We tend to believe that our society promote sex. It certainly rubs it in our eyes, in our minds; but like anything human, society can say one thing and do another. Is sex promoted? No... it is used. Sex has always been used. It has been used most often for a consistent reason: power. Whether it is the power to begin wars (Troy) or end them; the power to control your population; or today, the power to get people's money, the source of power today.
So sex is still used. It is used more blatantly than ever, one could say. Certainly, the standards by which we hold each other have never been more relaxed. Bill Hicks once described the ideal advertisement as a naked woman spreading her legs for you, accompanied with the words "drink coke." I'm sure I will see it before the inevitable reaction occurs. People can get away with all manners of dress, deportment and discussion without repercussion, though this may now be changing, as can be seen in the re-adoption of school uniforms which is now going on.
Sex, however, remains suppressed. Despite the best attempts of artists for many decades, sex is still largely taboo. You can speak of it with your adult friends, but certainly not with children, you pervert. It is certainly not something to be done in public, and obviously not for money. All of these restrictions are debatable, as are their effects, for good or ill. What is perhaps not examined, however, are the effects of the disconnect caused by this affair of promotion and suppression.
Sex is pervasive in the culture. However, are we talking about "real" sex? Not usually. Often our first exposures to sex (the cinema), are "Hollywood." Much as we ridiculed "Hollywood" displays of war, so we should with sex. First of all, our cultural activities make it seem that sex is easy. This is not new - kids are forced to study Romeo and Juliet, a play about young love over 400 years old. The formula remains unchanged: two people meet, they fall in love, and consummate their relationship, either within a few minutes or hours or pages. Even a film which is honest enough to try to show the progression of a relationship over the course of "years" can only do so in a matter of minutes. It is the minutes that count, especially to people with an undeveloped sense of time, not to mention an undeveloped capacity to understand consequence.
People think it is common for people to hook up. They even believe it is common for some people to hook up frequently, as though they were macho or slutty. The reality when confronting the good old hook-up story is that these stories are all culled from a period of years, and when those handful of stories are put in the context of thousands of days, an interesting thing happens. You realize that these stories are not so often told because they are "awesome," as the first impression would have you believe, but that their rarity makes them more "awesome."
The most obvious critique of "Hollywood" love is its apparent display of the perfect relationship. The gullible are left to believe in the prince charming, or the princess. The fear is that when people encounter strife, strife being a centre of the human condition, they are trained to run away, to seek out that perfect relationship. There is likely some credence to this, but I doubt it is as common as people believe. Certainly people are averse to risk and strife - but that is a by-product of success more than cowardice, though they can go hand-n-hand. Divorce rates are as much a symptom of strife-aversion as it is a plague of choice. Choice does not come from the movies, it is an ideology of the culture at large.
Maybe I will finish this later. I doubt it.
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Marxist Historiography of Education
Now having entered my last semester of an education degree, I have finally discovered an underlying Marxist strain towards the historiography of education. Now, a very right wing, or moderately right wing individual within our programme would never have had any problem identifying the bias of the programme. However, it takes a while before one realizes just where this bias comes from. It is not necessarily from the social justice aspect of the programme, and the teachers themselves. Indeed, social justice is an issue embraced across the political spectrum (it is a matter of individuals and leaders as to whether they support it, and of course the manner of this support can often differ greatly). Rather, the basis of this bias lies in history.
We are repeatedly told that our current pedagogy is an update and improvement on the old "Industrial" model of education. People were all taught the same thing in the same manner, with the idea that this way was best. When defined in this manner, the term "Industrial" is rather fitting, and variably true. However, what is the origin of the term historically?
Public education really began during the beginning of the Industrial period - and hence another reason why the term could be fitting. A professor recently exposed that education was promoted because it was realized that a more educated workforce, be it literate or numerate, could produce more wealth. Therefore, the nature of the education system throughout the Western World was based around the promotion of Capitalism. Such an interpretation could only be viewed as Marxist.
This is only more true because of all the facts that such an interpretation overlooks in pursuit of this line of argument. It ignores, first of all, that the basis of education in the West had nothing to do with economics. It had everything to do with Nationalism, that Napoleonic bastard. Before industrialization had taken hold of even most of Europe, no less the world, nationalism had taken over.
It is worth remembering that most of Europe's states were formed during the 19th century. The issue they had to confront was the fact that simply living within a geographical expression didn't make you a German, or Italian, or French, or British. People spoke different dialects and languages, and observed different religions, and had often experienced different histories and economic experience. The issue was to unify the country. One could do it through force (as was often done in the South of Italy), but it was seen as a much better long term fix to educate the next generation.
A conspicuous example of this process is outlined in the book, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Romania was a largely agrarian, pre-industrial state (even more so than its neighbours). Nonetheless, Romania pursued an extensive educational policy as a means of unifying a country that had been turned into an empire following the First World War. Here, teaching one way meant teaching all people in Romanian, teaching them Romanian history, and so forth. If you were Ukrainian, you lost your schools. If Jewish, you gradually began to lose your civil rights.
To do thing one way in education can be seen as "Industrial" but it is in reality a policy of assimilation. Schools were the first step in forging a great, strong state. If industry came as the result of these practices, perhaps all the better. However, it is to be remembered that in Interbellum Europe, many popular movements, in spite of such educations, emphasized a return to the land and promotion of the peasantry, be they the Nazis (in pursuit of a pure, untainted Germany), the Fascists, the Estado Novo, Franco's Spain, or the Legion of the Archangel Michael.
Indeed, it should be viewed either with irony (or is it too appropriate) that the only state that actively tried to force industrialization in Europe was also the state to name the Industrial model as a critique of its enemies. The Soviet Union, hypocritically as it so often was, lambasted its foes for a system it not only embraced, but adhered to more than almost anybody else.
We are repeatedly told that our current pedagogy is an update and improvement on the old "Industrial" model of education. People were all taught the same thing in the same manner, with the idea that this way was best. When defined in this manner, the term "Industrial" is rather fitting, and variably true. However, what is the origin of the term historically?
Public education really began during the beginning of the Industrial period - and hence another reason why the term could be fitting. A professor recently exposed that education was promoted because it was realized that a more educated workforce, be it literate or numerate, could produce more wealth. Therefore, the nature of the education system throughout the Western World was based around the promotion of Capitalism. Such an interpretation could only be viewed as Marxist.
This is only more true because of all the facts that such an interpretation overlooks in pursuit of this line of argument. It ignores, first of all, that the basis of education in the West had nothing to do with economics. It had everything to do with Nationalism, that Napoleonic bastard. Before industrialization had taken hold of even most of Europe, no less the world, nationalism had taken over.
It is worth remembering that most of Europe's states were formed during the 19th century. The issue they had to confront was the fact that simply living within a geographical expression didn't make you a German, or Italian, or French, or British. People spoke different dialects and languages, and observed different religions, and had often experienced different histories and economic experience. The issue was to unify the country. One could do it through force (as was often done in the South of Italy), but it was seen as a much better long term fix to educate the next generation.
A conspicuous example of this process is outlined in the book, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Romania was a largely agrarian, pre-industrial state (even more so than its neighbours). Nonetheless, Romania pursued an extensive educational policy as a means of unifying a country that had been turned into an empire following the First World War. Here, teaching one way meant teaching all people in Romanian, teaching them Romanian history, and so forth. If you were Ukrainian, you lost your schools. If Jewish, you gradually began to lose your civil rights.
To do thing one way in education can be seen as "Industrial" but it is in reality a policy of assimilation. Schools were the first step in forging a great, strong state. If industry came as the result of these practices, perhaps all the better. However, it is to be remembered that in Interbellum Europe, many popular movements, in spite of such educations, emphasized a return to the land and promotion of the peasantry, be they the Nazis (in pursuit of a pure, untainted Germany), the Fascists, the Estado Novo, Franco's Spain, or the Legion of the Archangel Michael.
Indeed, it should be viewed either with irony (or is it too appropriate) that the only state that actively tried to force industrialization in Europe was also the state to name the Industrial model as a critique of its enemies. The Soviet Union, hypocritically as it so often was, lambasted its foes for a system it not only embraced, but adhered to more than almost anybody else.
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
A Journey out of Religion (part 2)
So since it seems many people have been acquainted with part 1, I feel it right to continue on with the rest.
Some of you may wonder how young I was when I first declared myself an atheist. I was probably 10 or 11. The reasons for this are aforementioned. However, my declaration I can declare hollow. I not only merely said it to one person, but I also said it without conviction. I still believed there was a God then. Maybe I just needed the attention.
Thus, unsatisfied with the Salvation Army, I began to research other religions.
I can recall fragments of it. I became rather impressed by Islam while watching a documentary about the Petronas towers. I enjoyed seeing people washing together, dressed alike, a simply praying. It was as far from the SA as I thought possible. I admired it immediately for an apparently simplicity and equality. However, at the same time, I felt that as a newer religion it was therefore farther from the beginning of all of us, and therefore likely more disconnected with the truth.
I've always had a historical consciousness, and as a youngster very simple forms of this consciousness were taking shape. I held reverence for what is old, rather than what is best - a shortcoming so common... anyway, my attraction to pedigree took me towards Judaism and Zoroastrianism, which I, now roughly 13 or so, began referring to as the father and grandfather of Christianity (as to a simple mind chronology matters more than the details. I unfortunately did not learn how wrong I was on this point until about a decade later.)
To be honest, I did a good deal more research on Zoroastrianism, as someone on a forum I frequented at the time expressed interest in it. I had heard that rather than a hell, their concept of punishment was a week-long bath in some purifying lava. This immediately spoke to my sense of justice, which had been offended by the notion of an eternity in hell, without redemption.
I never really found out if that notion of punishment was true or not, for I discovered a religion (or more like, the books on it) more concerned with ritual than other matters. Indeed, so much detail was given to such extremely lengthly procedures that I immediately was turned off on the whole process of learning about these new religions. Perhaps it is ok to be pure, but my goodness are people ever impure in Zoroastrianism - I thought probably almost their entire lives!
I thought it elitist, and myself kind of snobbish for looking into these things. I suppose if I had known about Unitarian churches I probably would have (ever) given those a look. However, when it came to churches, and days when I was not working, it was at the SA with my mother.
So, I must admit that through my teen years I was a very half-assed seeker of some other "truth." As one could expect, I declared myself spiritual and coasted off of that for a long time.
Some of you may wonder how young I was when I first declared myself an atheist. I was probably 10 or 11. The reasons for this are aforementioned. However, my declaration I can declare hollow. I not only merely said it to one person, but I also said it without conviction. I still believed there was a God then. Maybe I just needed the attention.
Thus, unsatisfied with the Salvation Army, I began to research other religions.
I can recall fragments of it. I became rather impressed by Islam while watching a documentary about the Petronas towers. I enjoyed seeing people washing together, dressed alike, a simply praying. It was as far from the SA as I thought possible. I admired it immediately for an apparently simplicity and equality. However, at the same time, I felt that as a newer religion it was therefore farther from the beginning of all of us, and therefore likely more disconnected with the truth.
I've always had a historical consciousness, and as a youngster very simple forms of this consciousness were taking shape. I held reverence for what is old, rather than what is best - a shortcoming so common... anyway, my attraction to pedigree took me towards Judaism and Zoroastrianism, which I, now roughly 13 or so, began referring to as the father and grandfather of Christianity (as to a simple mind chronology matters more than the details. I unfortunately did not learn how wrong I was on this point until about a decade later.)
To be honest, I did a good deal more research on Zoroastrianism, as someone on a forum I frequented at the time expressed interest in it. I had heard that rather than a hell, their concept of punishment was a week-long bath in some purifying lava. This immediately spoke to my sense of justice, which had been offended by the notion of an eternity in hell, without redemption.
I never really found out if that notion of punishment was true or not, for I discovered a religion (or more like, the books on it) more concerned with ritual than other matters. Indeed, so much detail was given to such extremely lengthly procedures that I immediately was turned off on the whole process of learning about these new religions. Perhaps it is ok to be pure, but my goodness are people ever impure in Zoroastrianism - I thought probably almost their entire lives!
I thought it elitist, and myself kind of snobbish for looking into these things. I suppose if I had known about Unitarian churches I probably would have (ever) given those a look. However, when it came to churches, and days when I was not working, it was at the SA with my mother.
So, I must admit that through my teen years I was a very half-assed seeker of some other "truth." As one could expect, I declared myself spiritual and coasted off of that for a long time.
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Boards of Canada: "Tomorrow's Harvest." A Soundtrack without a movie.
Like any other Boards of Canada fan, I've eagerly awaited this album for years, checking the internet regularly for any remours concerning the release of this long-anticipated album. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the album did not come out in my part of Canada until a week later. This afforded me the opportunity to check the reviews of the album, and prepare myself.
All I heard of the album so far was "Reach for the Dead." Though it possessed some beautiful moments, it
certainly was a far-less compelling foretaste of the album than I could have hoped for. It certainly paled in memory of most older BoC tracks. Reading through the reviews online I could find that there were indeed a fair number of people unimpressed with the whole album at large. They were a minority opinion (indeed, a significant minority), but I was more inclined to believe them.
Why? For starters, BoC possesses a fan base among whose members comprise people that in many ways best represent the concept of "Religion of Brand;" they are Religious fanatics in the most modern sense. They dissect every track in a manner befitting a medieval scholastic; they're anticipation of this new album, as alluded to elsewhere, was akin to the second coming of Christ (or third, if you've actually read the New Testament; or fourth, if you're a mormon). Their defence of Tomorrow's Harvest on sites such as amazon.com almost makes a pace of Monty Python, "every song is sacred," more than an apt joke. I must admit I've indulged in some of this behaviour myself.
Accordingly, once I purchased the album, I was more sceptical of it than any album I had bought in recent memory.
Listening to it initially, I could only feel reminded of Vangelis' "L'apocalypse des animeaux," which is unusual, since I can't consciously remember anything of that album. That album was certainly not Vangelis' best work, and all I could feel was that this would not be BoC's best work, either. Indeed, the feeling that dominated me throughout the listening was that "Tomorrow's Harvest" simultaneously sounded more modern than previous albums, and yet more dated.
While "L'apocalypse des animeaux" is an actual movie soundtrack from the early 1970's, Tomorrow's Harvest definitely sounds like the soundtrack to an unreleased movie, completed a range going from the made to the unfinished to the unmade in my record collection (the middle being the Uncle Meat soundtrack). A number of the pieces work, if only taken in the vein of a soundtrack; and indeed mixed with the artwork one does receive a sense of the apocalyptic. Having said that, being a good soundtrack doesn't make it a good album.
As other reviewers have pointed out, many of the tracks do not elicit an emotional response. There are tracks that do, which I have listed below in my standouts. That emotional response, ultimately, is nostalgia, which is not necessarily a good thing. BoC has always succeeded by tapping into nostalgia, but that was nostalgia of popular culture from bygone days. The best offerings from Tomorrow's Harvest are nostalgia for Boards of Canada.
Having said that, it is still not a bad album. The tracks that are good are really good, while the theme of the album is strong, and compensates for the weakness of individual tracks (like a real album should). It may not be the place to start listening to BoC (in my opinion that honour falls to Geogaddi), but it is still respectable.
Now, having written all this, I just want to posit and hypothesis. That hypothesis is this: BoC's fanbase has actually dampered the creativity of Boards of Canada. How so? There is a saying I will now poorly restate, that brilliance is a product of strife. Another is that necessity is the mother of invention. Boards of Canada were able to produce wonderful, innovative albums in a relatively short time when they were young and insecure. Having gained security, they were able to retreat even further out of the limelight. Few bands can say that their fanbase has grown over their years of inactivity (My Bloody Valentine, perhaps?) and it is because of this that they could go on for almost a decade doing relatively little. I believe that were their fans less fanatical, they might have been compelled to do something sooner, and it would have probably been better.
Standouts: Sick Times, Split Your Infinities, Nothing is Real, Sundown, New Seeds
All I heard of the album so far was "Reach for the Dead." Though it possessed some beautiful moments, it
certainly was a far-less compelling foretaste of the album than I could have hoped for. It certainly paled in memory of most older BoC tracks. Reading through the reviews online I could find that there were indeed a fair number of people unimpressed with the whole album at large. They were a minority opinion (indeed, a significant minority), but I was more inclined to believe them.
Why? For starters, BoC possesses a fan base among whose members comprise people that in many ways best represent the concept of "Religion of Brand;" they are Religious fanatics in the most modern sense. They dissect every track in a manner befitting a medieval scholastic; they're anticipation of this new album, as alluded to elsewhere, was akin to the second coming of Christ (or third, if you've actually read the New Testament; or fourth, if you're a mormon). Their defence of Tomorrow's Harvest on sites such as amazon.com almost makes a pace of Monty Python, "every song is sacred," more than an apt joke. I must admit I've indulged in some of this behaviour myself.
Accordingly, once I purchased the album, I was more sceptical of it than any album I had bought in recent memory.
Listening to it initially, I could only feel reminded of Vangelis' "L'apocalypse des animeaux," which is unusual, since I can't consciously remember anything of that album. That album was certainly not Vangelis' best work, and all I could feel was that this would not be BoC's best work, either. Indeed, the feeling that dominated me throughout the listening was that "Tomorrow's Harvest" simultaneously sounded more modern than previous albums, and yet more dated.
While "L'apocalypse des animeaux" is an actual movie soundtrack from the early 1970's, Tomorrow's Harvest definitely sounds like the soundtrack to an unreleased movie, completed a range going from the made to the unfinished to the unmade in my record collection (the middle being the Uncle Meat soundtrack). A number of the pieces work, if only taken in the vein of a soundtrack; and indeed mixed with the artwork one does receive a sense of the apocalyptic. Having said that, being a good soundtrack doesn't make it a good album.
As other reviewers have pointed out, many of the tracks do not elicit an emotional response. There are tracks that do, which I have listed below in my standouts. That emotional response, ultimately, is nostalgia, which is not necessarily a good thing. BoC has always succeeded by tapping into nostalgia, but that was nostalgia of popular culture from bygone days. The best offerings from Tomorrow's Harvest are nostalgia for Boards of Canada.
Having said that, it is still not a bad album. The tracks that are good are really good, while the theme of the album is strong, and compensates for the weakness of individual tracks (like a real album should). It may not be the place to start listening to BoC (in my opinion that honour falls to Geogaddi), but it is still respectable.
Now, having written all this, I just want to posit and hypothesis. That hypothesis is this: BoC's fanbase has actually dampered the creativity of Boards of Canada. How so? There is a saying I will now poorly restate, that brilliance is a product of strife. Another is that necessity is the mother of invention. Boards of Canada were able to produce wonderful, innovative albums in a relatively short time when they were young and insecure. Having gained security, they were able to retreat even further out of the limelight. Few bands can say that their fanbase has grown over their years of inactivity (My Bloody Valentine, perhaps?) and it is because of this that they could go on for almost a decade doing relatively little. I believe that were their fans less fanatical, they might have been compelled to do something sooner, and it would have probably been better.
Standouts: Sick Times, Split Your Infinities, Nothing is Real, Sundown, New Seeds
Wednesday, 5 June 2013
MP Rathgeber's Resignation
Today, formerly Conservative MP Brent
Rathgeber resigned from that party's caucus. The stated reason was a
protest against the government's “lack of commitment to transparency and
open government.” This is an issue he attempted to remedy, by proposing
a private member's bill, which unfortunately did not survive unscathed
its meeting with the aforementioned caucus.
This makes for a rare week for me - a week where I agree with the Conservatives twice. However, the first, was with the government line (over arming Syrian rebels). The second is my agreement with a conservative man, in opposition to that party. I do not agree with everything that MP Rathgeber believes, but I acknowledge that his resignation is both bold and principled. We sometimes think rather cynically of the motives of our elected representatives. By appearances, his motives and actions are not merely acceptable by worthy of congratulation. Members of all parties claim to be people of principle, and he stood on his principles.
Having said that, the reaction of the party is petty and juvenile, and symbolic of the issues with our democracy. They responded to his resignation by stating “The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a by-election.” While the first contention is very likely true, it is also irrelevant to the second point. I know many of you are agreeing with the Conservative Party line. You probably think it is democratic - if his riding agrees with him, they will re-elect him. In reality it is the opposite of democracy - it is populism.
For, in our more democratic past (and the democratic presents of many of our cousins internationally), it is not considered a mortal sin to go against the party line. Members can come and go from one side of parliament to the next as it suits them. They are not considered traitors. They are not considered replaceable. Indeed, Winston Churchill did this very thing himself, sitting as the Liberal for many years, before rejoining the Conservative Party. For what would be considered in contemporary Canada an unforgivable travesty, Sir Winston was only Prime Minister twice.
By threatening MP Rathgeber the Conservatives are re-asserting an old line: that you cannot go against our party, and that you are replaceable. It must be said that politically they haven't much to lose: they've already lost an MP, while the opposition has gained (it doesn't matter that he could vote for the Conservatives on every occasion) - but if he agrees to a by-election, he will be removed from Parliament for a matter of months, and once the byelection occurs, then it is very likely the Conservatives will win, as we are talking of Alberta, unless Calgary-Centre was not a fluke. Accordingly, the Conservatives will suffer no further damage, while their apparent opponents will.
However, what this issue is about is control. I believe that we all believe that people should be able to vote with their conscience, even if they are in parliament. I feel, and I'm sure that there are others, who agree with me that the Canadian overuse on the "party whip" is abhorent. If you support the Conservative Party's call for a byelection, and share those convictions with me, you are, hopefully unconsciously, betraying them. For, we are presenting them with an ultimatum: if you stand by your conscience, you should be immediately dismissed from Parliament. Such is the consequence of resigning from parliament. It may only be temporary, but in all likelihood, it is permanent. The Party believes it can replace them with someone less independent.
I must now ask three questions: first, are the Constituents of Edmonton-St. Albert served after MP Rathgeber resigns? Second, who will represent them better? The current MP, or his likely successor? Though it will betray my bias, I have to qualify that likely successor as in all likelihood a subservient party lapdog. Finally, what are Members of Parliament elected to do? Is it a) Represent their constituents or b) Support the Party that funded their campaign?
Rathgeber has stood by his principles in resigning from the caucus. He has followed age old precedent, a practice which has unfortunately been exterminated in this country. There is no law that says that he now must resign from Parliament. He can represent his constituents as ably as an independent as a Conservative, and that is all that matters. Were the Conservatives more principled they would not threaten to destroy his career, but respect his action, respect his principles, and invite him to return to their caucus, as his action was so admirable and worthy of one of their party members. Indeed example should be applauded, and if necessary, repeated. However, I would wish it were not necessary. We Canadians need to put away the whips, and the sooner the better.
P.S. For fun, think about past regimes where loyalty to the party came ahead of loyalty to the people! Multiple points for multiple answers!
This makes for a rare week for me - a week where I agree with the Conservatives twice. However, the first, was with the government line (over arming Syrian rebels). The second is my agreement with a conservative man, in opposition to that party. I do not agree with everything that MP Rathgeber believes, but I acknowledge that his resignation is both bold and principled. We sometimes think rather cynically of the motives of our elected representatives. By appearances, his motives and actions are not merely acceptable by worthy of congratulation. Members of all parties claim to be people of principle, and he stood on his principles.
Having said that, the reaction of the party is petty and juvenile, and symbolic of the issues with our democracy. They responded to his resignation by stating “The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a by-election.” While the first contention is very likely true, it is also irrelevant to the second point. I know many of you are agreeing with the Conservative Party line. You probably think it is democratic - if his riding agrees with him, they will re-elect him. In reality it is the opposite of democracy - it is populism.
For, in our more democratic past (and the democratic presents of many of our cousins internationally), it is not considered a mortal sin to go against the party line. Members can come and go from one side of parliament to the next as it suits them. They are not considered traitors. They are not considered replaceable. Indeed, Winston Churchill did this very thing himself, sitting as the Liberal for many years, before rejoining the Conservative Party. For what would be considered in contemporary Canada an unforgivable travesty, Sir Winston was only Prime Minister twice.
By threatening MP Rathgeber the Conservatives are re-asserting an old line: that you cannot go against our party, and that you are replaceable. It must be said that politically they haven't much to lose: they've already lost an MP, while the opposition has gained (it doesn't matter that he could vote for the Conservatives on every occasion) - but if he agrees to a by-election, he will be removed from Parliament for a matter of months, and once the byelection occurs, then it is very likely the Conservatives will win, as we are talking of Alberta, unless Calgary-Centre was not a fluke. Accordingly, the Conservatives will suffer no further damage, while their apparent opponents will.
However, what this issue is about is control. I believe that we all believe that people should be able to vote with their conscience, even if they are in parliament. I feel, and I'm sure that there are others, who agree with me that the Canadian overuse on the "party whip" is abhorent. If you support the Conservative Party's call for a byelection, and share those convictions with me, you are, hopefully unconsciously, betraying them. For, we are presenting them with an ultimatum: if you stand by your conscience, you should be immediately dismissed from Parliament. Such is the consequence of resigning from parliament. It may only be temporary, but in all likelihood, it is permanent. The Party believes it can replace them with someone less independent.
I must now ask three questions: first, are the Constituents of Edmonton-St. Albert served after MP Rathgeber resigns? Second, who will represent them better? The current MP, or his likely successor? Though it will betray my bias, I have to qualify that likely successor as in all likelihood a subservient party lapdog. Finally, what are Members of Parliament elected to do? Is it a) Represent their constituents or b) Support the Party that funded their campaign?
Rathgeber has stood by his principles in resigning from the caucus. He has followed age old precedent, a practice which has unfortunately been exterminated in this country. There is no law that says that he now must resign from Parliament. He can represent his constituents as ably as an independent as a Conservative, and that is all that matters. Were the Conservatives more principled they would not threaten to destroy his career, but respect his action, respect his principles, and invite him to return to their caucus, as his action was so admirable and worthy of one of their party members. Indeed example should be applauded, and if necessary, repeated. However, I would wish it were not necessary. We Canadians need to put away the whips, and the sooner the better.
P.S. For fun, think about past regimes where loyalty to the party came ahead of loyalty to the people! Multiple points for multiple answers!
Sunday, 3 March 2013
A Thought on Insurgency (2)
"Analysts said the death of the two commanders would mark a significant blow to the rebellion in Mali."
But will it affect their morale? Being Islamic extremists, who believe that the hand of God moves all things, will not their underlings not just shrug it off because their deaths were meant to be?
But will it affect their morale? Being Islamic extremists, who believe that the hand of God moves all things, will not their underlings not just shrug it off because their deaths were meant to be?
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
My Initial Fall out of Religion (My journey, part 1)
As a part of a school assignment, I attended a service at the church of my youth for the first time since my mother died, in September. Even in isolation from my experiences at a Catholic Mass the week prior (of which more later), my attendance at the Salvation Army church served to revive memories of why I found myself an atheist (of which more later).
As a child I gradually grew alienated from the church. It wasn't simply that I found the services long and boring. It was that I felt that the church not only worshiped in a manner I found disrespectful of any God, but also seemed to me to be idolatrous. It was because of those two reasons that I did my best to leave the church, though I should be admitted that I maintained an attendance over the years for the sake of my dying mother.
The services of the Salvation Army, for the uninitiated, can be summarized as being a "song and dance" routine. The uniformed band, which is of a high quality, begins things with some traditional numbers. This is followed by the uniformed choir, with their own offerings. Between this and the sermon (which is quite some time), the focus shifts to the non-uniformed band du jour, which as of this past Sunday, was a rock band, in the finest example of modern day evangelical protestantism. They had very nice guitars, and a cute youngster from the choir performed lead vocals. In the past we had folk bands, and through my life I have witnessed the "electrification" of the service.
This electrification did not sit well with many in the congregation. Indeed, many of the elderly would use the opportunity to leave the church, a reaction which occasioned a sermon on how insensitive it was to reject the style of worship others have adopted. I would agree with the Old that electrification is a sappy sell-out to the youth. I go further and declaim the whole service, regardless of the music, for, when you place music above the message, as the SA has always done, you are nothing more than a carnival. If Jesus was the word made flesh, than why not use words?
My other issue with the SA was that, by the time came for the sermon, they seemingly indulged in idolatry. I must confess I did not understand the doctrine of the trinity, but that did not stop me from having significant problems with the name of Jesus being invoked at every opportunity - as opposed to God. They only ever thanked Jesus/God for their sacrifice on the cross, and nothing else, which I thought improper and irreverent.
These feelings would begin my exodus from the church, religion, and God. I did not at the time feel like Atheism was a proper position to take, though I had felt like an atheist already. I felt that I needed some kind of religion, and so I would examine others. I respected Islam for its apparent simplicity and equality. I respected Judaism and Zoroastrianism for their pedigree, and the apparent quality of their people. In the end I would wind up as one of those "spiritual types," at least until I returned from war, many years later.
I must now go through my revelations from Sunday.
My girlfriend, during the service, made two important observations. First, it appeared that we observed the doctrine of predestination, a thing we both found abhorrent. My sister and I had to admit that in the course of our lives we were never instructed in the particular theology of our sect. Our Sunday Schools were spent in discussion of Old Testament stories and history (sometimes with a comic bent, such as whether King David was a homosexual), and we only ever learned anything about this theology through experience.
The experience that stands out in my mind was during the last days of my mother's life. My father had been listening to our relations and the Officers talking (over and over), and realized that whenever they spoke of my mother going to see her mother, they never mentioned her father. Apparently, this was because my grandfather never did the "sinner's prayer" prior to his death. Therefore, they expected him to be in hell. Hell, that idea I thought so obsolescent was here in the fore. It was the first time in years I had heard it mentioned in any seriousness by anyone. I wondered how my mother would have possibly said this prayer prior to her death, given that she thought I was our dead dog and my sister was my unborn brother.
My girlfriend's other observation was that, in spite of the length of the Salvation Army's service (a brutal 1h40m), there was no time given to reflection. She, being a Catholic, found this very unusual. I can imagine she also found it annoying, as I can guess from conversations we've had that this time for reflection is the thing she treasures most from Mass. She concluded that our services were cult-like. Our services were long, loud, and overwhelming. They required no thinking, no response from the audience (barely an amen). One is passive for the entire time. You only ever feel connected to whoever is leading the service at the time. When I remarked that our officers must only ever marry other officers, it seemed like its status as a Cult was confirmed.
As a child I gradually grew alienated from the church. It wasn't simply that I found the services long and boring. It was that I felt that the church not only worshiped in a manner I found disrespectful of any God, but also seemed to me to be idolatrous. It was because of those two reasons that I did my best to leave the church, though I should be admitted that I maintained an attendance over the years for the sake of my dying mother.
The services of the Salvation Army, for the uninitiated, can be summarized as being a "song and dance" routine. The uniformed band, which is of a high quality, begins things with some traditional numbers. This is followed by the uniformed choir, with their own offerings. Between this and the sermon (which is quite some time), the focus shifts to the non-uniformed band du jour, which as of this past Sunday, was a rock band, in the finest example of modern day evangelical protestantism. They had very nice guitars, and a cute youngster from the choir performed lead vocals. In the past we had folk bands, and through my life I have witnessed the "electrification" of the service.
This electrification did not sit well with many in the congregation. Indeed, many of the elderly would use the opportunity to leave the church, a reaction which occasioned a sermon on how insensitive it was to reject the style of worship others have adopted. I would agree with the Old that electrification is a sappy sell-out to the youth. I go further and declaim the whole service, regardless of the music, for, when you place music above the message, as the SA has always done, you are nothing more than a carnival. If Jesus was the word made flesh, than why not use words?
My other issue with the SA was that, by the time came for the sermon, they seemingly indulged in idolatry. I must confess I did not understand the doctrine of the trinity, but that did not stop me from having significant problems with the name of Jesus being invoked at every opportunity - as opposed to God. They only ever thanked Jesus/God for their sacrifice on the cross, and nothing else, which I thought improper and irreverent.
These feelings would begin my exodus from the church, religion, and God. I did not at the time feel like Atheism was a proper position to take, though I had felt like an atheist already. I felt that I needed some kind of religion, and so I would examine others. I respected Islam for its apparent simplicity and equality. I respected Judaism and Zoroastrianism for their pedigree, and the apparent quality of their people. In the end I would wind up as one of those "spiritual types," at least until I returned from war, many years later.
I must now go through my revelations from Sunday.
My girlfriend, during the service, made two important observations. First, it appeared that we observed the doctrine of predestination, a thing we both found abhorrent. My sister and I had to admit that in the course of our lives we were never instructed in the particular theology of our sect. Our Sunday Schools were spent in discussion of Old Testament stories and history (sometimes with a comic bent, such as whether King David was a homosexual), and we only ever learned anything about this theology through experience.
The experience that stands out in my mind was during the last days of my mother's life. My father had been listening to our relations and the Officers talking (over and over), and realized that whenever they spoke of my mother going to see her mother, they never mentioned her father. Apparently, this was because my grandfather never did the "sinner's prayer" prior to his death. Therefore, they expected him to be in hell. Hell, that idea I thought so obsolescent was here in the fore. It was the first time in years I had heard it mentioned in any seriousness by anyone. I wondered how my mother would have possibly said this prayer prior to her death, given that she thought I was our dead dog and my sister was my unborn brother.
My girlfriend's other observation was that, in spite of the length of the Salvation Army's service (a brutal 1h40m), there was no time given to reflection. She, being a Catholic, found this very unusual. I can imagine she also found it annoying, as I can guess from conversations we've had that this time for reflection is the thing she treasures most from Mass. She concluded that our services were cult-like. Our services were long, loud, and overwhelming. They required no thinking, no response from the audience (barely an amen). One is passive for the entire time. You only ever feel connected to whoever is leading the service at the time. When I remarked that our officers must only ever marry other officers, it seemed like its status as a Cult was confirmed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)