Does it seem strange to you that the Chinese government has censored blogspot but has reopened wikipedia? It seems strange to me. Supposedly they employ something like 30,000 people for web censorship. I wish they’d censor some of the spam flooding into my website.
The Chinese don’t mind the censorship. Unlike North Americans, they’re perfectly willing to sacrifice freedom of expression for the good of the state. I had a discussion in one of my adult classes on the topic of free expression, with Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” as the theme text. My students all agreed that it was an excellent song and a good protest. They said that freedom of expression should be allowed, as in Dylan’s song, but only with government approval. I mentioned that most 60s protestors weren’t interested in government approval; in fact were interested in directly opposing government actions at the time. This was difficult for them to comprehend. Their whole way of thinking is geared such that if there is dissonance between state and individual, the state wins out, no questions asked. There were unanimous on this point.
What about people on the margins of state policies, I asked (using very different language). What about people for whom state good simply does not coincide? They could hardly understand what I meant: of course they will submit themselves to the state, they said. We do not think like westerners about individual rights. The state good is the individual good.
Some might argue this is simply due to the propoganda of the last 50 years, but I don’t think so. Confucion modes of thinking, though altered, remain strong despite the cultural revolution which claimed to throw off old ways of thinking and living. There certainly have been changes that don’t fit with strict Confucion morality, but the general ordering of society remains the same. It will be interesting to see what happens as the one-child generation, pampered as they are not only by their parents but two sets of grandparents, and used to getting their own way, grows up.
[1]
I really have no special love of politics, or even political discussions. Somehow I always let myself be sucked into them, as you can see from my last few entries. Due to my lack of love for the field, I respect politicians who are capable of putting themselves in the crossfire of political debate – a place I would never want to be. As Bob Dylan said, and supposedly Abe Lincoln before him, “Half the people can be part right all of the time, and some of the people can be all right part of the time, but all of the people can’t be all right all of the time” (World War III Blues). With money, relationships, ideologies, and lives all at stake, this makes politics a disastrous, though necessary, discipline.
Personally, I’d rather be talking theology, philosophy, or (especially) literature. I promise myself that the preceding paragraph are the last words on politics that will appear on Coal, apart from those in the comments section, for the next while.
[3]
Edward Gomez has written an article entitled, Bush signs torture bill; Americans lose essential freedom.
If I were to write an article, it would be called, “Journalists write ‘torture’, people lose minds”.
To be clear from the start, the purpose of this post is not to defend or condemn the recently signed Military Commissions Bill. The purpose is to defend the Bush administration against claims that they are despots, tyrants, and idiots. It is a response to a post by a friend and the ensuing comments. It’s faddish to dislike the leaders of the Republican party with a passion. I think it’s an ugly fad.
More
[12]
A disabled Winnipeg boy named Brian McKay was recently attacked by several children aged 8 to 11. They shoved him into a shack, lit it on fire, and left him. He was saved and after a brief stay in the hospital due to smoke inhalation, released.
The question is: what to do with the perpetrators, who are currently untouchable by the Youth Criminal Justice Act?
My coworker suggests some time, unsupervised, in a burn ward. At the very least one would expect community service: a punishment that would do no emotional or psychological damage to the children. But no, any such measures would be ‘draconian’, says Liberal justice critic Sue Barnes.
I hate that word, as uttered. It’s modern usage represents the least subtle form of political rhetoric, which sadly is also one of the most common. The word itself is a reference to Draco, the first law scribe of Athens in the 7th century BCE. His prescribed punishments were indeed harsh, yet the people of Athens loved him so much they killed him. He walked into a packed auditorium one day, and they joyfully flung their coats and hats all over the stage. He was smothered and already dead by the time they dug him out.
‘Draconian’ is one of those adjectives which, when thrown about, tends to smother any real attempts at political conversation. For a complete list of similar conversation stoppers, just watch Thank You For Smoking. Or read your daily newspaper. They are usually representative of reaction, no thought, no imagination, plain and simple; though even these words can be used skillfully and appropriately on occasion.
In regard to the case at hand, ‘draconian’ would be throwing the perpetrators into the same shed and relighting the fire. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that yet – not even those backwards-thinking Conservatives.
The main argument opposing state action on children under 12 is that modern psychology suggests that these children are unable to understand that their actions have consequences. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, children retain a basic sense of right and wrong. We all know this, because we were all children once. If you’ve forgotten, let Augustine jog your memory. The fact that they believe themselves capable of doing wrong without serious consequences only adds a reason to teach them otherwise. And we’re not talking about a ‘draconian’ death penalty or lifetime slavery; I suspect even Sue Barnes could come up with a suitable punishment for children under the age of 12 that would be beneficial to all, with a little imagination. Even a little thought would probably sufffice.
Professor Kokkarinen, quoted in the previous post for humour’s sake, is quitting his blog, Sixteen Volts.
His reflective about-face is fascinating and heartening to me, and I highly recommend reading his last few posts if you’re the least bit interested. Character conversions, like all conversions, have always had full command of my attention, even when they are only in the stages of intentionality. At any rate, I think it’s only fair to give him his voice back now that I’ve finished laughing at his folly.
A Professor at Ryerson University is in some trouble for making sexist comments on his blog. I though you might like to read this:
Kokkarinen [the professor] admits he could have phrased his opinions a lot better in one of his posts, such as the one dated April 19.
He wrote: “I have never really understood how lesbian separatism could work even in principle, since few modern women would want to live in what is essentially a stone age society, which is pretty much what women could ever achieve on their own without men around.”
He goes on to say that the feminists would live off the “generous” welfare cheques provided by men, “assuming that they wanted to eat (and usually lesbians do eat a lot, as you can tell just by looking at them).”
I think he phrased his opinions quite clearly the first time around.
~~
Also: an interesting counter-factual regarding the foiled Heathrow bomb plot.
~~
Edit: To be fair to Kakkarinen, he is really quite repentant. Still, the fact that it would be hard to be less politically correct than these quotes are is pretty funny.
[12]
I haven’t given a great deal of thought to climate change in the past. I’ve dismissed it with a “Hurrah, it’s getting warmer!” and the belief that North American climate change activists are usually people who don’t want to bother with the great Whys of humanity, and give themselves purpose by latching on to the self-evidently good cause of preserving the natural world (and saving it from human self-destruction).
Not to say that I’ve ever been against Sustainability. Only a fool would deny that choosing a nature-friendly an approach to human interaction with world will be the most beneficial for everyone in the long run, even economically. If only the rest of the world would follow the fine example of Cuban agronomy. And this, you know if you watch The Nature of Things, is precisely the kind of thing Dr. Suzuki wants to see.
I have nothing against Sustainability. Rather, I have little trust for the anti-consummerist, anti-religion, pro-spirituality, No-Logo, Adbuster emotivist crowd that seem to be the most vocal on these topics. I don’t trust their sources, their motives, or even their knowledge of themselves and their movements. I’m certain they are capable of trumping up charges to bolster the legitimacy of their causes without realizing their own deceptions.
On the other hand, there are people like Canada’s “most trusted scientist”, David Suzuki, who provide a vital link between the population and the scientific community that is so often encountered in random statistics and so seldom heard in a reliable capacity. “Scientists agree…” is the usual line. I don’t trust it. But when Dr. Suzuki says, “scientists agree” (and he’s been saying for some time, I know), I think I need to listen.
I also think I know unfair representation when I see it. The David Suzuki Foundation website provides information regarding the tactics and arguments of “The Skeptics.” The report may be accurate, but at the same time it is broadly and generally dismissive of skeptics, and fails to report, much less engage significant objections.
The writer affirms that “some level of debate is of course useful when looking at major social problems” and then adds, “eventually society needs to move on and actually address the issue.” Well yes, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. What I want to know is, if the skeptics are undeniably wrong, why don’t we ever hear the reasons? How hard could it be do address their objections?
The synopsis of the skeptics (1) uses the (in this case partly valid) ad hominem that many of them are not professional scientists who engage the questions in legitimate scientific circles, and (2) accuses them of inconsistency on the grounds that they have forwarded “a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change – some of which actually contradict each other.”
Both of these points require qualification. Consider the second first: perhaps there has been inconsistency, but an inconsistent diagnosis of climate change is still a diagnosis of climate change – and not really the point being made by the majority of the skeptics who are hesitant to take drastic action in any direction. The Foundation is confusing two groups of dissenter: those who believe in other forms of climate change with those who simply aren’t willing to put unlimited trust in the current scientific majority. More to the point is the inconsistency of the diagnoses within the scientific community itself which has resulted in the paralyzation of the group in question.
In the 1970s climate change activism was a big issue, but back then the warning to the populous and state differed in one very central detail. On April 2 of this year, George Will (not a scientist) made an attempt to jog America’s memory:
While worrying about Montana’s receding glaciers, Prof. Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”
The problem isn’t that people are unwilling to listen to the scientists. The problem is that the scientists themselves have failed to provide a consistent diagnosis of the problem. Which brings us back to the first point. The ‘skeptics’ may not be, in the majority, scientists themselves. But that doesn’t mean they can’t read a history book and see very clearly that scientists do not always get it right. Or that, in this case, they went from one pole to the other in a span of under 30 years – a number that hardly registers in climatological terms.
It is strange how the scientific community, which prides itself on it’s lack of bias and open-mindedness, has become one of the most reactionary and closed-minded of communities in actual practice. People like George Will aren’t saying they’re wrong about climate change, but they are pointing out that the sense of urgency commonly fed to the public is clearly a rhetorical tool that clouds the entire subject.
I’m reminded of a Public Square snippet in First Things regarding one man’s drastic proposal regarding climate change. I’ve appended the entire paragraph to the end of the entry.
I obviously don’t know whether or not the Earth is heating up. I do know that some very respectable men and women believe it is. In light of this fact I’ve decided to begin informing myself regarding the issues surrounding this debate. It’s unfortunate that so many of the key players are unwilling to acknowledge that there is a debate.
One final thing. Ad hominem’s fly, sadly, both ways. The most common one leveled against the “Skeptics” is that they are afraid of the truths science reports because they are potentially damaging to the Coal and Oil industries. I can think of two objections to this accusation. It may be true that some in the energy industry use confusion regarding climate change to their advantage, but that does invalidate the sincerity of the beliefs forwarded and the questions raised. Secondly, Will George points out,
perhaps the “problem” is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
That’s all from me for now. I’d love to hear from people who have looked more into this kind of thing in the past.
To The End of the Entry
[4]
It really is strange how popstars seem to crystallize their characters during youth. Most of them just don’ t grow up. Even stranger is the way the rest of the world goes along with it. I mean, seriously, a member of the Duma? What would the Trotsky have said? What would Nicholas II have said? What would Krushev have hit?
[3]
Some time ago we had a little conversation about the relationship between a Bible school’s religious and political interests. This is actually the second time returning to the question, though I personally have nothing new to add. I just thought you might like to read what Alan Jacobs has to say about it. Perhaps once I have a little more time on my hands, I’ll try to add some kind of commentary. For now, I’ll just recommend reading the article.
In case you need to know what side of the fence Jacobs lands on before continuing, here is his concluding paragraph:
The Reformation may not be over, but many of the suspicions and hostilities that accompanied it should be. Wheaton could strike a great blow, not for insipid and vacuous “moral and religious influences,” but for true Christian unity, if it welcomed into its midst Josh Hochschild and other Catholic teacher-scholars who share his passion for Christian truth.
It has been pointed out that the University is on the margins of American life (under this heading one might include Canadian). Almost all of my peers and I have been submersed in this margin for the past several years, and I imagine that we often have little clue as to how the rest of North America really thinks and feels. The shows we watch are our shows, the news we read is our news, the ideas we bat around are our ideas, and the music we listen to is our music. Students run their fingers along the surface of almost every aspect of public life, but often forget that most people are submersed within one of those aspects. Most people don’t have the freedom to flit from here to there and back again at will.
It’s easy for students, particularly in Arts degrees, to get tangled up in their ideas and think that they can somehow change the world, or that the world will stand up and care one day soon. This is a lie.
It’s easy for students to, having rejected the dumb philosophy of the masses, think that they have ipso facto bettered themselves. This is a bigger lie.
Aaron had an entry in the Red River Media Festival, or whatever it was called, so I went to see what kind of media our Red River students are producing. Most of it was vacuous horror or contentless virtuousity, but the few ‘messages’ there were seemed typical for the early college mindset that cries, “I’m not a part of that (naive consumer-driven) world, I’m an individual, don’t try to put me in a box”. Okay okay, those who were there know that I’m drawing out what were really very few entries. The empirical evidence to support my case isn’t, in this case, overwhelming. But what I’ve repeatedly seen in University settings is this: the rejection of a certain kind of conservative (political and religious), capitalist, suburbia-located, consumer-based middle class lifestyle, which apparently shoves its denizens into fearful little boxes suited for the markets they live in. This rejection is usually followed by a mild sort of socialism, informed at best by the incisive criticisms of comedians like John Stewart and his ilk. Having made this gargantuan leap from their old suburbian faith to new social-awareness, these students seem to think they have made it intellectually, and if the rest of the world would only wake up and listen to their astonishingly simple but profound message, things would begin looking up in the world.
Oh, how wonderful to be naive.
Previous