Canadian Politics out-of-order (for helium.com)

http://www.helium.com/items/1728382-canadian-politics-out-of-order

A comment on Canadian Nationalism for helium.com

Canadian nationalism has changed in two distinct ways. One of these changes is a long term product of my generation coming of age. The other has developed in the last five years, the same amount of time as Stephen Harper’s conservatives have held a minority government.

But what is Canadian Nationalism?

When I was a little boy, in the late 70's, I became aware of the cultural differences between the United States and Canada. I understood how it took longer for movies to make it to our cinemas, records to our music shop, and magazines to our stands. I saw the differences between American and Canadian television illustrated by “The Bionic Man” vs. “The Beachcombers.” I began watching news programs by ten, (I was a serious boy) and I noticed how our news was “the American news plus Canadian,” while their news was only American. I heard the jokes about how Americans’ thought we all lived in igloos and ate seal meat. (None of this particularly affected me as it was explained to me early that people are not their nations and ideas are not necessarily reality.) I guess I’m particularly well suited to discuss any differences between these groups as I have a Canadian Father and American Mother, both intellectuals.

I can recall my parents discussing “the easiest way to tell the difference between an American and a Canadian is to suggest to each that there is no difference, whichever one complains is an American.” I can’t recall who said it and I’ve been, so far, unable to prove that it is even a quote at all. In my teens, when one has to begin deciding one’s stance on certain internal questions, I realised my definition of what it was to be Canadian. I believe this definition would be considered fair by any Canadian, except perhaps for those who believe there is no distinction in the philosophies of the two nations, (which is a growing minority.)

It used to be that a Canadian was meek compared to our boisterous neighbours. Known for our politeness, the humble Canadian that my Generation was raised to be seems to be revolting. For we, as individuals, want attention and the only way we’re going to get it is to make noise. Unfortunately, what we are failing to realise is that “the way it was” before things changed is “the way it should be.” The things that used to make us distinctly Canadian were what everybody loved about us. We were respected, even honoured by our reputation. When an American college student went backpacking in Europe, in 1986, he or she would be well served by sewing a Canadian flag on their pack. Our position was deserved. We were meek, we were polite and our pride was that we were proud quietly. We we’re gentlemen and ladies.

I certainly don’t wish to convey the message that Canadians are weak, we are not measuring the courage or even the psychology of the Canadian mindset, one only need to look at Canadian sacrifice in world war two to find these things. By addressing nationalism we only address the pride in our identity as a collective. Indeed, just living in Canada requires an individual physical and mental toughness deserving of respect. Perhaps it was my Generations realisation of this fact that contributed to our philosophy that “to be Canadian is to be not American.” At any rate, the humble, apologetic Canadian is becoming extinct. We have been replaced by the shouting, aggressive, flag waving pride of a Molson beer commercial. Such as it is, individuals are encouraged to build their nationalism upon principles of competition rather than cooperation. This is the argument responsible for everything that is going wrong on the planet, under your own roof, in the movements of government, on poppy fields in Afghanistan.

At least part of the reason for this shift is the changing appearance of our identity on the world stage. Siding with Americans in the interest of business during the Bush years is a marriage of convenience between neo-conservatives. The difference being that, with Bush gone and Harper not, our shame continues. We, like America, will not sign environmental treaties and have become the laughing stock of forward thinking nations, such as in northern Europe. We, like America, will ravage our own lands and waters to squeeze out every last drop of oil using even the most ineffectual and damaging methods, such as evidenced by the Alberta tar sands project.

If you doubt the validity of my argument that Conservatism is, at least, partially to blame for the Americanization of Canadian nationalism, consider how we are perceived now as compared to during our previous Prime Minister’s term. Just prior to Stephen Harper’s minority government, Liberal Canada was the darling of the planet: Green, forward thinking, economically sound and socially responsible. Mr. Martin had even the ear of hip, cool and conscious pop icons such as Bono. This hipness has been replaced with cutthroat capitalistic concerns and our coolness has become cold indifference.

What can we do to turn this around? How can we restore proper, deserved Canadian nationalism? How can we be the country we can be proud of again? Simply put, we must remember who it is we used to be. For we thirty somethings, coming into power, we must take it upon ourselves to remind fore and aft generations of what it was that made us great. We must expose the things that hinder this achievement and then remove them. We must strive to not put our nationalism before the pride of any other nation. Certainly one can imagine a respectable future as easily as one can remember the pride we used to feel for treating everyone properly.

It’s actually a remarkably simple idea.

Go Canada Go!

link to original article: here

Shame Theory

Shame Theory - Part I - The name of the game.

A comment on Education for helium.com

A comment on Education for helium.com

A paradigm is a mental model, a group of associations that you might have on any given subject. Through paradigm you are able to "make up your mind" about topics. Paradigms are categorized differently depending on whether they are, for instance: Concrete, Abstract, Experienced, Learned, etc. We needn't expand our definition of Paradigm beyond this to make the necessary points in this article.

Social Engineering is the conscious creation of Paradigm through influence. This, like paradigm, is a deeply complicated sociological question that begs accountability of everything from Societies to the Individual. In the terms we require to have the following discussion, presume the following: 1.) Children are sent to teachers to be engineered. (So parents and teachers are on the same page and once a child hits adolescence they often realise the reality of their education.) 2. This awareness changes one's ability to be taught new things. (The student begins to doubt the validity of what he or she is learning.)

So, in a simple example to summarize: A child is taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America in Elementary classes. He brings up this fact with his Father, who is a Professor of American History and is corrected. "No," explains the Father, "Christopher Columbus did not discover America." Perhaps the Professor goes on to explain about Native Americans, Vikings, Columbus' motives, etc. (Perhaps not, depending on his zeal and the ability of his child.) The child has now had multiple paradigms altered: "My teacher was (wrong, a liar, an idiot, etc.)" "The schoolbook we were reading from is (wrong...)" "The cartoon program that I watched depicting Columbus was (wrong...)" Then of course, the bright student wonders, "What else are they wrong about?" perhaps even, "What else am I wrong about?"

Just what is going on here?

There are many things that we pick up along the way that, as they collect in our consciousness, we become "engineered." If these ideas are improper, incorrect or misleading, we can expect to have problems with what we have learned. My example of Columbus is an old and decidedly American falsehood that may have once been considered controversial, but probably isn't even taught anymore.

There are many more current controversies being bandied about in, at the very least, North American schools, but in the interest of fairness, I'll speculate on two paradigms that may be being taught elsewhere, as well.

1.) Science vs. Religion or if you prefer, Evolution vs. Creation. A few years ago it was brought to the attention of educators that there was a concern developing over teaching evolution in science as fact. Some school districts, indeed, some Universities felt the need to create a ruling on this question. Teachers were being instructed to teach evolution as a "theory" and, at minimum, to "not discourage Creationism." At the other extreme, some educators had their entire careers ruined by dismissal due to espousing either one side of the argument or the other.

2.) The Holocaust: Here we have the opportunity to sink our teeth into some controversy that we can, at least, come closer to a difinitive answering. (Unlike the question of God.) History tells us the atrocities of Nazi Germany. We can point to books, (useless as proof,) we can speak to survivors, (better,) and we can go to Germany and visit the deathcamps, watch the footage of bodies being bulldozed into mass graves, (better still.) However, in certain parts of the world, this becomes a question of degrees. Perhaps, (and this is where I begin speculating,) an Iranian teacher might begin a lesson like this, "In world war two many Jews were killed by the Nazis, but the Jews themselves have built this history up into something greater than it is."

Here we come into the bulk of the problem with teaching history and the point of my problem, "History is written." It doesn't really matter to us, three hundred years down the road to say, "By the victors, or spoilers or anyone else for that matter." The argument is that, by being written by anyone, it is rife for propaganda at it's inception and when read, interpretation. We are not able to say with any true philosophical accuracy the motive of the tellers of history, the amount of truth in ancient tales. We are sometimes even unable to know if we are interpreting history correctly. There are times, when correlation is achieved and that is what can lead us to accept any particular paradigm as it relates to what we should or shouldn't be teaching but when there is doubt, there is controversy.

In order to teach what is considered a "grey area" of history or perhaps just a "difference of opinion" we must teachall sides of every argument. If for example, we are assigned to explain the bombing of Pearl Harbour, perhaps it is just as wise to consider the Japanese point of view as it is the American point of view. I would then have to ask, "What about the theory that America "let" the Japanese bomb the harbour to give it a reason to enter the war." How far are we going to take the idea of controversial history? How many rabbits can be chased down how many holes? Do we need to talk about how Japanese pilots were given methamphetamine before missions to encourage kamikaze?

It is a question of relevance and this leads us to the motives of the teacher, the school, the curriculum, the state, the country and ultimately the motives of your society as a whole. The only real solution is to do what we in North America fail so miserably at, we must teach our children to think for themselves. We here, are not teachers, we are programmers. We make "Answer Machines" that memorize, accumulate and regurgitate. If you have a difficulty with this statement, it can easily be proven by asking any young person "Why?" For instance, "When did WW2 break out?" "Why?" "When did America become involved?" "Why?" "What was the result?" "Why?"

There is also something to be said for the power of empathy. Victimization and the anger that stems from it comes from the problems that humans have with differences. Again, our little friend, "Why?" helps. Examining our differences and the "why" of how they create problems is the easiest and most effective way to have young people learn how our differences illustrate our sameness.

Furthermore, it must be said that common sense is lacking, across the board, in all age groups. The most important thing that young people could be taught is how to reason. There is nothing more powerful than the mind who can accept that there are some things in this life that simply can't be known. It might not always be the case, new things are being discovered constantly and we can strive for perfection. Our ability to decide the power we give our paradigms, called Assignee's Prerogative, is ours and ours alone, but only if we take it.

Like all things, we'll get better at teaching when we're better at being.

Nepotism is Counterproductive

The Domain of Morality Illustrates Religious Nepotism and Nepotistic Religiousness.

(The Domain is something that I have touched upon in my other posts, for those of you who have read my work, I apologise for repeating myself. If you have an understanding of the Domain please feel free to scroll down to the line marking the beginning of my main argument.)

The Domain of Morality itself is the current accepted standardization of opinion. It is simply a scale that is arranged in what we would consider an “atypical political right/left” scenario thusly:

Harm/Care Fairness/Justice Ingroup/Loyalty Authority/Respect Purity/Sanctity

There are many more ill defined morals in our modern society from ancient times. Ideas like the sanctity or purity of places, people or objects. Automatic respect or reverence for authority figures is still expected from most human citizenry. Ideas of class, race or kin being of some worth or relevance to anything are all still prevalent. In fact, we use this standard of Fairness, Harm, Ingroup, Authority, Purity as the measuring stick of our sociological or moral makeup. It’s important that we understand the categories of this moral scale. This scale has been in development for hundreds of years and those who wish to follow it’s history should also look up David Hume, Lawrence Kohlberg and Elliot Turiel.

The five categories are the Definition of the Domain of Morality by Elliot Turiel. They are referred to as the “Foundations of Morality.” To be most concerned with a particular single branch or group of branches points to your morality. The stronger the assignation of importance to the beginning of the list, the more left leaning, liberal, democratic, etc. you are. You are a two foundation person. The more importance you assign to the latter three the more right leaning, conservative, authoritative, etc. you are.

I’m sure we can agree that the utilization of judgement where Fairness and Harm are the standards is much more logical and productive than using the considerations of Ingroup, Authority or Purity. In fact, the latter three paradigms should be almost entirely dismissed, most are antiquated and spent.

Ingroup leads to nepotism, racism, classism. How many of us have helped a friend do something illogical? Authority is weighed well by many still, despite murderous cops, self-serving politicians, and abusive priests. Purity doesn’t refer to the wholeness or correctness of something, but it’s deemed worth.

Questions of Sanctity are of value. The Dome of the Rock is one of the most traveled to places on the planet. It is a manmade structure where people come to pay homage to a meteorite. Were they able to, the pilgrims could pick up any rock build a temple around it and assign the same purity to it. They can’t because they’ve been instructed that this rock is special and deservedly so. In fairness, this last point is why I say we should all but dismiss Ingroup, Authority and in this case, Purity considerations, for what if I am wrong and someday an irrefutable force proves to me that the rock is ‘special.’ Furthermore, Ingroup facilitates family responsibility and cultural comfort which are not unhealthy. There is also Authority in the Universe as there is Purity, I just haven’t found either yet. I know they exist because their opposites are so prevalent. (I wish to point out, just for clarity, that my singling out of any one religion, God, artifact or geographic location are for illustrative purposes only.)

It seems, therefore, that Nature is left leaning. If considering Ingroup, Authority and Purity is far less important that considering Fairness and Harm, society is in a state of illogical, counterproductive denial.

We now begin to just see the tip of the iceberg now, breaking above the water. The monster begins to take shape: Individuals are more to blame than society is more to blame than we. Except that, for the most part, we’re doing what we’re told. If we can accept that Nature’s default is that of an open, flexible, dynamic system, then we should be able to accept that we are working against it if we are not doing the same. If we know that we have been socially engineered to be the way we are, then the forces that made us that way, want us that way. So why do they want us to work against nature? Does that mean we have been programmed to fail? Why? What else have they programmed us to do? Who are these people? These are also the questions of the new enlightenment, but they are not being asked by the spiritualists and the social psychologists. They are being asked by me and hopefully, by you.
_____________________________________

Now that you have a base understanding of the domain, let us get to the point of this article: What is “Religious Nepotism” and what is the difference between it and “Nepotistic religiousness.”
The origin of the word Nepotism has religious ties, (although this is moot to my argument, I thought it was interesting enough to warrant a mention.)
Nepotism is the favouring of friends or family, particularly to give them, “jobs.”
Quote from OXFORD Dictionary about source: "C17: from French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nipote 'nephew' (with reference to privileges bestowed on the 'nephews' of popes, often really their illegitimate sons)."

Nepotism itself is perilous. This is well illustrated to the masses in countless forms, but an excellent and poignant example is made by viewing the ridiculous television program “Cakeboss.” Here is a talented man, who, rather than build his business (and his show) around even the same level of professionalism he has, built it from relatives. So instead of having a business that runs like a well oiled machine with problems stemming only from the odds one faces in life, the Cakeboss must constantly deal with drama, ineptitude, attitude and expectation. This is plainly, wholly and literally retarded. It is in fact, indicative of a major flaw with western culture. This one example is only a harmless television program about baking! Imagine what kind of shenanigans take place in the corridors of power...

The Cakeboss himself illustrates Religious Nepotism due to his fervent loyalty to his family. It doesn’t even occur to him that he could fire all these idiots and while this might make him unpopular, most likely for a short time, (they are family, after all,) it would improve the lives of everyone. He could have a team of worthy employees and the family members could find much more suitable employment. (Most likely increasing their happiness. (It’s not lost on me that this would also reduce the point of having a “Cakeboss” show, drama sells.) It is his blind faith in that he is doing “the right thing” by having nepotistic tendencies that keeps him from achieving the reasonable opportunity for perfection. (I’m not saying perfection is possible, I’m saying Religious nepotism keeps one from even the possibility of it.)


What is meant by “nepotistic religiousness” is that if you are a religious person, you must also be biased in your opinions of others’ based on the standards of your religion. Essentially what this means is, “Your not going to listen to anyone who’s ideas aren’t the same as yours.” Consider the following true story that was partially the impetus for this article:
A woman in her thirties came into my place of business and I was lucky enough to assist her. She was very happy, bright and bubbly, she even wore a jaunty summer hat, bright red in colour. She said to me, “What a beautiful day the Lord has given us.” I, being theist, but not in any way attached to any particular religion said, “Yes, I suppose it is.”
She said, “Well, you believe in God don’t you?”
I thought about whether or not I wanted to get into this with her and decided to, (she brought it up...) I said, emphatically “Yes I do.” She nodded and smiled satisfied and we went about our business. Further along into our transactions when she was particularly pleased with my unmatched professionalism, she said, “God bless you. You must have Jesus in your heart.”
(I have Jesus in my heart because I am good at my job?)
I didn’t know how to respond to this so I just grinned stupidly at her, kind of shrugging.
She said, “Well you are a Christian aren’t you?”
I thought, “Oh no, here we go.” Then I thought “Screw it, don’t ask if you don’t want to know...”
I smiled, “Actually no, I’m not.”
The woman literally took a step back as if recoiling in horror, her mouth dropped open as if emitting a silent gasp. Aghast, she almost whispered, “But you just said you believed in God?”
I said, “Yes. I did and I do. But you must be aware that there are other religions, other people beside Christians that believe in God?”
She relaxed a little but still stepped back, away from me. “Well, I used to be Muslim, but then I found the one true faith. I couldn’t be happier having Jesus in my heart.”
I don’t remember what I said after that, I’m sure it was something noncommital and slightly stupid, like “Good for you!”

The point is this; listening to (or not listening to) someone because of their opinions is as dangerous as you let it become. Most westerners and in fact, most humans, are basing decisions of whether or not to concur with an opinion on the more conservative side of the Domain of Morality. They are therefore, not getting what they need but rather making do with what they have. That defines Western Counterproductivity and is, in large part, why our modern world is such a mess.