Umberto Eco has discovered the theological basis of the Mac/PC schism

Just an excerpt, but almost too good to be true:

Umberto Eco's piece on Mac and DOS, Catholic and Protestant

Technorati Tags: computers , culture , Mac , PC , Umberto Eco , writing

Story of my life...

5 more minutes?

Louise Arbour lays the smack down

 TheStar.com | News | Canada's human rights stance questioned

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I am a huge admirer of Ms. Arbour. Not only is she the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but she has been a Canadian Supreme Court Justice and a Prosecutor at ICTY, and a law professor. So when she says Canada is falling down on the job, human-rights wise, I believe her (notwithstanding that I was already of the same opinion). On the other hand, will the government believe her? Doubtful. She'll get written off by the current administration as another bleeding-heart crackpot.

And OMG, this just occurred to me: Arbour should run for PM.

Security Certificate Redux

 

TheStar.com | Canada | Ottawa tackles terror laws

It looks like Canada is adopting the British system. I suppose its an improvement, if you ignore the whole "depriving people of their basic civil rights" thing.

Something you never knew about swearing...

 

I guarantee it. Care of this Language Log post from 12 June 2004.

 

Money quote, from Matthew 5:12-22 (KJV):

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Or as UPenn Linguistics Prof Mark Liberman explains, the olde timmey prohibition against calling someone stupid (including classifying it as a "swear word", which always scandalized me as a child) has a scriptural basis. Liberman indicates that "Raca" is the equivalent of a good-for-nothing; so insulting someone's reputation might have social consequences, but insulting someone's intelligence would have spiritual consequences. Interesting, since my gut feeling is that it should be the other way around (assuming the Powers That Be care when you cuss, which I doubt...)

What the... "BBC NEWS | South Asia | Monkeys kill Delhi deputy mayor"

So this pops up in my RSS feeder:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Monkeys kill Delhi deputy mayor

That...that's got to be a joke, right? RIGHT?

I love these far far far too much...

Which Office Character Are You?
	You are Ryan. You are extremely smart and perceptive, and it irritates you to no end when inferior people try to tell you what to do. Sometimes, though, your critical eye makes you come off as aloof and bitter to others, and it may take awhile for people to get to know you.
Find Your Character @ BrainFall.com

I get told on Constitutional amendment

If you follow The Court (link at right), you'll note (in the comments) that I recently forgot the exception to the Byzantine constitutional amendment procedures for amendments which only apply to one province. As another commenter pointed out, only the permission of the provincial parliament is needed for certain amendments, including the religious schools provision. I blogged about this recently as well. Oops? In my defence, it's been two years since I took constitutional law...no, nevermind, I'm just terrible.

Bitch Ph.D. lays out the pro-choice POV

The always-interesting Bitch Ph.D. has laid out the POV of pro-choice advocates in clear concise language, and with the same "come ON people" attitude I approach the issue.

The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries | Cracked.com

 

The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries | Cracked.com

Okay yes, I have a juvenile love for top x lists...who doesn't?

 

And can I add...CRACKED has a website? WTF?

Dear Green Party: You have READ the Constitution, right?

UPDATE: see http://thinkingoutloudblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-get-told-on-constitutional-amendment.html

Feeling: ow my head
Hearing: my parents' CPU is loud

So I'm flipping through the EYE on the bus home, and I come across this:

FAITH IN EDUCATION
The 2007 provincial election will forever be known as the one that put the government funding of faith-based schools in the spotlight. John Tory was smart to put this idea in the minds of the media and voters early on in his campaign – with so much debate around funding religious schools, there's less opportunity to reflect on the grave damage the previous conservative government under Mike Harris did to our schools. Our education system is still recovering from those dark days and, so far in this election, the question of how we should move forward hasn't received the attention it deserves.
...
...
And the Greens? On top of their plan to eliminate all funding for religious education in Ontario (Catholic schools included), they would also, among other
things, end standardized testing and increase environmental education.

Uhm, what? Don't get me wrong...I'd like to see that happen...but a little thing called the Constitution prevents it. According to the Constitution Act, 1867:

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:
(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal
under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.

And yes, GPO, the UN Human Rights body has criticised this, but then, it has never, ever, understood federalism. You should. YOU'RE CANADIAN!

Read more about the Green Party's well-meaning but bug-shit crazy education poicy here (it's a pdf): http://www.gpo.ca/sites/greenparty.on.ca/files/GPO%20on%20Education%202007.pdf

OPINIO JURIS (blawg): "YouTube, the ICTY, and Authenticity of Evidence"

Just when you thought the internet really was for porn, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia brings us this: Opinio Juris YouTube, the ICTY, and Authenticity of Evidence

CCR Release: Refugee system made vulnerable

 

Release: Refugee system made vulnerable

Well, this is patently ridiculous. By not appointing new Members as others' terms lapse, the government has managed to reduce the number of adjudicators by almost 40% through sheer attrition. Apparently it would take two and a half years to get through the backlog. About a year and a half ago, we were well on our way to eliminating the backlog and achieving a one-year processing period. All this does is encourage more people to file sketchy claims because even if they fail it will have bought them 2 to 5 years in Canada. Not to mention keeping legitimate refugees in uncertain situations for 2 to 5 years.

BBC: "Couple stand by forbidden [incestuous] love"

I know I've posted about this before, but it was revived this week due to Slate's sex and sexuality special, and I can't help being fascinated by it. The story is here.

The thing that attracts/repulses me about this how it tests my small-l liberal impulses. They're not exactly hurting anyone by having the relationship, except the kids (two of the four have special needs, and apparently there's a 50% chance of that with siblings). But what if you and your non-related partners were both carriers of a genetic disease, and there was a 50% chance your children would inherit? Should the state prevent you from having kids, much less getting married?

 

On a related note, I was looking up autosomal recessive disorders  for the purpose of understanding the above, and I came across this nugget of trivia: heterozygote advantage: certain pathological genetic disorders can help protect you from other diseases! Apparently being a sickle-cell anemia carrier brings enhanced protection against malaria, and being a cystic fibrosis carrier may help protect against cholera (not the infection, but the damage it does) and tuberculosis.

And in case you doubt how helpful an extra protection against malaria would be, the July 2007 issue of National Geographic has this to say:

It's endemic to 106 nations, threatening half the world's population. In recent years, the parasite has grown so entrenched and has developed resistance to so many drugs that the most potent strains can scarcely be controlled. This year malaria will strike up to a half billion people. At least a million will die, most of them under age five, the vast majority living in Africa. That's more than twice the annual toll a generation ago.

Compare that to the WHO 2006 data on HIV/AIDS:

...an estimated 39.5 million people are living with HIV. There were 4.3 million new infections in 2006 with 2.8 million (65%) of these occurring in sub-Saharan Africa and important increases in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where there are some indications that infection rates have risen by more than 50% since 2004. In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS-related illnesses.

HIV/AIDS = 4.3 million infections   Malaria = 500 million infections

HIV/AIDS = 2.9 million deaths   Malaria = 1 million deaths

And bear in mind, there is no cure for HIV/AIDS, whereas there are plenty of cheap malaria drugs. It can become a lifelong, chronic condition, but it can also be fought off by the immune system alone. So all in all, as horrifying as the HIV/AIDS epidemic is, malaria is worse.

I coulda been a shepherd

According to this Medieval vocational test, a millenium ago, I would have been a shepherd:

Your distinct personality, The Shepherd is to tend to your human flock. You understand the needs of those for whom you are responsible. Shepherds are vigilant and reliable. You realize your obligation and commitment to the well being of those entrusted to your care. Shepherds are very dependable. You engender a feeling of comfort and stability to those within your charge. On the positive side, Shepherds can be empathic, caring, understanding, practical and realistic. On the negative side, you may be manipulative, close-minded and sentimentally rigid. Interestingly, your preference is just as applicable in today's corporate kingdoms.

The ubiquity of my profanity

I decided to take a cue from Language Log, wherein Google is often used to take straw polls of usage, and see how common my occasionally odd turns of profane phrase are. Here are the stats:

• "Oh my gentle Jesus": 1,610 hits, and notably featured on That 70's Show, episode 6X07:  "CHRISTMAS" (December 11, 2003)
• "Sweet merciful motherf**k": unique! Woot!
• "Green and gracious God": also unique. But possibly a bastardization of "great and gracious God," for which there are over 3,000 hits
• "F**k f**k f**kity-f**k": only 888 hits, but also has an entry on UrbanDictionary.com
• "Mom-effing": 65 hits
• "Mom-effer": 3 hits
• "Mom-effing mom-effer" (my preferred usage): unique!

This is excellent news. I'd hate for my swearing to be common. I didn't bother searching for "Jiminy Cricket" on the assumption that many cites would be referring to this fella:

than would be referring to the euphemism.

Testing, testing, 4, 5, 6...

Feeling: productive
Hearing: the Dog Whisperer

Now I miss the LJ-style headers. Must find a way to include those...

One thing I miss about LJ

Is the friends page!

Mind you, everyone but me seems to have curtailed their bloggery by a huge amount.

Nevertheless, how will I monitor the minutiae of the lives of my friends/acquaintances?

And I need to find a way to inflict my icons on you people...bwahahaha

Good news for a change: WaPo says bin Laden "Sinking in the Polls"

According to yesterday's column in the Washington Post:

• Currently, bin Laden is unpopular with over 90% of Afghanistan and Iraq
• "... polling in Turkey two years ago found that 90% of citizens believe the al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust and unfair; 86% thought that there was no excuse for condoning the Sept. 11 attacks; and 75% said bin Laden does not represent Muslims."
• Support for "justifiable" suicide bombings has fallen from 74% to 34% in Lebanon, with similar declines in other Muslim-majority countries
• Majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, and Morocco agree: "Groups that use violence against civilians, such as Al Qaida, are violating the principles of Islam. Islam opposes the use of such violence."

Now, perhaps this should be taken with something of a grain of salt, since the author is undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. She also conflates one problem--popular support for terrorism--with an unrelated issue--the lack of popular support for the US.

While it is good that many Muslims are recognizing that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are a common threat, many polls show that much remains to be done to improve foreign perceptions of the United States. The drop in support for violent extremists presents an opportunity to expand our efforts to nurture common interests with people overseas and work with them to counter al-Qaeda's attempts to radicalize young people.

Al-Qaeda's growing Internet propaganda activities glorify violence and seek to exploit local grievances, from political oppression to a lack of economic opportunities. In contrast, America's public diplomacy programs are engaging young people constructively, through English-language teaching, educational exchanges, music and sports diplomacy.

While I truly feel Ms. Hughes's heart is in the right place, two years of critical theory being pounded into me at Oz definitely makes my scrunch up my nose at some of these statements. I find the first statement (underlined, above) more than a little patronizing. ("While it is good that Susie has learned to use her words, she must be more patient and wait for her turn to speak in class.") I'm also amused/perturbed by the unexamined promotion of cultural hegemony contained in the last statement. And she states that al-Qaeda is exploiting "local grievances" without acknowledging that these "grievances" are sometimes as severe as crimes against humanity, and are often perpetuated by the US or its erstwhile allies.

 

...oh dear. I do believe law school has made me cynical.

More on the veil controversy

An editorial in Tuesdays Globe & Mail deconstructs the to-do over women voting with veils. It is not a policy change or an accommodation--leaving aside the issue if such an accommodation should be made. As the editorial states:

...the rules designed by Parliament for that purpose do not require photo identification. ... Voters don't have to show a photo identification card for the simple reason that many - those without drivers' licenses, for instance - do not have such a card. That is why the Elections Act offers alternatives. Those without government-issued photo ID may show two pieces of identification approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, as long as one shows their address. Or they may have another voter vouch for them (no more than one person per "voucher"), if each swears an oath.

But much more concerning is this:

Mr. Harper surely knows what that law says. His government passed it with opposition support earlier this year. He also knows that eligible voters living temporarily abroad may vote by mail; they do not show their face, except to a mailbox. Yet on the weekend in Sydney, he accused Mr. Mayrand of defying the will of Parliament. "The role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws." This false accusation against an independent Officer of Parliament smacks of intimidation.

Well, goodness gracious. There's the resolution of the whole thing right there. Yet, of course, the blathering continues. Many articles every day on the subject.

But worse...so much worse it makes me gnash my teeth in anguished rage...is this ridiculous editorial from Sheila Copps in the Edmonton Sun. Now, full disclosure, the snarky Torontonian academic in me can't even say "Edmonton Sun" without smirking, but she is kind of an elitist bitch. Nevertheless, Copps misses the boat alluded to in the G&M piece:

The law states that the voter is required to provide satisfactory proof of identity and address. How can identity be verified if electoral authorities cannot validate photo identification?

...

The PM was right to slam Mayrand's harebrained interpretation of election law. All political parties should be wary of someone who exhibits so little understanding of the obvious potential for voter abuse.

No, no, no, Ms. Copps. What happened was, Parliament passed a woefully incomplete law, and now Mayrand is being slammed for interpreting it. It's just like when they flip out at judges for imposing the democratically-imposed Charter. Sure, he could have been more creative with his interpretation, but he might have gotten into just as much trouble for being "activist." He interpreted it (a) according to common sense, and (b) in a way that would allow the most people to vote. As always, it's open to Parliament to change the laws, and as almost always, it's easier for them to blame those forced to interpret and apply those laws for doing it wrong, rather than admit that the laws themselves have loopholes. Hindsight is 20/20, and all that jazz.

The Globe had it right:

Mr. Harper and the other leaders should take their own advice. They should respect the voting law, and not single out veiled women for special treatment.

As they say in politics: Oh, snap.