. The country has been torn by conflict for decades, and the transition from being a country at war to being a country at peace is usually difficult. Even in economic and social terms conflict is a powerful destroyer. A war society is likely to be founded on an individual's survival and present safety, with a more short-term focus. Long-term investment and faith in the future tend to be relegated to lower positions on the priority list. That's at least how I see it.
One of the duties of the mission (explicit or implied) was to begin helping people regain confidence in lasting absence of conflict and danger. Many of us, I suppose, would testify that for one to regain our lost trust is quite a difficult process. Imagine how hard it could be for an abstract notion such as "lack of conflict".
The loyalty structure of Afghan society, imho, doesn't help either. From my knowledge tribal and ethnic loyalties tend to be prioritized, possibly followed by local and individual ones. Rebuilding a functioning, present and trusted State in what decades of conflict and volatility turned into quite a civic wasteland will require decades, and training up an army is just the beginning.
Despite all difficulties, we have a duty towards the Afghans. We took up the call to come in and help them. Whatever defects some, and only some of them may display we cannot abandon them before being sure their country can run itself one way or another. Otherwise they'll once again be left alone in the face of greater dangerous power games.
The combat mission must end if this is the will of the Government and Parliament. However, I think Canada should not disengage from Afghanistan. Setting up a big military training centre in a safer area, beefing it up with training personnel and getting down to improving the throughput would be an excellent step in the right direction.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/25/hillier-afghan-mission.html?ref=rss
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
Throne Speech passes, Dion's time passes too.
With the Throne Speech passed and the Liberals scared of the election the Conservatives can now get all the legislation Canadians are positive about approved whether the Liberals want it or not. If Dion wants the government to fall on a bill then the Tories will be wise enough to push through these popular laws first and foremost, and fast if they don't want to allow the Liberals the time to regroup.
When it's time for the Liberals to call it quits it will definitely be on a bill which appeals to Conservative principles, on which the Tories are confident of winning over people's minds. Overall the Liberals' credibility is rock bottom, as is their integrity. I feel sorry for Stephane Dion because he might have bought his party some time, but he is not likely to receive thank-you cards anytime soon. Nor is he likely to become Prime Minister as he so adamantly admitted wanting to during his flip-flop speech on the motion. Nor is he likely to be remembered in history books or be cited as a great politician.
Stephen Harper, on the other hand, will probably be quoted as one of the greatest political strategists of the decade. Proud to support him!
When it's time for the Liberals to call it quits it will definitely be on a bill which appeals to Conservative principles, on which the Tories are confident of winning over people's minds. Overall the Liberals' credibility is rock bottom, as is their integrity. I feel sorry for Stephane Dion because he might have bought his party some time, but he is not likely to receive thank-you cards anytime soon. Nor is he likely to become Prime Minister as he so adamantly admitted wanting to during his flip-flop speech on the motion. Nor is he likely to be remembered in history books or be cited as a great politician.
Stephen Harper, on the other hand, will probably be quoted as one of the greatest political strategists of the decade. Proud to support him!
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Don't bend the system, beef up intelligence.
The USA will have to rethink the way they tackle terrorism through the courts - Reuters (more or less). The recent events around the Holy Land case, where a charity was accused of being a fundraiser for Hamas should have us thinking about how much can we really bend a justice system for the sake of national security without abandoning the principle of due process and the rule of law.
Some of the defendants have other terrorist precedents, and it's a stain on their names and reputations, and hopefully their immigration records as well. However the fight against terrorism should be conducted from a high moral standpoint. Trial is, in the ideal case, rightful, public, with evidence, discussions, cross-examinations of witnesses and a jury's verdict. When one is arrested one must know on what charges, and within the rightful cautionary detention time know what the evidence is.
To me the idea of someone being arrested on the grounds of a weakly corroborated intelligence leak and held in custody without knowing what kind of case they're knitting around him is scary to say the least.
I'm leaning towards security certificates here. Although I applaud Harper's commitment to the security of Canadians, I do believe the certificate legislation is a step in the wrong direction. The answer to a heightened security threat is better intelligence services, beefed-up investigation units, efficient co-operation with foreign and international intelligence agencies. No-fly lists are fine, they are less of a media sensation than someone held in custody.
The security certificates are not a good prospect, for they are a dent in the rule of law, especially in the way they treat the right of access to evidence. My vision for a terror trial is the following: CIA reports someone is suspicious, Canadian intelligence and police hone in on the guy and follow him everywhere, collecting data and evidence. When there's enough material for a trial the guy's busted and brought to court.
I know this sounds idealistic, but first one creates special advocates, then special judges and special juries, and then we end up with a two-tier legal system. We shouldn't be going down this road. Instead, we should be beefing up Canadian intelligence services and Canadian police, to make sure Canada remains a beacon of the rule of law and the rule of right.
Note: this post probably won't go on BloggingTories.
Some of the defendants have other terrorist precedents, and it's a stain on their names and reputations, and hopefully their immigration records as well. However the fight against terrorism should be conducted from a high moral standpoint. Trial is, in the ideal case, rightful, public, with evidence, discussions, cross-examinations of witnesses and a jury's verdict. When one is arrested one must know on what charges, and within the rightful cautionary detention time know what the evidence is.
To me the idea of someone being arrested on the grounds of a weakly corroborated intelligence leak and held in custody without knowing what kind of case they're knitting around him is scary to say the least.
I'm leaning towards security certificates here. Although I applaud Harper's commitment to the security of Canadians, I do believe the certificate legislation is a step in the wrong direction. The answer to a heightened security threat is better intelligence services, beefed-up investigation units, efficient co-operation with foreign and international intelligence agencies. No-fly lists are fine, they are less of a media sensation than someone held in custody.
The security certificates are not a good prospect, for they are a dent in the rule of law, especially in the way they treat the right of access to evidence. My vision for a terror trial is the following: CIA reports someone is suspicious, Canadian intelligence and police hone in on the guy and follow him everywhere, collecting data and evidence. When there's enough material for a trial the guy's busted and brought to court.
I know this sounds idealistic, but first one creates special advocates, then special judges and special juries, and then we end up with a two-tier legal system. We shouldn't be going down this road. Instead, we should be beefing up Canadian intelligence services and Canadian police, to make sure Canada remains a beacon of the rule of law and the rule of right.
Note: this post probably won't go on BloggingTories.
More madness from QC nationalists
Who do quebecers vote for, seriously? Local Councillor Andre Drouin declared that Quebec shouldn't tolerate any kind of religious or cultural accommodation of immigrants, and advocated sovereignty as the only way to pull out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and enforce this astonishingly wrong vision of secularism. Now, secularism is not about intolerance. For instance France's secularism is commendable, as it bans every prominent display of faith.
People can believe whatever they want and not force it upon anyone or display it prominently. If I want to have lunch and my office colleague is fasting I don't mind. If my colleague wants me to fast too I mind, a lot. If someone else says my colleague has to eat lunch like everyone else, I mind even more. I do mind not seeing a person's face, if it were a Muslim woman I'd rather she wore a hijab rather than a full niqab (which is not a dress prescribed by Islam anyway). But I'm not the one ripping veils off faces.
Mr Drouin's kind of secularism is of the wrong kind. What's more, he brings the whole Quebec into disrepute, as are doing some of the Reasonable Accommodation Commission hearings. The guy should relax.
A little relaxation might also help him stick his head out of his, er, you get my drift.
People can believe whatever they want and not force it upon anyone or display it prominently. If I want to have lunch and my office colleague is fasting I don't mind. If my colleague wants me to fast too I mind, a lot. If someone else says my colleague has to eat lunch like everyone else, I mind even more. I do mind not seeing a person's face, if it were a Muslim woman I'd rather she wore a hijab rather than a full niqab (which is not a dress prescribed by Islam anyway). But I'm not the one ripping veils off faces.
Mr Drouin's kind of secularism is of the wrong kind. What's more, he brings the whole Quebec into disrepute, as are doing some of the Reasonable Accommodation Commission hearings. The guy should relax.
A little relaxation might also help him stick his head out of his, er, you get my drift.
Banning abortion for better demographics
Apparently two members of the Russian Duma (the lower house) introduced a bill to make abortion illegal. No Christian fundamentalism here, they claim it's just to counter the demographic crisis the country is facing. To an uneducated mind (or one of low IQ) the maths is simple: abolishing abortions in a country where there are more abortions than births is the one solution to a declining population that risks driving Russia to extinction.
Hmm, how come I'm not impressed by this reasoning? Restricting abortion requires firstly a strong family culture and a society that doesn't burden single parents. Russia lacks both. Most families are kept together by the women, sometimes the elderly ones, while it is not uncommon for men to just abandon their wives or fiancees when they are about to give birth or when the child is still very young. With life expectancy for males decreasing steadily due to several factors among which alcoholism, having children is not a matter of choice but a gamble for women, where the stake is their own future.
One might say that's fine, but abortions aren't about married couples. Fine then, what's the deal for a single parent in today's Russia? The State doesn't provide anything reasonable in terms of welfare, state schools are still going strong but the job market is weak, and in the most faraway parts of the country there's nothing to do but drink. Top universities are impossible to get into without either being a genius or being an able briber, and males get taken into the army as soon as they're 18. And we haven't addressed the parent's side yet. Try combining enough jobs to pay for living and bills and raising a kid in Russia, especially outside the metropolitan areas.
As usual, mediocre pseudo-politicians refuse to see the roots of the problem and just go the easy way. All at the expense of the vulnerable, whose voice is always the last one to be heard in countries where civic society stopped existing ages ago and is only now starting to form again.
Hmm, how come I'm not impressed by this reasoning? Restricting abortion requires firstly a strong family culture and a society that doesn't burden single parents. Russia lacks both. Most families are kept together by the women, sometimes the elderly ones, while it is not uncommon for men to just abandon their wives or fiancees when they are about to give birth or when the child is still very young. With life expectancy for males decreasing steadily due to several factors among which alcoholism, having children is not a matter of choice but a gamble for women, where the stake is their own future.
One might say that's fine, but abortions aren't about married couples. Fine then, what's the deal for a single parent in today's Russia? The State doesn't provide anything reasonable in terms of welfare, state schools are still going strong but the job market is weak, and in the most faraway parts of the country there's nothing to do but drink. Top universities are impossible to get into without either being a genius or being an able briber, and males get taken into the army as soon as they're 18. And we haven't addressed the parent's side yet. Try combining enough jobs to pay for living and bills and raising a kid in Russia, especially outside the metropolitan areas.
As usual, mediocre pseudo-politicians refuse to see the roots of the problem and just go the easy way. All at the expense of the vulnerable, whose voice is always the last one to be heard in countries where civic society stopped existing ages ago and is only now starting to form again.
Sunday, 21 October 2007
Islamic cleric says "smokers = animals"
Malaysian islamic cleric says: Smokers are like animals, they "did not use their brains because they continued to let themselves be addicted to the habit".
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKLR9878820071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
This is so stupid I will not bother commenting at length. This person lacks the basic neurons to spot the fact that addiction is not just a rational process. Also, quitting smoking is hard, as many have noticed.
He goes on to say "People who do not want to think are like animals". Just like the crowds of gullible sheep that go hear your and your like's rantings and take them as pure gold. Just like you, Mr Nik Aziz.
I'm tempted to light one up right now. So much for an anti-smoking campaign!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSKLR9878820071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
This is so stupid I will not bother commenting at length. This person lacks the basic neurons to spot the fact that addiction is not just a rational process. Also, quitting smoking is hard, as many have noticed.
He goes on to say "People who do not want to think are like animals". Just like the crowds of gullible sheep that go hear your and your like's rantings and take them as pure gold. Just like you, Mr Nik Aziz.
I'm tempted to light one up right now. So much for an anti-smoking campaign!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)