Reading the news

I was just catching up on the goings on in my hometown of Toronto from CBCs lovely news website. I was shocked to read some of the comments that people had written. Reading the news can be a pretty hot blooded activity, we hear bits and pieces about what is happening in the world, and often it can leave us feeling out of the loop and disempowered, since we can only read about these things but not interact with them at any other level.

In particular, I was reading about a recent case in Toronto where EMS workers failed to respond to an emergency fast enough, and sadly the man in need died. In the case, according to the report, the EMS workers had been told the patient might be drunk and might be difficult. Thus they made the decision to use caution and wait for a police escort.

This is protocol. EMS workers are not heroes for hire. They are Emergency Medical response workers. Their training is to help with medical emergencies. Not to endanger themselves. That would be reckless, and how could we insure our EMS workers health and safety if there were no protocols about entering possibly dangerous situations. So their decision to wait was the right one, given the information made available to them.

Sadly, in this case, this delay may have lead to a man's death (though it is possible he would have died even with EMS intervention).

I was the responses from the readers. Many calling for the EMS workers to be fired, to have criminal charges laid on them, and so on. Is this in any way reasonable? I mean the person who called 911 should be partial responsible in that case, since they provided information that lead to the caution.

But what really surprised me was this comment: "I wish the CBC would demand the release of all the 911 and internal audio recordings so that we can hear for ourselves what actually happened."

I don't see why we need to 'hear for ourselves' what happened...do you have nothing better to do with your time that listen to a dying man's call for help? Talk about an invasion of privacy! I know we feel disempowered by not having been there to make things turn out better. But reliving it isn't going to do anything about it. Why not read the story and feel the remorse those workers must feel, having lost a patient? Why not read the story and reflect on our own outbursts of anger or aggression? Why not read the story and think about how we can, in our lives, help create and maintain safe environments so that when we need help, those with the power to help can get to your side to offer their help?

I think its time to leave facebook. You know. We are forgetting what it means to have privacy.

It's down to your base pairs...

Non-sense. There is this wonderful nonsense that surrounds and envelops us, that is put to us plainly everyday, so plainly that it is very tempting to accept. The nonsense goes something like this: something about your behaviour in life is CAUSED by the pairing of acids inside each of your cells. This unfortunate pairing pattern is why you behave in this abhorrent way. But don't worry because if we give you enough talk, lectures and education, we will override that unfortunate pairing...

Let us consider. point one...your behaviour is caused by some chemical bonding. Makes enough sense. Those pairs eventually spell out the production of certain hormones and enzymes in certain proportions...it is possible that this would somehow influence behaviour. Even though behaviour is usual a response to a momentary stimulus predicated by experience...somehow the levels of various chemical things must be involved, seeing as they are a necessary factor in any kind of movement, memory recall etc etc. So fair enough, in going through a kind of syllological reduction we could get A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H=I=J=K somehow and says behaviour=stimulus+experience, experience=time+stimulus+memory, memory= perception + chemicals...=genes... I'm sure we would get there somehow, if we really went through the reasoning and did the math. So let's allow it, behaviour=genes+other environmental factors.

But after making this big stink about the overpowering effect of genes, they go on to say that a kind of brainwashing talk will unravel the negative effects.

Let's look at a concrete example. Today in the news is a US study, or British...i forget now, about how genes, in families where the father is absent for whatever reason, play a key role in predicting early sexual activity. But that what we must do is target these fatherless children and educate them about sex and about why it is bad.

These days I am beginning to think sex education is a load of nonsense. Why not just give them other things to do. I really think there are two things that lead to our current hysteria about children engaging in sexual activities. 1. We recently created this category of being called "child" and thrust on it a Victorian sexual sensibility without recognizing that this was a new way of treating young adults. 2. Children have less interesting things to do. We can't ride horses in cities. We can't keep chickens, see swans, climb trees (without getting into trouble), build campfires...do dangerous things that are interesting, stimulating and exciting. Instead we do the only thing we can think of that stimulates that fun hormones that make us feel happy and exhilarated.

If we really want to keep this impractical view of "the child" then we need to nurture and create a world where "child" life can exists, where kids can be like Huck Finn and Mr Sawyer, where kids have ample space to explore, adventure, question and test with real risks, rewards and consequences. We don't need to educate them to "not have sex till you are ready"--we are ready for those exhilarating hormone rewards from a very young age, 1 and 2 year olds are already actively seeking them. What would be better is to be more fun ourselves and make opportunities for our kids to do other things.

but do you know what that means. That the solutions we are proposing exactly reject our causal theory. If genes are the cause, should genes not also be the solution? And if environmental stimulus (like education) are the solution....then is not environmental stimulus also the cause of the problem?