Slip of the tongue

So earlier this week, Sarah Palin (who else) made a slight slip of the tongue. She said something along the lines that “our allies, North Korea”. Of course, she meant South Korea, and it is obvious that it was an honest mistake. Now she attacks the media for showing her “in a bad light”.

Did the coverage of the medias go too far? Is this a sign of bias? I’m not sure. First of all, that’s a mistake if there ever was one! Mixing allies with enemies makes for a really funny mix up. It is really noteworthy. Second of all, she (Palin) is a well-known figures. I’m sure most articles about her, in good or bad, attract a lot of viewers. So it is clear that the medias (which try to make money out of just anything) will run such a story.

Finally, I have to say that Palin has been cast in a very negative light over the years during which she has been under the spotlight. Rumors about her ignorance of foreign affairs, her intelligence, have set the Internet ablaze. I’m sure at least some of it is exaggerated, but if I were her, in her situation, I wouldn’t find it surprising if people drew attention to my every misstep. If she wants to be taken seriously aside from the few rednecks who will follow her no matter what, she HAS to break the mould of the idiot backwater Governor-turned-attention-whore-and-potential-2012-presidential-candidate. So far, she hasn’t done much to break it. To be fair, also, if Obama had done the same mistake, that would have been an even bigger matter, guaranteed! That would have made the headlines of a lot of newspapers.

I think, however, that people who call her stupid over that aren’t much better. Slips can happen to anyone.

On another matter, she (still Palin) apparently believes that Michelle Obama’s “Let’s move” program to fight obesity is an invasion of the government. Yup. From her mouth:

“What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track”

I see multiple problems with that quote. First of all, the program’s aimed at building awareness and improving lunch menus in schools. It has nothing to do with telling parents what to do. Education and awareness isn’t “taking over”. Enforcing standards in schools and in the food industry isn’t “taking over”. Then, there’s the part about “make our own decisions”. I’m not sure what world she lives in. But in my world, when people are left to their own, they tend to make bad decisions, or to make selfish ones that endanger the health of many. In her world, is obesity not a problem? In her world, is it OK to lead a government and watch as kids sicken themselves, and endanger the country’s future, by eating hamburgers? OK to let kids eat so much they’ll have cardiac problems?

This is clearly two things: one, “you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”. Palin criticizes the First Lady’s initiative, she must have dug deep to look for something to criticize. What are First Ladies supposed to do, smile at cameras and that’s it? If Michelle Obama didn’t do anything, Palin and other Obama critics would have criticized her for that too. Two, Palin is doing something that many politicians, republicans and democrats, are guilty of: criticizing for the sake of it.

A good politician, when his or her opponent will do something good, should just shut up. Criticizing for the sake of it means criticizing policies and initiatives that will ultimately be beneficial for the country. That is NOT productive, that is not good for anyone.

I suggest you check out this article about it: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/24/martin.michelle.obama.palin/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Should freedom of speech be absolute?

This story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_holocaust_bishop got me thinking. Not exactly that story, but comments that stem from it. Some people seem to think that voicing an opinion (in this case, denying the Holocaust) is always correct, and should always be protected. I am totally in favor of free speech. Few things make me mad as censorship, or attempts at censorship. However, I do not view freedom of speech as absolute.

I think freedom of speech does not mean freedom of thought. What I mean by that is that this particular bishop is free to think that the Holocaust never happened (or did not happen as we know it). He should be. Heck, even if he is wrong (obviously), he is entitled to his own opinion. However, I think that his thoughts should not go farther. On a public forum of any sort, be it the Internet, his Facebook page, the radio, the newspaper or television, people should mind what they say. The reason for this is simple: such thoughts spread. And there is a good reason why they shouldn’t spread!

First taking into consideration his views, I think most reasonable people agree that the Holocaust is not a forgery; for all its worth, he is spreading a lie. Second, such thoughts incite hatred. It is hateful towards Jews and those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

Reality is not relative! People’s opinions can be wrong! I’ve seen people cling to falsehoods even in the face of overwhelming evidence and claim “Well it’s my opinion anyway, and I’m free to voice it”.

Given the possible consequences of spreading thoughts such as these, I think it is reasonable to impose some manner of control over speech. One should not be able to incite to hatred or to commit a crime. One should not be free to utter death threats. One should always be free, however, to voice any other of their opinions, however unpopular they may be. I think the line should be drawn; it should be drawn in the least restrictive manner possible. But there has to be a line, and I believe this bishop, and the others who spread similarly hateful opinions, have crossed it.
Let’s not forget that a lot of people can do harm simply by showing or saying things. Spreading videos of abuse or illegal pornography is, and should remain, unprotected by freedom of speech.

The Earth is flat (it’s just a conspiracy!)

Despite what the title of this entry says, the Earth is not flat. However, for a long time, many people actually believed it was. Can you blame them? A simple look of your immediate surroundings cannot tell you it is round, simply because it is so big and because of gravity, it feels flat to us.

Yet despite the fact that it is undoubtedly (somewhat) spherical, people have long maintained otherwise, even in light of scientific evidence. The main reason is that for many centuries, knowledge was restricted. It was restricted by religious dogma. That’s why many people could not, or would not, believe that the Earth was rotating around the Sun. To them, the Sun was rotating around the Earth. Again, who could blame them? Just looking onto the sky, it does feel like the Sun circles the Earth. It takes, however, a bit more than that to make science.

For a while, speaking contrary to dogmas was heresy. God could never have put anything else than the Earth in the center of the Universe! How arrogant, really. We know today that the Earth is not the center of either the Universe, the Milky Way of the Solar system!

Today, other forms of such misinformation persist. One of them is Creationism. I consider there are many forms of Creationism, the first being the “reasonable one”: belief that God has created the Universe, while acknowledging the fact that the Earth is billions of years old (and further divided by acceptance or not of evolution). Such belief does not contradict science, since no scientist worth its salt has found the origins of our Universe. This isn’t really Creationism as we hear it in the news, and while it is personally a position I disagree with, it is one I also find reasonable.

The other branch however is the one that gets people talking. It’s the one saying Earth cannot be more than 6000 years old “because it says so in the Bible” (or other book – other religions too have their Young Earth Creationism, or YEC, trends). It’s the one that states all sorts of crazy things on behalf of religion. They cannot explain why are there dinosaur fossils (many “theories” state that they were peaceful herbivores who died in the flood, an insult to anyone who studied a bit zoology, paleontology or a related subject; that the fossils were “put there”, either by God to test our faith (!) or by the Devil to turn us); why we are using fossil fuels (never mind the fact that geologists know pretty well how oil, for instance, is formed, and that such knowledge has actual applications); why carbon dating and other dating methods corroborate Earth’s actual age (according to them, it is unreliable, yet their evidence relies on even less reliable methods); and so on.

In fact, Young Earth Creationists are fighting against biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archeology, chemistry and probably even other fields of research. They cite scientists supporting their beliefs – yet none, or very few, of them have real credibility. And they especially fail to understand that scientists LOVE to disprove theories. It is clear to me that the scientist who will successfully disprove evolution or the age of the Earth will enter the annals of science and join the likes of Einstein and Newton.

Creationists are also very fond of the argument that “I disproved this (not really, but they believe so anyway), hence it proves my point” – they feel that by discrediting evolution, it proves that God exists. as if evolution and God were in opposition and the only possible alternatives.

The thing is, people choose what they want to believe. When I see people turning away from some medias, citing bias, and then choose another media that is clearly biased, I see people who choose what to believe in.

They do this in regards to the environment. They choose not to believe in global warming. They probably know, or they silence their doubts; but people are more readily calling global conspiracy than are willing to cut their emissions and admit we can’t go on like this.

And the worse is when I see people claim there is some sort of conspiracy; the “Atheist conspiracy”, led by scientists to invent theories undermining the existence of God. Ha.

Such thinking is dangerous. I personally despise creationism because it appeals to ignorance. Creationism is a current that rejects reason and intelligence, plain and simple. How can someone reject reason and be so blind? How can someone call creationism a science? I dread the day Intelligent design, the so-called “scientific theory” that promotes creationism, will be taught into schools, because that day, ignorance and stupidity will have won over reason.
Creationism is indeed today’s equivalent to “the Earth is flat”.

Intolerance

Quote: Gays and lesbians are "thinking they're all right, and [God is] going to let them think that and go to hell for believing what they're doing is right," pastor Harry Craig, of Pleasant Plains Full Gospel Church, told KARK.

From CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/28/arkansas.anti.gay.bullying/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

I fell like we’re in the Middle Ages. People who still believe God’s going to send people burning in Hell because of who they are, because of their own personal, intimate choices that harm no one, or because they have different beliefs seem to come from another age, another time when people were uneducated and listened to everything the priest, pastor or whatever told them to.

I wonder why people would follow such a God? To me, a God who would send to Hell everyone who believes in something else or who do not believe, who commit "sins" (honestly, who doesn't?) or who do something that is contrary to what is said in a supposedly "Holy book" is not a good“ God. It is not someone I would wish to worship, in any way. Imagine if only one faith has it right, and whoever who does not follow THAT faith is sent to Hell.

Let’s say, for arguments sake, that God sends any non-Christian to Hell. That means all Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/atheists/agnostics/people of other faiths (too many to list them all) are by default Hell-bound. Among Christians, you then have to remove anyone who has sinned, who is homosexual, or who do not follow dogmas/acts in a non-Christian way (like, say, listening to “Satanic” music, or cheating on a spouse, or having sex out of marriage, and so on). That leaves very few people who can go to heaven. Very few people. Billions are bound to Hell. To me, that’s a tyrant, not a God.

That comment above… and that article. The guy WANTS homosexuals to commit suicide. This is beyond “saving other people’s souls”. This is sheer hatred. You really want to worship a God that encourages such behavior, that creates such hatred toward other people for WHo THEY ARE? To me, it sounds more like a Devil-ish thing to say. Of course, not everyone goes to such extremes, but the un-acceptance of groups (notably of other religions or who are homosexuals) by the Christian community (among others, they are sadly not the only ones who act in such a way) actually favors that kind of thinking. In fact, when you read the Bible, it seems to me that in the New Testament, God is a pretty sweet guy, all with the forgiving and the like. But the acts of many Christians do not reflect that.

The only explication I have come up with is that those people have either A) an irrational hatred of people who are different (gays, Jews or whatever) so their beliefs are tainted by such hatred or B) an illogical and selective reading of the Bible (or whatever Holy book – like I said, Christians are not the only group in this boat!) so that their God is sometimes forgiving and caring and sometimes hateful and vengeful, ready to send souls in Hell for not conforming!
And here’s another question: Why would a being of such immense power and intelligence, capable of creating universes and life, need to impose some morals upon mortals? Not killing, I can see why; a supreme being, if there is any, would not want us to kill each other. But sexual orientation? Belief in Him? The whole notion of sin seems out of place for a God. It would be more logical if he asked us to protect our planet - that he gave to us. But the Bible, the Quran and most books used by modern religion are surprisingly quiet on the matter. In the end, it just seems... like whatever is written in the Bible comes from human minds; what if, instead of using a few sentences In a book written millennia ago to justify our prejudices we’d simply agree not to harm each other? What if we’d recognize that belief and spirituality are very personal things, that are meant to be discussed but not imposed? I guess we’d be making progress.

Tea Party and the separation of Church and State

What amazes me here is that a group calling for less intervention from the government in their own affairs are actually calling for government to be dictating their values – Christian values. One would think that the notion of a government dictating the values of its citizen, telling them what to THINK and what to believe, is much more intrusive than a government regulating the business world. Apparently, “Tea Party” and “intelligence” are words that don’t seem to go well in the same sentence, except if one were to add “lack of" in front of the second word…

Separation of Church and State is one of the better thing that has happened to society. Those who preach freedom forget that states run by the Church are often the ones that have less freedoms. Think of most Muslim countries like Iran or Afghanistan. But even on a more down to earth level, Separation of Church and State is important simply because even under one religion, not everyone agrees. Belief is extremely personal and subjective, and even dogmas and rituals are subject to interpretation. Moreover, any society that does not distinguish between Church and State will by default quash the notion of equality: it will create “second-rate citizens”, i.e. those who do not believe, who believe in something different.

In the end, that is an agenda moved by fundamentalists whose mentality depicts everything that is so despicable with religion: they don’t want people to think by themselves, they don’t want freedom, they don’t want anything good for the country or for the world. They want sheep. Just. Fucking. Sheep. It is because of those morons, who believe in creationism – or, sorry, “intelligent” design” – who spew hate toward any other group, who demonize everything, from music to video games to just about anything, that the world is going under. They’re the ones who “save lives” by fighting abortion – making money and achieving positions of authority in the process. They are a cancer, a hideous disease that eats away logic, reasoning, intelligence. The fact is, maybe the right has a point – as I said, I consider myself a centrist: one cannot rule efficiently for long under a leftist agenda, in my opinion. Yet somehow, the right becomes tainted by those who would turn back to an age, a dark age when people feared a wrathful god.

Maybe it’s the agnostic in me that’s speaking, but to see anyone fighting so fiercely to impose his values, supposedly decided by a God, is making me sick. I hate those people almost as much as I hate the madmen who bomb themselves because someone twisted their own fate into sheer hatred.
Think my comparison is unfair? Try to come up with one logical argument in favor for a Christian state. Tell me to burn in Hell, I don’t care. If God is like the one the fundamentalists depict, then I’ll be glad to. But most likely, they are wrong, and if God truly exists, he is ashamed of them.

Are we corrupted?

As you may or may not know, the magazine McLean’s has published an article that is making headlines around Canada. It states that Quebec is the province with the most corrupted politicians; on the cover, we can see Bonhomme Carnaval, official mascot of Quebec City’s festival, holding a case filled with dollar bills. I personally thought it’s a genius cover, although I understand why people associated with the Carnaval de Québec are angry, since they are not the article’s targets, yet their image is used to illustrate corruption in Quebec.

I haven’t read the article, I plan on doing it out of curiosity. However, I’m questioning people’s reaction towards the article, since I feel a lot of people are reacting without having read it.

Jean Charest, prime minister of Quebec, is currently under suspicion of having influenced provincial judges’ attributions, and also of having deals with construction syndicates, which are themselves associated with organized crime. Currently, as of this writing, a commission is underway. Most Quebeckers, according to a survey, believe the accusations of Bellemare against the prime minister. In other words, most Quebeckers believe their prime minister is corrupted.

The writer of McLean’s article made one mistake: he wrote the article too soon. More recent proofs seem to show that Bellemare accusations might not be founded (I have to admit it's mostly a matter of credibility, but in my mind, Bellemare's credibility is not strong enough to condemn Charest).

Yet the outrage the magazine has had to endure is disproportionate. As far as I know, it might be right. If our politicians are truly corrupted, we should side with the magazine and fight corruption; if they appear corrupted, but are not, then it is a matter of changing their image. Still, Quebeckers themselves do not trust their own politicians. Lastly, if there is no proof whatsoever, as I believe is the case, the article might have been a mistake, and the reaction of Quebec’s people is also disproportionate.

So what prompted this reaction? If we so easily distrust Jean Charest and the politicians in general, why are we condemning the McLean’s for making the same assumptions we do? The answer is that people felt that they were being attacked. Of course, lines like "Quebec, the most corrupted province" and such do not send a very positive image. But I do not feel like I’m being accused of corruption. I feel like we should do something about it, read what McLean’s has to say with a cool temper, evaluate what has prompted the writing of such an article, decide whether to give it credit.

Moreover, I didn’t want to say it, but I strongly believe part of this scuffle with McLean’s is due to the fact that a Canadian, English-language magazine "attacked” our poor province. That is to say, I think if a Quebecker, French-language magazine had run the same article with the same cover, the scandal would have been much smaller.

Finally, a word about some of the people whose reaction is so over the top, it's hard for me to refrain from calling them stupid: those who canceled their magazine subscription, not with McLean’s, but with L’actualité. L’actualité is a French magazine owned by the same group as McLean’s, but the two are independent. I can’t believe such people: trying to punish the owner of the magazine? What, would those people prefer it if Rogers, owner of both McLean’s and L’actualité, had such a close hand with what is published that it would have stopped the journalist from publishing the inflammatory article? What about freedom of the press? At some degree, I understand some Quebecker’s outrage, in a way, even if I disagree. But going so far, I think is irresponsible. I’d rather have articles like that in McLean’s than end up with politically-correct press all over and articles dictated by corporations afraid of hurting the sensibilities of a few.

Don’t ask don’t tell policy NOT repealed

Apparently, Senate has voted against the bill se to repeal the controversial policy. Under that policy, the army can’t ask whether an individual is heterosexual or not, but soldiers cannot openly profess their homosexuality.

The question is, was the repeal necessary? The army, as it stands, does not prevent gays from serving, it just prevents them from openly showing their orientation. Arguments for both sides are numerous, but among the ones that come up often is that the policy is unconstitutional (which I agree with; it shouldn’t have been enforced in the first place), the policy asks gay soldiers to act like someone they’re not; on the flip side, people mention the fact that gays have served in the army for years without complaining (but I guess those who would complain would get in trouble, so that argument does not really stand…) and that heterosexual would not like sharing their dorms and showers with homosexuals.

This latter point might be understandable, but I feel it does not stand for two reasons. First, the fact that they hide they are homosexuals does not change anything; if it makes you uncomfortable sharing accommodations with gays, well, too bad, you probably already do. Second, I feel that in this day and age, we should be able to forget cosmetic differences, be they age, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, especially if one works to protect his country.

That said, I don’t think it’s a huge defeat for gays and lesbians; I think it’s a setback, one that shows where the Republican party (along with some Democrat senators) stand on equality. From a citizen viewpoint, the fight for the bill might matter, or not; one might see it as a bill that will set things straight, or waste money for a small percentage of soldiers. Their reservations toward this fight is clearly justified. From a senator viewpoint, however, aside from homophobia, what incited them to vote against the bill? It’s not for money, the money spent for promoting the bill has already been spent; time in the chamber has already been lost. Only a clear and deep resentment toward gay, or the will to make political gain from conservative voters, can have pushed them to do so. A waste for everyone.

On a side note, I’ve seen in a few days a few comments about “homophobia”, along the lines of “I am not homophobe, I’m not afraid of gays”. Those people don’t understand that the word “phobia” here is not used in the sense of fear, rather in the sense of aversion; as such, homophobia is not fear of gays, it’s aversion towards gays. The error is understandable given the number of fears whose technical names end in “-phobia”. It just marks one as uneducated (rightly or not) when one speaks against gays and then says “it’s not homophobia, I’m not afraid of homosexuals!”