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.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
An apology worth reading
I find apologies usually are worth reading. There is something in the act that affirms ones hope in the prospect of the Good, in the platonic sense.
Today the co-leader of the Toronto 18 apologised for his actions and his intentions in the 2006 plots to attack the cities of Toronto and Ottawa. In his apology he showed how he recognized not only were his actions that of a sociopath, but that they ultimately harmed the people he was most hoping to help, his fellow Islamic community. That his actions, and the actions of his group, only brought more suspicion, bias and hate on his community.
He also asked that we not believe his apology until its words were tested in action.
I think it was a very beautiful thing.
One, that he has accepted that he was mistaken and apologized for it. But that it was by being held in correctional facilities that he found out how to correct his thinking. In the article accompanying the story it explains how he met inmates who stood to have lost family members had he been successful in his plot, he also met Jewish inmates whom he befriended, recognizing that had they been in Palestine they would have killed each other without ever knowing what good friends they could have been had they only had the chance to talk.
This is the beautiful thing. Humans taking the chance to talk and recognizing other humans.
I hope Mr. Amare is given a life sentence. And that in his time in correctional custody he is used as a teacher, a negotiator and a campaigner for community and communication across community in Canada. For he has learned, and perhaps can show others, how just meeting someone new, someone different can change your life and can show you where your views must fit in a broad complex and multi-dimensional understanding of life here in our community.
Today the co-leader of the Toronto 18 apologised for his actions and his intentions in the 2006 plots to attack the cities of Toronto and Ottawa. In his apology he showed how he recognized not only were his actions that of a sociopath, but that they ultimately harmed the people he was most hoping to help, his fellow Islamic community. That his actions, and the actions of his group, only brought more suspicion, bias and hate on his community.
He also asked that we not believe his apology until its words were tested in action.
I think it was a very beautiful thing.
One, that he has accepted that he was mistaken and apologized for it. But that it was by being held in correctional facilities that he found out how to correct his thinking. In the article accompanying the story it explains how he met inmates who stood to have lost family members had he been successful in his plot, he also met Jewish inmates whom he befriended, recognizing that had they been in Palestine they would have killed each other without ever knowing what good friends they could have been had they only had the chance to talk.
This is the beautiful thing. Humans taking the chance to talk and recognizing other humans.
I hope Mr. Amare is given a life sentence. And that in his time in correctional custody he is used as a teacher, a negotiator and a campaigner for community and communication across community in Canada. For he has learned, and perhaps can show others, how just meeting someone new, someone different can change your life and can show you where your views must fit in a broad complex and multi-dimensional understanding of life here in our community.
How much can you mourn a pet?
There was an interesting article in the news this morning about mourning, following former British politician, Lord Hattersley's, letter of his grief at the loss of his pet dog.
I thought this to be a very striking article, both the article itself and the comments that accompanied it from readers. I was very surprised by it, but also quite struck. I myself still have a cat who my family adopted when I was 4 or 5. We are now both in our twenties. Of all the members in my family Cocoa (the cat) hung out with me the most. We had a very close friendship growing up. When I called her, with a whistle, she would come in a minute. But my dad or brothers or any of my other family could rarely get her to come. I was also the only one who could pick up the feisty cat.
When I left home to start university, Cocoa started mourning my loss. She cried (or mewed as a cat will do) all day, she stopped eating and drinking. She is a small cat but lost nearly 3lbs over the first 2 months I was a way at school. She didn't know I was just at school, for her it was the same as a death. I was gone. As far as she knew, never to return. From that experience I am quite struck by the fact that animals are just as emotional as humans.
And this is the part that I think makes mourning a pet so difficult. No one could tell her I was just gone for a little while and I would be back. No one could help comfort her that it was okay to miss me. There was little consolation for her. And yet, whenever I was sad, she knew just how to tell me it would be okay, just how to help me put things in perspective. In the article, it was noted by Lord Hattersley that when his father died his dog was there to help him mourn. But now that his dog has died, there is no one there to support him.
I think that mourning a pet is so difficult because we can't speak with them to be sure they know how much we love them. We can tell them, and they show us affection in return, but we are so unsure of the nature of the relationship. But there is also what a pet gives us. They bring regularity and continuity to our lives, we have to feed them, walk them, play with them and that doesn't change (much). They are that friend who invites you out for a drink or a coffee after a break up. They help take your mind off your sadness in a way that few humans have the compassion to do for their friends or family, in a way few humans even recognize as important. Not to rag on humans. Many humans regularly fill this role too.
The article also talked about people being more affected by the death of a pet, than by the death of a mother or father. I thought that singularly interesting. I don't know, as my parents are young and healthy so I haven't had to mourn their deaths (and hope I won't for many years), but I think as we get older we drift apart from out parents. From childhood where we spend all day everyday with them, to adulthood where we spend weekends, to older age where we see them at holidays... our parents in many many cases become less of a companion to us as we grow older. But quite the opposite happens with a pet. We say "Familiarity breeds contempt" and with human relationships this is often true. But not with animals.
Further, an animal is not family like a parent or sibling, but family like a husband or wife. You chose to bring the pet into your life. At first you were strangers, but you brought your different life experiences together. So I think the mourning would be more similar to the mourning of a partner than a parent. Again I haven't had to mourn the death of a partner, but I have had to mourn (grieve) the end of a long term (well relatively long term considering my age...) relationship. And even that hurts, and takes a lot of work and time to heal from. And like the death of a pet, perhaps it is a hurt and a healing that is rarely recognized by others.
Now the article talks about taking a day off to grieve and such, which may be over the top. But I think like anything so long as it is only one day. My grandmother said, many times during her life; "When I die, you get one day to mourn. And then take out your glad rags and celebrate. Because I had a good life." And I think this was very good advice. Whether for our dear Ursula, for a pet, a parent, an end of a marriage, or an end of a friendship. We should take a day to remember that good life we had, to grieve our loss and to find a new perspective to continue our life. But then we must take out our glad rags, because like it or not, we must all live even after the loss or death of the ones we love.
I thought this to be a very striking article, both the article itself and the comments that accompanied it from readers. I was very surprised by it, but also quite struck. I myself still have a cat who my family adopted when I was 4 or 5. We are now both in our twenties. Of all the members in my family Cocoa (the cat) hung out with me the most. We had a very close friendship growing up. When I called her, with a whistle, she would come in a minute. But my dad or brothers or any of my other family could rarely get her to come. I was also the only one who could pick up the feisty cat.
When I left home to start university, Cocoa started mourning my loss. She cried (or mewed as a cat will do) all day, she stopped eating and drinking. She is a small cat but lost nearly 3lbs over the first 2 months I was a way at school. She didn't know I was just at school, for her it was the same as a death. I was gone. As far as she knew, never to return. From that experience I am quite struck by the fact that animals are just as emotional as humans.
And this is the part that I think makes mourning a pet so difficult. No one could tell her I was just gone for a little while and I would be back. No one could help comfort her that it was okay to miss me. There was little consolation for her. And yet, whenever I was sad, she knew just how to tell me it would be okay, just how to help me put things in perspective. In the article, it was noted by Lord Hattersley that when his father died his dog was there to help him mourn. But now that his dog has died, there is no one there to support him.
I think that mourning a pet is so difficult because we can't speak with them to be sure they know how much we love them. We can tell them, and they show us affection in return, but we are so unsure of the nature of the relationship. But there is also what a pet gives us. They bring regularity and continuity to our lives, we have to feed them, walk them, play with them and that doesn't change (much). They are that friend who invites you out for a drink or a coffee after a break up. They help take your mind off your sadness in a way that few humans have the compassion to do for their friends or family, in a way few humans even recognize as important. Not to rag on humans. Many humans regularly fill this role too.
The article also talked about people being more affected by the death of a pet, than by the death of a mother or father. I thought that singularly interesting. I don't know, as my parents are young and healthy so I haven't had to mourn their deaths (and hope I won't for many years), but I think as we get older we drift apart from out parents. From childhood where we spend all day everyday with them, to adulthood where we spend weekends, to older age where we see them at holidays... our parents in many many cases become less of a companion to us as we grow older. But quite the opposite happens with a pet. We say "Familiarity breeds contempt" and with human relationships this is often true. But not with animals.
Further, an animal is not family like a parent or sibling, but family like a husband or wife. You chose to bring the pet into your life. At first you were strangers, but you brought your different life experiences together. So I think the mourning would be more similar to the mourning of a partner than a parent. Again I haven't had to mourn the death of a partner, but I have had to mourn (grieve) the end of a long term (well relatively long term considering my age...) relationship. And even that hurts, and takes a lot of work and time to heal from. And like the death of a pet, perhaps it is a hurt and a healing that is rarely recognized by others.
Now the article talks about taking a day off to grieve and such, which may be over the top. But I think like anything so long as it is only one day. My grandmother said, many times during her life; "When I die, you get one day to mourn. And then take out your glad rags and celebrate. Because I had a good life." And I think this was very good advice. Whether for our dear Ursula, for a pet, a parent, an end of a marriage, or an end of a friendship. We should take a day to remember that good life we had, to grieve our loss and to find a new perspective to continue our life. But then we must take out our glad rags, because like it or not, we must all live even after the loss or death of the ones we love.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Anti-islamism
It is hard these days to keep track of how to be open-minded, open-hearted, tolerant and kind. It is hard these days to remember those school-yard lessons of acceptance, of outcasting, of shaming and of helping. These days it gets harder and harder to remember what we meant when we said imagine a world...
Today(or yesterday), over 50% of the citizens in Switzerland supported a ban on the construction of minarets as part of the construction of a mosque building. There are several things at play here. Switzerland being an oldish country with a long and honourable history enjoys maintaining the symbols of its old and unique culture. There are already laws that suggest new building designs must complement and coinside with surrounding buildings. This kind of law is common in Europe, where my grandmother lived in England they have laws saying new buildings on the highstreet, along with all signage must be in a Georgian style as that is the predominant ethos of the community.
However, many citizens are quoted as saying, this vote is not just about maintaining community stylistic ethos, nor is it Muslims themselves being voted against, but against (sepcifically against)a building that symbolizes Islamisation. What does that means?
What is Islamisation? Presumably it is the gradual shifting of style, taste, and landscape to incorporate the styles taste and symbols of contemporary Islamic architechture. I don't know what it is like to live in a monoculture. That is to be raised in a monoculture. That is, I don't really know how it feels to distinguish my culture from another culture. Canadian culture is Islamisation, is hockeyisation, is maple syrupisation, is catholicasation, and protestanization and mormanization, creeation, and inuization, and hippization and the complex and unending integration of all cultures known to all the citizens of Canada. As an immigrant to Canada, I came to learn to be proud of my country as a complex mixing, blending and integrating of cultures, cultural symbols, cultural practices and so on.
That doesn't mean I wasn't glad a few years back when the Ontario high courts said no to Sharia Law. Not because of any fear os islamasation, simply because Ontario has laws, which all citizens of the province abide by (more or less) and that should there be parts of Sharia Law not covered by Ontario law, then those parts may be brought forward and proposed as new law in legislature. This is because no segment of society is different from any other segment of society. What I must abide by, you must abide by; what i am responsible for you too are responsible for. But it is for this reason that the double applicability of Sharia Law was refused in Ontario. Not because it was a symbol of Islamisation, but because it would act to segmatize our unified society.
But perhaps in countries like Europe, (for it is almost a country now...like Africa ;) where each state has for hundreds of years created unity through the sameness of culture, it must be hard to understand how all humans are human. How the symbols of any culture are merely a symbol with the meaning attached to it by humans. Treating humans as humans makes for humanely meaningful symbols (like the pyramids, roman ruins, crosses on churches, kimono, chopsticks and drums of the world). But treating humans like somekind of outsider, some different thing of less value, of less equality, of less right to belong, you associate those same treatments to the meaning of symbols.
Having been raised learning that we are all Swiss and Swiss looks a certain way, eats a certain food, builds buildings with plants in the walls, It must be hard to feel that identity changing.
Unfortunately (or well I think fortunately) all the votes in the world, all the public opinion in the world, all the generally held contempt for change will never stop change from happening. God made the world to change. That is the only truth in any religion, culture, or system of belief. Change is. And change is irresistable. Babies have to stop breast feeding eventually, people have to start earning money eventually, you will one day think it cool to wear neon green or velvet or pleather or fleece, and that horrible blocky retro building you once though to tacky for words will grow on you and soon become and important mark of your community.
Just as Swiss will immigrate to other countries, Muslims, Brits, people with 6 fingers will all emmigrate to Swizterland. And if they aren't welcome, well then I suggest looking west to Canada.
Today(or yesterday), over 50% of the citizens in Switzerland supported a ban on the construction of minarets as part of the construction of a mosque building. There are several things at play here. Switzerland being an oldish country with a long and honourable history enjoys maintaining the symbols of its old and unique culture. There are already laws that suggest new building designs must complement and coinside with surrounding buildings. This kind of law is common in Europe, where my grandmother lived in England they have laws saying new buildings on the highstreet, along with all signage must be in a Georgian style as that is the predominant ethos of the community.
However, many citizens are quoted as saying, this vote is not just about maintaining community stylistic ethos, nor is it Muslims themselves being voted against, but against (sepcifically against)a building that symbolizes Islamisation. What does that means?
What is Islamisation? Presumably it is the gradual shifting of style, taste, and landscape to incorporate the styles taste and symbols of contemporary Islamic architechture. I don't know what it is like to live in a monoculture. That is to be raised in a monoculture. That is, I don't really know how it feels to distinguish my culture from another culture. Canadian culture is Islamisation, is hockeyisation, is maple syrupisation, is catholicasation, and protestanization and mormanization, creeation, and inuization, and hippization and the complex and unending integration of all cultures known to all the citizens of Canada. As an immigrant to Canada, I came to learn to be proud of my country as a complex mixing, blending and integrating of cultures, cultural symbols, cultural practices and so on.
That doesn't mean I wasn't glad a few years back when the Ontario high courts said no to Sharia Law. Not because of any fear os islamasation, simply because Ontario has laws, which all citizens of the province abide by (more or less) and that should there be parts of Sharia Law not covered by Ontario law, then those parts may be brought forward and proposed as new law in legislature. This is because no segment of society is different from any other segment of society. What I must abide by, you must abide by; what i am responsible for you too are responsible for. But it is for this reason that the double applicability of Sharia Law was refused in Ontario. Not because it was a symbol of Islamisation, but because it would act to segmatize our unified society.
But perhaps in countries like Europe, (for it is almost a country now...like Africa ;) where each state has for hundreds of years created unity through the sameness of culture, it must be hard to understand how all humans are human. How the symbols of any culture are merely a symbol with the meaning attached to it by humans. Treating humans as humans makes for humanely meaningful symbols (like the pyramids, roman ruins, crosses on churches, kimono, chopsticks and drums of the world). But treating humans like somekind of outsider, some different thing of less value, of less equality, of less right to belong, you associate those same treatments to the meaning of symbols.
Having been raised learning that we are all Swiss and Swiss looks a certain way, eats a certain food, builds buildings with plants in the walls, It must be hard to feel that identity changing.
Unfortunately (or well I think fortunately) all the votes in the world, all the public opinion in the world, all the generally held contempt for change will never stop change from happening. God made the world to change. That is the only truth in any religion, culture, or system of belief. Change is. And change is irresistable. Babies have to stop breast feeding eventually, people have to start earning money eventually, you will one day think it cool to wear neon green or velvet or pleather or fleece, and that horrible blocky retro building you once though to tacky for words will grow on you and soon become and important mark of your community.
Just as Swiss will immigrate to other countries, Muslims, Brits, people with 6 fingers will all emmigrate to Swizterland. And if they aren't welcome, well then I suggest looking west to Canada.
Monday, November 09, 2009
I know that it seems like a good idea
I know that the mass immunization of the whole world seems like the right answer. Seems like the right course to take. Like the best way to prevent deaths. I worry, however that it will become a "well it seemed like a good idea at the time". I worry this is another example of how our preventative culture is causing serious harm, and dangerously putting our health and well being at risk.
I don't think this vaccine is dangerous. I think it is pretty innocuous. It may help you not get sick this year. Good. It may even prevent 10,000 people from dying each week from flu related complications. Good. But, I think it is the wrong course to take and I think it is the wrong way to handle this situation.
And there are two reasons why: one Influenzas A B and C are easily prevented and treated though cheap and readily available means and practices; two it is misdirected effort that may have a "boy who cried wolf effect" should that really zombie virus ever rear its head.
Reason one.
Of course, we are scared with that big what if out there. What if I get sick? Or worse my child or my mother or my wife...but isn't it better to teach and find ways to deal with that what if? Wouldn't it be better to find out what are the best things to do when that what if comes to fruition? Why are we giving up on the sick so easily?
What are the complications that lead to death in people who contract this virus? Respiratory failure, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration... Why are we spending billions of dollars on vaccines, and the equivalent of trillions of dollars in lost productivity and time spent waiting at clinics etc...to prevent a very common, and usually innocuous illness. Why not spend half that money on more effective treatment? Isn't that the way to save lives? Treat the sick?
Prevention:
I know none of us like to miss work (especially those of us who are paid by the working hour, rather than a set salary). But we need to change that mentality. Further, I know none of us like to accept we are sick and that perhaps we have to do something about it, something that will take time and effort. (we have to drink lots, we have to eat lots, we have to deal with the discomfort of illness). but we need to come to accept this discomfort. And i know that none of us wants to die, or wants anyone we know to die. But it is time we accept the truth about life being the deadliest of all sexually transmitted diseases. (I don't think life is a disease, but i think it is a funny way to think of life as an STD with 100% mortality rate...no one gets out alive...but many people get out happy...and we should embrace this and accept it as the best we can hope for. I can't live forever, but at least I can be happy).
We need to accept that even though we CAN keep working in those early hours of a flu or cold, we shouldn't. At the outset we should take some rest. A good 12 hours of sleep can do amazing things for your immune system. We should be justified in taking it at the onset of a cold. We should be supported and encouraged in it. Because this early treatment can be the difference between heading off an major infection and causing it to develop into a possibly fatal illness. Maybe it feels silly when you aren't seriously ill but stay home, and the next day wake up healthy as ever, and go to work, people think you were just skipping off. Well we should allow this not to make us feel so guilty (unless you were skipping off of course, cause then you should feel guilty it is very inconsiderate of your customers, coworkers and employer who all support your life everyday). That day of rest at the onset of illness is vital. And we must value it. And we must take it.
Next, as I said before, we really need to make hand washing the coolest thing on the block. You aren't lame if you wash your hands. Daily. Hourly. Often and thoroughly. You are clever. You are kind. You are considerate for it. And I thank you. Because you are helping keep yourself healthy, and helping keep me healthy, and together we can help take care of all the sickies out there. You don't have to wash your hands. We should want to wash them. It is proven effective. When surgeons started washing their hands and tools before surgery success rates and survival rates multiplied exponentially. Hand washing prevents contamination. It is inexpensive, and above all it is absolutely safe...no one has ever died from complications due to hand washing (unless they really deserved it) and it has a long long track record of complication free users (unlike most vaccination programs). And you don't need anything fancy. A little bit of water. Maybe a squidge of soap, if you have some to spare. Finally you can do it yourself, which is empowering. And self empowerment if key in all forays of life.
It is the best preventative medicine for an array of illnesses (unlike a vaccine which targets one small group of illnesses at a time). What is more, it also improves your public image, making you more likely to get a higher paying job, find a good spouse, raise well bred children, and have useful ways to contribute to society. There are numerous useless studies that say so..."women like men with clean fingernails" "don't judge a book by its cover, check out it's hands" etc etc.
Next we need to learn about advanced stages treatment. How do you treat a flu that is advancing to higher levels? How do you treat a fever? Respiratory distress? Diarrhea? Of course this is why we have hospitals, but this is knowledge for the masses not just the specialists. We should all know about electrolyte balance, it should be the general knowledge of school-children things like if you drink 7L of water you can die because you electrolyte levels will be too low. Or the reason you feel sick from drinking too much sweet stuff or milk is again that imbalance. We should know about respiratory distress and how breathing exercises are important and can help stage off this distress. We should also feel free to talk about our bowel activity, because if our caregivers don't know the extent of our diarrhea they might not notice our level of dehydration. We should better know how to recognize the signs of dehydration. This should be household knowledge. We shouldn't need specialists for this stuff.
Of course we need the specialists, too. Because we don't have this knowledge. Because there are myriad complications. Because there are many other illness that also signpost the same symptoms. And we are very fortunate that there are specialists in this world who can help us. But we need to help ourselves too.
Reason two:
Will this kind of hysteria and back and forthing lead to public apathy about global health, so called pandemics, and communicable diseases? Can taking a fairly innocuous illness too seriously lead us to underestimate another illness when it presents a more serious threat. Or another illness that may actually call for a medical intervention like vaccination rather than an lifestyle intervention...like hand washing...
There are a myriad of science fiction novels that take on this theme. Perhaps with good reason. To keep us on edge. We do have the knowledge, the skills, the tools and the imagination to handle this catastrophic situation...but I'm not sure the that swine flu pandemic is the monster illness set to wipe out 90% of the world's population...I worry that we are wasting resources and creating a bad mindset with this kind of treatment of the pandemic...
I don't think this vaccine is dangerous. I think it is pretty innocuous. It may help you not get sick this year. Good. It may even prevent 10,000 people from dying each week from flu related complications. Good. But, I think it is the wrong course to take and I think it is the wrong way to handle this situation.
And there are two reasons why: one Influenzas A B and C are easily prevented and treated though cheap and readily available means and practices; two it is misdirected effort that may have a "boy who cried wolf effect" should that really zombie virus ever rear its head.
Reason one.
Of course, we are scared with that big what if out there. What if I get sick? Or worse my child or my mother or my wife...but isn't it better to teach and find ways to deal with that what if? Wouldn't it be better to find out what are the best things to do when that what if comes to fruition? Why are we giving up on the sick so easily?
What are the complications that lead to death in people who contract this virus? Respiratory failure, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration... Why are we spending billions of dollars on vaccines, and the equivalent of trillions of dollars in lost productivity and time spent waiting at clinics etc...to prevent a very common, and usually innocuous illness. Why not spend half that money on more effective treatment? Isn't that the way to save lives? Treat the sick?
Prevention:
I know none of us like to miss work (especially those of us who are paid by the working hour, rather than a set salary). But we need to change that mentality. Further, I know none of us like to accept we are sick and that perhaps we have to do something about it, something that will take time and effort. (we have to drink lots, we have to eat lots, we have to deal with the discomfort of illness). but we need to come to accept this discomfort. And i know that none of us wants to die, or wants anyone we know to die. But it is time we accept the truth about life being the deadliest of all sexually transmitted diseases. (I don't think life is a disease, but i think it is a funny way to think of life as an STD with 100% mortality rate...no one gets out alive...but many people get out happy...and we should embrace this and accept it as the best we can hope for. I can't live forever, but at least I can be happy).
We need to accept that even though we CAN keep working in those early hours of a flu or cold, we shouldn't. At the outset we should take some rest. A good 12 hours of sleep can do amazing things for your immune system. We should be justified in taking it at the onset of a cold. We should be supported and encouraged in it. Because this early treatment can be the difference between heading off an major infection and causing it to develop into a possibly fatal illness. Maybe it feels silly when you aren't seriously ill but stay home, and the next day wake up healthy as ever, and go to work, people think you were just skipping off. Well we should allow this not to make us feel so guilty (unless you were skipping off of course, cause then you should feel guilty it is very inconsiderate of your customers, coworkers and employer who all support your life everyday). That day of rest at the onset of illness is vital. And we must value it. And we must take it.
Next, as I said before, we really need to make hand washing the coolest thing on the block. You aren't lame if you wash your hands. Daily. Hourly. Often and thoroughly. You are clever. You are kind. You are considerate for it. And I thank you. Because you are helping keep yourself healthy, and helping keep me healthy, and together we can help take care of all the sickies out there. You don't have to wash your hands. We should want to wash them. It is proven effective. When surgeons started washing their hands and tools before surgery success rates and survival rates multiplied exponentially. Hand washing prevents contamination. It is inexpensive, and above all it is absolutely safe...no one has ever died from complications due to hand washing (unless they really deserved it) and it has a long long track record of complication free users (unlike most vaccination programs). And you don't need anything fancy. A little bit of water. Maybe a squidge of soap, if you have some to spare. Finally you can do it yourself, which is empowering. And self empowerment if key in all forays of life.
It is the best preventative medicine for an array of illnesses (unlike a vaccine which targets one small group of illnesses at a time). What is more, it also improves your public image, making you more likely to get a higher paying job, find a good spouse, raise well bred children, and have useful ways to contribute to society. There are numerous useless studies that say so..."women like men with clean fingernails" "don't judge a book by its cover, check out it's hands" etc etc.
Next we need to learn about advanced stages treatment. How do you treat a flu that is advancing to higher levels? How do you treat a fever? Respiratory distress? Diarrhea? Of course this is why we have hospitals, but this is knowledge for the masses not just the specialists. We should all know about electrolyte balance, it should be the general knowledge of school-children things like if you drink 7L of water you can die because you electrolyte levels will be too low. Or the reason you feel sick from drinking too much sweet stuff or milk is again that imbalance. We should know about respiratory distress and how breathing exercises are important and can help stage off this distress. We should also feel free to talk about our bowel activity, because if our caregivers don't know the extent of our diarrhea they might not notice our level of dehydration. We should better know how to recognize the signs of dehydration. This should be household knowledge. We shouldn't need specialists for this stuff.
Of course we need the specialists, too. Because we don't have this knowledge. Because there are myriad complications. Because there are many other illness that also signpost the same symptoms. And we are very fortunate that there are specialists in this world who can help us. But we need to help ourselves too.
Reason two:
Will this kind of hysteria and back and forthing lead to public apathy about global health, so called pandemics, and communicable diseases? Can taking a fairly innocuous illness too seriously lead us to underestimate another illness when it presents a more serious threat. Or another illness that may actually call for a medical intervention like vaccination rather than an lifestyle intervention...like hand washing...
There are a myriad of science fiction novels that take on this theme. Perhaps with good reason. To keep us on edge. We do have the knowledge, the skills, the tools and the imagination to handle this catastrophic situation...but I'm not sure the that swine flu pandemic is the monster illness set to wipe out 90% of the world's population...I worry that we are wasting resources and creating a bad mindset with this kind of treatment of the pandemic...
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Is it ironic?
Is it ironic that the steel taken from the twin towers after they were collapsed nearly a decade ago has been turned into a warship. It was a very sad day, a very sad series of decisions, a very sad set of circumstances and in the end a number of people lost their lives, NY lost its iconic towers, and the world in so many ways lost all sense of perspective.
Why did we build warships?
That building could have been recycled into anything. And it was recycled into an instrument to continue the pain, suffering and oppression of people at home and around the world. An instrument that continues to uphold the beliefs and values of a world that we must let fade into the past. Humanity has for tens of thousands of years been becoming less and less violent; and we are coming to a time when we will no longer need mass violence to exert change, renewal, morality and equality. Why couldn't the steel have been used to embrace this bright future? Why once again have we chosen the path of violence and war?
It's a shame. Better luck next time, eh?
Why did we build warships?
That building could have been recycled into anything. And it was recycled into an instrument to continue the pain, suffering and oppression of people at home and around the world. An instrument that continues to uphold the beliefs and values of a world that we must let fade into the past. Humanity has for tens of thousands of years been becoming less and less violent; and we are coming to a time when we will no longer need mass violence to exert change, renewal, morality and equality. Why couldn't the steel have been used to embrace this bright future? Why once again have we chosen the path of violence and war?
It's a shame. Better luck next time, eh?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
SAGE
I don't want to make a stink, as a death is a death and all deaths are sad times for someone. The death of a single person can effect hundreds of others. But I was reading on the jump in deaths from the swine flu and had to think...so what. 5700 people in a week. I guess that is a lot of people. I mean that would be everyone I went to high school with over my 5 years there.
But we are talking about 5700 out of 6.something billion. Why is this such a panic issue? Why is it getting this kind of media? and why is the language of the media that of pending doom, global disaster and mass death?
I guess on the one hand there is the belief that information is one of the best ways to battle anything. Thus the media feels it is its responcibility to get the information out there. (though most news reports are a fair amount of non-information, rarely making not that handwashing is still the single greatest defence against these kinds of infections...you'd think that would get a thousand plugs a day)
Also, there is perhaps a sense that slow information in the past has fueled the spread of some of our more deadly global pandemics. If only someone had put up the flags about HIV back in the 80s would we be where we are now in that fight? Or following the SARS outbreak... the Avian flu, mad cow...if only we had got the information to the masses and scared them suffiently that they would be cautious and kind in avoiding and preventing spread of the infection.
Of course H1N1 Influenza is the hallmark of a kind of Orwellian future coming to life. For generations (well at least one generation) we have been getting warning about the use of antibiotics in animals, about the problems with the feed, changes to genetics etc...that the way we treat our food will put us at risk. That our treatment is going to produce new microbes, capable of moving between species, a pathway that was mostly theoretical, speculated and wished for in science fiction novels. So perhaps there is some "I told you so" in all this media time.
Nonetheless, while it is important that the media offer this imformation that people take the risk of infection seriously, it should be coupled with the handwashing information.
But we are talking about 5700 out of 6.something billion. Why is this such a panic issue? Why is it getting this kind of media? and why is the language of the media that of pending doom, global disaster and mass death?
I guess on the one hand there is the belief that information is one of the best ways to battle anything. Thus the media feels it is its responcibility to get the information out there. (though most news reports are a fair amount of non-information, rarely making not that handwashing is still the single greatest defence against these kinds of infections...you'd think that would get a thousand plugs a day)
Also, there is perhaps a sense that slow information in the past has fueled the spread of some of our more deadly global pandemics. If only someone had put up the flags about HIV back in the 80s would we be where we are now in that fight? Or following the SARS outbreak... the Avian flu, mad cow...if only we had got the information to the masses and scared them suffiently that they would be cautious and kind in avoiding and preventing spread of the infection.
Of course H1N1 Influenza is the hallmark of a kind of Orwellian future coming to life. For generations (well at least one generation) we have been getting warning about the use of antibiotics in animals, about the problems with the feed, changes to genetics etc...that the way we treat our food will put us at risk. That our treatment is going to produce new microbes, capable of moving between species, a pathway that was mostly theoretical, speculated and wished for in science fiction novels. So perhaps there is some "I told you so" in all this media time.
Nonetheless, while it is important that the media offer this imformation that people take the risk of infection seriously, it should be coupled with the handwashing information.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Blackface
It is black history month in the UK and so as in February in Norh America, stories of 'black' history and racism abound in the local media. One story I happened on today, talked about how modern examples of blackface (the business of painting someone to look black). The article goes on to talk about how this kind of race impersonation is disrespectful and highlights how we us race, wrongly, for our entertainment.
The article even suggested that you would never find the opposite happening for entertainment. But there are heaps and heaps of examples all over the place, that are either truly benign or wrongly ignored. There is the classic, Legolas from The Lord of the Rings. I don't know Orlando Bloom's bloodline, but pale skinned, straigth blond hair with blue eyes is not it. I remember feeling quite dupped when I learned what Mr Bloom really looked like (having not known him before the LOTR films).
Of the perhaps even worse examples of Zhang Ziyi, a native Chinese, playing Sayuri in Memoirs of a Geisha. In this case it is very possible that most of us didn't even realize how we were being deceived, or worse that it was a deception...that there are infact differences between Chinese and Japanese.
Like Hate-crime laws, I find it really difficult to face things like black history months. Aren't all crimes, hate crimes? And isn't all history worthy of highight. Would it not be better to have "Hypocracy" history month or "racism" history month or "revolution" hisotry month in which all forms of hypocracy are studied, in which every kind of racism is faced, discussed and worthy of air time, and in which revolutions of every nation are put on equal footing, are explored together to help us all understand how and why we are different, and where our borders overlap and share common ground.
I think this theme based approach, rather than subject based approach would do far more to help us learn about black history...but also about all our histories.
Then perhaps we wouldn't stand for blonde children playing the role of Annie, or of white people playing russians, or french staring as italians...or humans playing the roles of elves...
The article even suggested that you would never find the opposite happening for entertainment. But there are heaps and heaps of examples all over the place, that are either truly benign or wrongly ignored. There is the classic, Legolas from The Lord of the Rings. I don't know Orlando Bloom's bloodline, but pale skinned, straigth blond hair with blue eyes is not it. I remember feeling quite dupped when I learned what Mr Bloom really looked like (having not known him before the LOTR films).
Of the perhaps even worse examples of Zhang Ziyi, a native Chinese, playing Sayuri in Memoirs of a Geisha. In this case it is very possible that most of us didn't even realize how we were being deceived, or worse that it was a deception...that there are infact differences between Chinese and Japanese.
Like Hate-crime laws, I find it really difficult to face things like black history months. Aren't all crimes, hate crimes? And isn't all history worthy of highight. Would it not be better to have "Hypocracy" history month or "racism" history month or "revolution" hisotry month in which all forms of hypocracy are studied, in which every kind of racism is faced, discussed and worthy of air time, and in which revolutions of every nation are put on equal footing, are explored together to help us all understand how and why we are different, and where our borders overlap and share common ground.
I think this theme based approach, rather than subject based approach would do far more to help us learn about black history...but also about all our histories.
Then perhaps we wouldn't stand for blonde children playing the role of Annie, or of white people playing russians, or french staring as italians...or humans playing the roles of elves...
Monday, October 19, 2009
Bunny biofuel
There is a (I think) very funny case of concern in Sweden about the use of the bodies of culled rabbits. It is pretty mean to laugh, but it is very funny in some rather ironic and sad ways.
The problem: invasive rabbits are harming the city environment, so the city has employed hunters to cull them. 6000 last year 3000 this year. We will see how many in the future. Well after culling, the bodies are frozen and then incinerated. The catch, this particular incinerator uses the energy produced from the process to create heat for homes. So inadvertently rabbits are being used as biofuel to heat homes. Although, that is a bit of an oversimplification, as they aren't solely being used, and they are going to be destroyed anyway. And how many homes can be heated by the bodies of 3000 rabbits anyway?
But in many ways it feels a bit like science fiction, doesn't it? A bit like one of those Ray Bradbury stories of old citizens being encouraged to kill themselves, or of dredging the sea to make a kind of slurry for feeding the thousands...which is the funny part.
But it is an interesting question of efficiency. The company is already burning peat moss and wood for this process, along with various waste products, and had 1000 years ago rabbits died and become part of the peat bog, there would be no problem with burning them to make fuel. Or had a large number of people served rabbit soup and thrown out a bunch of rabbit carcasses, there would be no problem burning them. This is because there are intermediate steps, removing the direct animal to energy flow.
But it isn't like the government is going out killing rabbits for the purpose of making energy, that is just an added bonus (or effect if you will). But it does kind of leave that eerie feeling, that if it is okay to dispose of rabbit bodies in this way, how long before human bodies too may be recycled to heat our homes. Does it matter? And there it is...that question of man...our greatest hubris, or greatest truth...are humans sacred?
Anyway, I hope the cute bunnies stop over populating the streets of Stockholm so that the cull can end, and we can avoid that elephant for a few more years.
The problem: invasive rabbits are harming the city environment, so the city has employed hunters to cull them. 6000 last year 3000 this year. We will see how many in the future. Well after culling, the bodies are frozen and then incinerated. The catch, this particular incinerator uses the energy produced from the process to create heat for homes. So inadvertently rabbits are being used as biofuel to heat homes. Although, that is a bit of an oversimplification, as they aren't solely being used, and they are going to be destroyed anyway. And how many homes can be heated by the bodies of 3000 rabbits anyway?
But in many ways it feels a bit like science fiction, doesn't it? A bit like one of those Ray Bradbury stories of old citizens being encouraged to kill themselves, or of dredging the sea to make a kind of slurry for feeding the thousands...which is the funny part.
But it is an interesting question of efficiency. The company is already burning peat moss and wood for this process, along with various waste products, and had 1000 years ago rabbits died and become part of the peat bog, there would be no problem with burning them to make fuel. Or had a large number of people served rabbit soup and thrown out a bunch of rabbit carcasses, there would be no problem burning them. This is because there are intermediate steps, removing the direct animal to energy flow.
But it isn't like the government is going out killing rabbits for the purpose of making energy, that is just an added bonus (or effect if you will). But it does kind of leave that eerie feeling, that if it is okay to dispose of rabbit bodies in this way, how long before human bodies too may be recycled to heat our homes. Does it matter? And there it is...that question of man...our greatest hubris, or greatest truth...are humans sacred?
Anyway, I hope the cute bunnies stop over populating the streets of Stockholm so that the cull can end, and we can avoid that elephant for a few more years.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Green space living
Coming from someone who lives in a jungle, this may seem like an odd blog...It may just be that I need to stop reading the BBC. But they do have some interesting news. Like this report about the effects of green spaces on our health. I do love the green in and around my home, and I fully agree with the findings of the research, as they are very apparent in my life too. But it is grossly one-sided research, and I wonder if they might also acknowledge the problems of allergies, insects and pest that go with green space. The maintenance, and feeling of guilt and resentment that accompany that maintenance work. What about the dangers of parks in cities especially where people tend to be a little less balanced and more likely to go crazy and attack someone...
I am fully for living in jungles. To limiting cities to populations of 300,000 and rewarding cities for populations of under 30,000. To planting more trees, and enforcing civic clean up days when citizens are encouraged and positively rewarded for taking pride in their community and contributing to its maintenance. But we have to be realistic as we promote these better living environments. We have to be honest and allow people to know that its not all green grass over there. That there are downsides too. Otherwise people just get disappointed when they make the change and learn the truth for themselves.
I am fully for living in jungles. To limiting cities to populations of 300,000 and rewarding cities for populations of under 30,000. To planting more trees, and enforcing civic clean up days when citizens are encouraged and positively rewarded for taking pride in their community and contributing to its maintenance. But we have to be realistic as we promote these better living environments. We have to be honest and allow people to know that its not all green grass over there. That there are downsides too. Otherwise people just get disappointed when they make the change and learn the truth for themselves.
Pushing products
I recently posted about the EU's quest for supported claims. That they want any medical sounding claims on products to be supported by research. A, I think, very expensive and futile objective...but then we are talking about the EU.
Well, then I finished using my tube of Crest toothpaste. As I was winkling out that last little divot of paste I read the tube, probably for the first time in the three months I have been using it. And it said that is was an "All in one" toothpaste. And a twinge of panic gripped me. All in one...does that mean I shouldn't have been flossing these past months? Or I shouldn't have been using mouthwash, if only occasionally? What is included in this All that the tube was speaking of?
Unfortunately, beyond the claim that everything was there, there wasn't much else to let me know what complementary oral care I should continue with, and what was really unnecessary. I thought of the minutes of my life I may have wasted flossing, when this toothpaste should have been sufficient. I tried to assure myself that I had at that time removed build up with that little bit of thread...and that perhaps it was All in one, but I may not have been using it properly anyway...I never did read the use instructions.
Then another thought occurred to me...my next tube of paste was Colgate Complete. Was this the same as an All in one? Or did it just mean it was a complete toothpaste, and that other complementary care was still necessary? What about those years of just using the regular red tube Colgate...was that an incomplete toothpaste? Should someone be held accountable for the inferior oral care provided by that product. I mean we should always be good DOB scouts shouldn't we?
So I opened the box to see if the new Colgate would give me a better sense of what complete meant. It said tarter control and breath freshening* I thought, hmm what is the * for? So I looked down the side of the tube It said *with brushing...
With brushing?
Well...how else do you use toothpaste? This is when I really started to panic. i tried to imagine other ways toothpaste might be employed that would provide other kinds of tooth care. Maybe as a kind of soak, or an application, maybe to be taken as a drink? Diluted and used as a rinse?
But in the end, I decided that my smile is beautiful, and still beautiful just with the care I am giving it. And if there might be better care out there, it is okay, because I could be doing a lot worse. And this is what I think the EU science supported-claims need to take into consideration. By forcing companies to back claims scientifically, makes the claims even stronger in the public eye, making individuals even more controlled by the claims made to push a product. Which, as I ahve demonstrated can cause a lot of needless worry (and blogging). Really we should be working to weaken that bond, to encourage people to be their own scientists, to observe their bodies, and the effects of their environment on them. I know some claims can be dangerous, and some of us aren't equipped to handle the investigation...but I am sure we can learn.
Although, the latest episode of South Park "Dead Celebrities" #1308 does suggest, through the Chipoltaway product placement, that this is wishful thinking.
Well, then I finished using my tube of Crest toothpaste. As I was winkling out that last little divot of paste I read the tube, probably for the first time in the three months I have been using it. And it said that is was an "All in one" toothpaste. And a twinge of panic gripped me. All in one...does that mean I shouldn't have been flossing these past months? Or I shouldn't have been using mouthwash, if only occasionally? What is included in this All that the tube was speaking of?
Unfortunately, beyond the claim that everything was there, there wasn't much else to let me know what complementary oral care I should continue with, and what was really unnecessary. I thought of the minutes of my life I may have wasted flossing, when this toothpaste should have been sufficient. I tried to assure myself that I had at that time removed build up with that little bit of thread...and that perhaps it was All in one, but I may not have been using it properly anyway...I never did read the use instructions.
Then another thought occurred to me...my next tube of paste was Colgate Complete. Was this the same as an All in one? Or did it just mean it was a complete toothpaste, and that other complementary care was still necessary? What about those years of just using the regular red tube Colgate...was that an incomplete toothpaste? Should someone be held accountable for the inferior oral care provided by that product. I mean we should always be good DOB scouts shouldn't we?
So I opened the box to see if the new Colgate would give me a better sense of what complete meant. It said tarter control and breath freshening* I thought, hmm what is the * for? So I looked down the side of the tube It said *with brushing...
With brushing?
Well...how else do you use toothpaste? This is when I really started to panic. i tried to imagine other ways toothpaste might be employed that would provide other kinds of tooth care. Maybe as a kind of soak, or an application, maybe to be taken as a drink? Diluted and used as a rinse?
But in the end, I decided that my smile is beautiful, and still beautiful just with the care I am giving it. And if there might be better care out there, it is okay, because I could be doing a lot worse. And this is what I think the EU science supported-claims need to take into consideration. By forcing companies to back claims scientifically, makes the claims even stronger in the public eye, making individuals even more controlled by the claims made to push a product. Which, as I ahve demonstrated can cause a lot of needless worry (and blogging). Really we should be working to weaken that bond, to encourage people to be their own scientists, to observe their bodies, and the effects of their environment on them. I know some claims can be dangerous, and some of us aren't equipped to handle the investigation...but I am sure we can learn.
Although, the latest episode of South Park "Dead Celebrities" #1308 does suggest, through the Chipoltaway product placement, that this is wishful thinking.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Food
Global food production must increase by 70% in the next 40 years...according to a report by the UN council for food. In the news report, as I haven't gone hunting up the original as UN pages are always so slow loading, there is a certain hysteria that nags me to say something about the state of food.
And I find it is now that I must say this because I have recently gained a house gremlin. That is a strange creature who likes to buy food and bring it to my house. And leave it there for me to eat. I like to buy food cook it and then eat it that day or maybe the next day for breakfast. I keep certain stock foods like salt sugar and rice. But most other things I pick up once or twice a week at the market. This is because if i buy more food it will end up in the garbage. As I tried to explain to my house gremlin.
And this is the point I want to make. It seems that 70%, presumably above the regular rate of increase in production is a lot. And I just wonder how much of it could be made up for by eating smarter not harder. In developed countries, so much food everyday gets used helping keep up the diversity of local landfills and incinerators. I wonder if merely learning to waste less food would be sufficient to account for food shortages in developed countries?
Obviously or well presumably a large part of the shortage trouble is and will be in densely populated, poorly developed countries and areas of countries, but seeing as cities are going to do nothing but grow, perhaps we need to help grow a culture of wasteless living in them. Before we go mowing down more forest, "reclaiming" more ocean for land, and irrigating desertland. Helping city dwellers be more conscious of wasted food, may also help us become more conscious of food issues around the world. And perhaps inspire some fabulous thinker to find more creative solutions than just uping production.
And I find it is now that I must say this because I have recently gained a house gremlin. That is a strange creature who likes to buy food and bring it to my house. And leave it there for me to eat. I like to buy food cook it and then eat it that day or maybe the next day for breakfast. I keep certain stock foods like salt sugar and rice. But most other things I pick up once or twice a week at the market. This is because if i buy more food it will end up in the garbage. As I tried to explain to my house gremlin.
And this is the point I want to make. It seems that 70%, presumably above the regular rate of increase in production is a lot. And I just wonder how much of it could be made up for by eating smarter not harder. In developed countries, so much food everyday gets used helping keep up the diversity of local landfills and incinerators. I wonder if merely learning to waste less food would be sufficient to account for food shortages in developed countries?
Obviously or well presumably a large part of the shortage trouble is and will be in densely populated, poorly developed countries and areas of countries, but seeing as cities are going to do nothing but grow, perhaps we need to help grow a culture of wasteless living in them. Before we go mowing down more forest, "reclaiming" more ocean for land, and irrigating desertland. Helping city dwellers be more conscious of wasted food, may also help us become more conscious of food issues around the world. And perhaps inspire some fabulous thinker to find more creative solutions than just uping production.
Monday, October 05, 2009
EU wants it specific
I just read an article about the debunking of the probiotic effects of yogurt drinks. The article was concerned with the EU's attempts to ensure that any "medical-sounding" claims made on food products be supported by facts. They want it verified by scientific observation that the probiots in many yogurt products are "good for you". And what is the percentage, what is the short and long term group mean distribution of effects, and how do these effects come about...perhaps.
This is all in their attempt to protect the public, (there it is my favourite phrase), from misleading or false advertising, and to ensure that all products are fairly represented. Personally, I think it is time to do away with advertising on foods. All food packaging (if any packaging at all) should just say what is in side. Maybe how to cook it. And even those instructions should read something like: add water or add fire or add both...go on experiment.
I don't get it. Or rather, I don't get what people don't get about food. Can't you just eat something and feel it was good for you, or feel, "hmm maybe i shouldn't eat too much of that." I mean, don't you just feel good after eating high quality bread, or a peach, versus when you eat dollar a zip-locked loaf bread and a tinned peach? Can't you feel after a yogurt...oh that was a lot of sugar, or that was a little tarte but my tummy feels calm...
Maybe some of the high fruit, high processed yogurts aren't as healthy as they claim, but eating yogurt is a good habit. Just take away a company's right to promote by claims...I think this is nicer. Instead of spending billions on questionable, arguable research let's spend it teaching people how to enjoy food, how to eat food and how to appreciate how food makes their bodies feel.
I have friends who I know are allergic to tomatoes or maybe cheese who don't know it. I see, we eat pizza or a nice lasgna, 10 minutes later they look lethargic and strained, not long after they are off to the loo. They enjoy the gustatory experience so much that they don't associate the coupled digestive experience with the ingredients their bodies don't like. I know I am probably mildly sensetive to bread. I eat it, especially when I eat a lot of it, and I get depressed, sleepy, groggy. And its a positive feedback cycle too, when I start getting depressed I crave more bread, I eat it, I feel more sick and sad, so I crave and eat more. But when I catch on and go for a bowl of soup or some rice instead of bread it is only a matter of time before my whole condition shifts again.
When we pay attention to our body, we can find out how wise it is. And then all the faulty health claims in the world don't matter a stitch and companies can tell you what you want, but you will say, "your words sound wise, but I know otherwise, my body whispers to me what it needs to keep fit and vital"
But I guess we need some lessons in the listening part. It isn't easy and it does take time. But i think if i could get funding for research I could demonstrate how much money would be saved by governments if food didn't need promoting.
This is all in their attempt to protect the public, (there it is my favourite phrase), from misleading or false advertising, and to ensure that all products are fairly represented. Personally, I think it is time to do away with advertising on foods. All food packaging (if any packaging at all) should just say what is in side. Maybe how to cook it. And even those instructions should read something like: add water or add fire or add both...go on experiment.
I don't get it. Or rather, I don't get what people don't get about food. Can't you just eat something and feel it was good for you, or feel, "hmm maybe i shouldn't eat too much of that." I mean, don't you just feel good after eating high quality bread, or a peach, versus when you eat dollar a zip-locked loaf bread and a tinned peach? Can't you feel after a yogurt...oh that was a lot of sugar, or that was a little tarte but my tummy feels calm...
Maybe some of the high fruit, high processed yogurts aren't as healthy as they claim, but eating yogurt is a good habit. Just take away a company's right to promote by claims...I think this is nicer. Instead of spending billions on questionable, arguable research let's spend it teaching people how to enjoy food, how to eat food and how to appreciate how food makes their bodies feel.
I have friends who I know are allergic to tomatoes or maybe cheese who don't know it. I see, we eat pizza or a nice lasgna, 10 minutes later they look lethargic and strained, not long after they are off to the loo. They enjoy the gustatory experience so much that they don't associate the coupled digestive experience with the ingredients their bodies don't like. I know I am probably mildly sensetive to bread. I eat it, especially when I eat a lot of it, and I get depressed, sleepy, groggy. And its a positive feedback cycle too, when I start getting depressed I crave more bread, I eat it, I feel more sick and sad, so I crave and eat more. But when I catch on and go for a bowl of soup or some rice instead of bread it is only a matter of time before my whole condition shifts again.
When we pay attention to our body, we can find out how wise it is. And then all the faulty health claims in the world don't matter a stitch and companies can tell you what you want, but you will say, "your words sound wise, but I know otherwise, my body whispers to me what it needs to keep fit and vital"
But I guess we need some lessons in the listening part. It isn't easy and it does take time. But i think if i could get funding for research I could demonstrate how much money would be saved by governments if food didn't need promoting.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Terminating an adoption
It is all over may social networks and I am reading a lot about this case of the Tedaldis. Do you know the story? 18 months after adopting a child her husband and her decided to return it, as they weren't bonding to the child the way they had bonded with their biological daughters.
It is a pretty sad story. As is every story of a child being rejected, abandoned and left "for someone else" to take care of. The child in question had been abondoned as an infant by the side of a road and was taken into state care. Then adopted to the Tedaldis family.
It seems impossible that a family would go through the process of adopting and child only to turn it away again, but it happens...and happens frequently. But need we react with name calling and disgust? I don't know. It is a very sad story. It is sad because it reminds us how little love we give sometimes. It is sad because it reminds us of how we have abandoned those we should love. It is sad because it is so true to the experience of each of us.
Life is often a series of abandonments. But it is also full of people willing to take us in. To give us love, attention and affection when we least expect it.
It may be years, decades even before this child finds love. Although with the media coverage of the story probably he will be one of the lucky ones and soon find the people who can and will love and care for him. Who knows, perhaps even his biological parents seeing the hardness of their first abondonment repeated will be inspired to face up and give their son the love he needs. But in the end, in some way we all get the love we need.
It is a pretty sad story. As is every story of a child being rejected, abandoned and left "for someone else" to take care of. The child in question had been abondoned as an infant by the side of a road and was taken into state care. Then adopted to the Tedaldis family.
It seems impossible that a family would go through the process of adopting and child only to turn it away again, but it happens...and happens frequently. But need we react with name calling and disgust? I don't know. It is a very sad story. It is sad because it reminds us how little love we give sometimes. It is sad because it reminds us of how we have abandoned those we should love. It is sad because it is so true to the experience of each of us.
Life is often a series of abandonments. But it is also full of people willing to take us in. To give us love, attention and affection when we least expect it.
It may be years, decades even before this child finds love. Although with the media coverage of the story probably he will be one of the lucky ones and soon find the people who can and will love and care for him. Who knows, perhaps even his biological parents seeing the hardness of their first abondonment repeated will be inspired to face up and give their son the love he needs. But in the end, in some way we all get the love we need.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
multilingual and hyperlingual
I don't know the word for them, but I think I will call them hyperlinguists. I think I am one of this group. These are people who have a poor ability to articulate something simplistically. Like that, for example...
I wonder if hyperlinguiticness could be classified as some sort of condition. I know in some autism type disorders there are ways of classifying language skills that have to do with an inability to express ones emotions in a "normal" way. I wonder if I could research hyperlinguisticality in perfectly healthy people? But then, I wonder, what would be the point of that research? I suppose to eventually publish a paper in some magazine, or journal, as hyperlinguistic people like to call them. And make a whimsically TED presentation on the matter, that will make all the hyperlinguists in the audience, chortel noisily, and some of the more normal people smirk quietly. And in both the presentation and the paper I shall say something to the point of "Isn't hyperlinguisticness a terrifically interesting topic and shouldn't we all spend a great deal more time thinking about it and posting blogs that no one reads on the topic"
Of course, no one doesn't read this blog. But you do. Although, if I am good at researching...or maybe if i am not good at it (I forget which way round it goes) I should find something more about this puzzling condition than I have already hypothosized about. This i will lay out next.
These days I spend a great deal of time speaking Japanese badly. I don't mind too much, except for the part of me that has a burning desire to express myself in plays on words and puns and all kinds of twists of spoken talk. This week I have had a string of nasty nightmares about going deaf. But in each of them I couldn't explain to anyone that the reason I had gone deaf was because I couldn't say what i wanted to say the way I wanted to say it.
this is hyperlinguistic behaviour. The part that puts a great deal of effort into how things are said. The part that reserves speeche acts until they are beautifully scuplted. and also that part that desires to talk and talk until well more talking cannot be had.
I think i just miss talking about things of consequence. As I said, i mostly speak japanese badly. I think I will study some interesting Japanese words like precipitation and neurological...so i can say something really smart, soon.
I wonder if hyperlinguiticness could be classified as some sort of condition. I know in some autism type disorders there are ways of classifying language skills that have to do with an inability to express ones emotions in a "normal" way. I wonder if I could research hyperlinguisticality in perfectly healthy people? But then, I wonder, what would be the point of that research? I suppose to eventually publish a paper in some magazine, or journal, as hyperlinguistic people like to call them. And make a whimsically TED presentation on the matter, that will make all the hyperlinguists in the audience, chortel noisily, and some of the more normal people smirk quietly. And in both the presentation and the paper I shall say something to the point of "Isn't hyperlinguisticness a terrifically interesting topic and shouldn't we all spend a great deal more time thinking about it and posting blogs that no one reads on the topic"
Of course, no one doesn't read this blog. But you do. Although, if I am good at researching...or maybe if i am not good at it (I forget which way round it goes) I should find something more about this puzzling condition than I have already hypothosized about. This i will lay out next.
These days I spend a great deal of time speaking Japanese badly. I don't mind too much, except for the part of me that has a burning desire to express myself in plays on words and puns and all kinds of twists of spoken talk. This week I have had a string of nasty nightmares about going deaf. But in each of them I couldn't explain to anyone that the reason I had gone deaf was because I couldn't say what i wanted to say the way I wanted to say it.
this is hyperlinguistic behaviour. The part that puts a great deal of effort into how things are said. The part that reserves speeche acts until they are beautifully scuplted. and also that part that desires to talk and talk until well more talking cannot be had.
I think i just miss talking about things of consequence. As I said, i mostly speak japanese badly. I think I will study some interesting Japanese words like precipitation and neurological...so i can say something really smart, soon.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Young love
I was recently reading about a survey in the UK of people age 13-17 and their views about their intimate relationships. The survey found that many young people experience abuse and violence in these early relationships. One of the researchers claiming that it is surprising and appalling that abuse would start so young.
But, I'm not sure that it is at all surprising. Aren't children far more abusive that adults? I mean I thought physical communication like hitting and biting to be vital in childhood to express frustration, displeasure, distaste and also preference in the time before we had the words to do so. I know I am a pretty unusual kid, but I see it all over the place, even here in Japan. When kids don't know how else to say "no" or "yes" they usually say so physically. They pull you towards a certain activity, they throw books on the floor, they grab you hand or turn away from what they don't want to do.
So should we be surprised that younger people in intimate relationships are abusive with their partners? They aren't adults. They don't appreciate they aren't adults. Often we don't appreciate they aren't adults too. But those of a certain age understand with certain clarity that they aren't adults, and thus it would be difficult to expect them to act as adults would in such a new and uncharted territory as an intimate relationship (even if they have had several).
I wonder if it is useful to use words like abuse in describing these sorts of interactions. This very broad category can leave young people feeling helpless and paralysed as what they learn in schools is that to overcome abuse in your life is a lot of work, complete overhaul of your life and the strength to strike out against those who are "oppressing you".
I think rather we need to think about how to be involved with your youth. How to be active with them, play with them, engage them in the community so that they have a rich and full life with many diverse aspects to it, so they can engage more things than finding intimate partners. For fear of sounding really catholic, we should also help our kids to value the preciousness of intimacy, and prepare them to wait to find that real person who they want to maintain long term intimacy with. While I know it is unpractical for everyone, there is a great value in the independence and self worth that comes with saying no.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Genius
I was thinking about genius this morning. I was thinking about being gifted too. About receiving the gifts of your gods, your faith, culture and the like. I was thinking about how so many of us use ceremonies to receive and prove that we are gifted people. But this is a little bit nonsense. We are not gifted because of the ceremonies of gifting that we have partaken in. We are just gifted.
It is a bit like this. Just because I don't have the postcard, doesn't mean I haven't been to Australia. You know? The ceremony is just a show, the lack of ceremony isn't the lack of the gift.
Today I will engage a fairly exciting ceremony as I begin to prove my gifts for caring, healing and health care. For even though these gifts already exist in me, my society needs ceremonial proof of their existence. I think this is fine. But it can be a bit nerve racking to have to perform these acts. Nonetheless, I am excited.
But this also hearkens on to an experience I had about a month ago. It happened while I was shower climbing for the first time. I had recently read about the grandfathers and grandmothers choosing to give their gifts to a little native girl, and the elaborate ceremonies she had to endure to receive those gifts. I was thinking, while a read about her experience, that I would never receive gifts from the grandparents of the forest, because I had no one to perform those rituals and ceremonies for me.
And yet, as I was climbing that waterfall, actually just after I finished climbing a rather difficult line, I found myself alone in a part of the river. The next member was still climbing, and it was just me, standing in the water, the sunlight trickling through the leaves of the forest. And as I stood there, I heard drumming. Simple at first, the drums became louder and more complex. The rhythm surrounded me and I found myself transported into a sort of still ecstasy. I stood still and listened and danced at the same time. I laughed because I realized just then how silly I had been to think it was the ceremony that granted the gifts.
Life grants gifts, whether we notice them or not, whether we celebrate them, stylize them, exaggerate them or ignore them. We are everyday receiving gifts from all around us. We shouldn't mistake the ceremony for the gift, and remember to give thanks for all our gifts. They are all precious and they are all real. And celebrated or not they are all valuable.
It is a bit like this. Just because I don't have the postcard, doesn't mean I haven't been to Australia. You know? The ceremony is just a show, the lack of ceremony isn't the lack of the gift.
Today I will engage a fairly exciting ceremony as I begin to prove my gifts for caring, healing and health care. For even though these gifts already exist in me, my society needs ceremonial proof of their existence. I think this is fine. But it can be a bit nerve racking to have to perform these acts. Nonetheless, I am excited.
But this also hearkens on to an experience I had about a month ago. It happened while I was shower climbing for the first time. I had recently read about the grandfathers and grandmothers choosing to give their gifts to a little native girl, and the elaborate ceremonies she had to endure to receive those gifts. I was thinking, while a read about her experience, that I would never receive gifts from the grandparents of the forest, because I had no one to perform those rituals and ceremonies for me.
And yet, as I was climbing that waterfall, actually just after I finished climbing a rather difficult line, I found myself alone in a part of the river. The next member was still climbing, and it was just me, standing in the water, the sunlight trickling through the leaves of the forest. And as I stood there, I heard drumming. Simple at first, the drums became louder and more complex. The rhythm surrounded me and I found myself transported into a sort of still ecstasy. I stood still and listened and danced at the same time. I laughed because I realized just then how silly I had been to think it was the ceremony that granted the gifts.
Life grants gifts, whether we notice them or not, whether we celebrate them, stylize them, exaggerate them or ignore them. We are everyday receiving gifts from all around us. We shouldn't mistake the ceremony for the gift, and remember to give thanks for all our gifts. They are all precious and they are all real. And celebrated or not they are all valuable.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Topless
As summer heat drives millions to the beaches of the world the question and quiet discomforts surface once more. As a young woman the question and pressures return, to go topless or not? A recent article in the BBC Magazine suggests that these days more and more women are choosing to keep their tits in the tops at the beach. This trend is interpreted as evidence of the increasing failures of feminism to liberate women and allow them the equal freedom men enjoy when they doff their tops in the summer sun.
The article claims women feel sexualized and "stared at" when they go topless, attention they feel is demeaning, unfair and sexists (directed at them just because they are women). Therefore choose to remain covered. But ladies...let's be fair: when a guy with a nice body doffs his top don't you stare? Don't you sexualize him? Don't you think "mmm yummy"? Further when an fat old construction worker does it don't you sexually evaluate him too thinking yuck, hide that gut, cover that hair... we don't just sexualize women but all people. When given the opportunity to evaluate them in their natal state, we unthinking, instantly respond with these evaluations. We assess and make predictions about their virility and quality for breeding.
I don't want to make it sound as though all we do is spend our days thinking about who to mate with, but for brief moments now and then when given appropriate stimuli...of course we do.
So why are more women keeping their tits in their tops. Perhaps they think they look better there. Many swim suits are accessorized to make you look more colourful and attractive. Often tops are padded making breasts look larger and holding them on top of the chest giving them a more appealing shape. Perhaps women feel they don't need to reveal everything about themselves to the world when they just want to enjoy some sun at the beach. Perhaps it's true that women are simple responding to social pressures to keep themselves covered. Perhaps our generation has accepted what our feminist mothers tried to throw off, that women are just different, play different roles, accept a different place in our society with different expectations and rules...
Whatever the reason for the current trend it is not reason to ban toplessness, it should be an available freedom. For many women its is not a necessary practice. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it needs to be banned. You know... like for many people drinking coffee isn't a necessary practice, doesn't mean it should be banned, or eating dogs...just because lots of people don't do it, doesn't mean we need to ban it, some people still enjoy it from time to time.
The article claims women feel sexualized and "stared at" when they go topless, attention they feel is demeaning, unfair and sexists (directed at them just because they are women). Therefore choose to remain covered. But ladies...let's be fair: when a guy with a nice body doffs his top don't you stare? Don't you sexualize him? Don't you think "mmm yummy"? Further when an fat old construction worker does it don't you sexually evaluate him too thinking yuck, hide that gut, cover that hair... we don't just sexualize women but all people. When given the opportunity to evaluate them in their natal state, we unthinking, instantly respond with these evaluations. We assess and make predictions about their virility and quality for breeding.
I don't want to make it sound as though all we do is spend our days thinking about who to mate with, but for brief moments now and then when given appropriate stimuli...of course we do.
So why are more women keeping their tits in their tops. Perhaps they think they look better there. Many swim suits are accessorized to make you look more colourful and attractive. Often tops are padded making breasts look larger and holding them on top of the chest giving them a more appealing shape. Perhaps women feel they don't need to reveal everything about themselves to the world when they just want to enjoy some sun at the beach. Perhaps it's true that women are simple responding to social pressures to keep themselves covered. Perhaps our generation has accepted what our feminist mothers tried to throw off, that women are just different, play different roles, accept a different place in our society with different expectations and rules...
Whatever the reason for the current trend it is not reason to ban toplessness, it should be an available freedom. For many women its is not a necessary practice. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it needs to be banned. You know... like for many people drinking coffee isn't a necessary practice, doesn't mean it should be banned, or eating dogs...just because lots of people don't do it, doesn't mean we need to ban it, some people still enjoy it from time to time.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Is it true?
I recently have faced several proposals that to become truely creative people we must hold up freedom of speech as the pinicle goal of democratic society.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
