19 October 2015 - National Election Day

Let’s get one thing straight from the upstart.

I personally care less about HOW you vote than IF you vote.

I have a challenge to people under 30 at the end of my tirade with this regards.

Political knowledge is a democratic value. It is also an important ingredient in democratic citizenship, influencing public attitudes and opinions and, thus political behaviour. Please get educated on the candidates in your area and the political platform they represent, then on 19 October, vote as you please but PLEASE vote. Thousands of men and women over the last 148 years have fought and many died to give you the right to choose your representative to Ottawa. To make a conscious decision not to vote flies in the face of one of the most precious gifts we have as a democratic nation.

That being said, it is a sad footnote in Canadian history that voter turnout for general (Federal) elections dropped from 79% in 1963, to 58% in 2008, while the election for the current government was chosen at the behest of only 61% of eligible voters.

Every age bracket votes differently which is why it is important to have a cross section of eligible voters voice their opinions. Voters over 65 who make up the majority of people at the polls (90% of seniors vote) voted Conservative which is why the current government has a majority of the seats in Ottawa. The next highest set of voters are between 30 and 65 tend to vote more to the left in the political spectrum resulting in the NDP, Liberals and BQ holding the balance of power in a minority opposition to the conservatives. The smallest number of voters (37% of the eligible voters between18 and 30), trend towards the Green, Independents and NDP, leaving Elizabeth May as the sole seat for the Green Party in Ottawa. In a decade or two, the younger voters will be in the prime of their lives and paying for the political choices of their now departed grandparents which are not likely to reflect the priorities or, one could speculate, the needs of next Canada.

Interestingly, respondents from age 22 to 29 with household income of under $20,000 showed less voting behaviour than did those with household income of $60,000 or more. The young adults in low-income households had almost 50% lower odds of voting than those in high-income households. Low income was also a predictor of not voting, with 22.9% (of non-voters) who claimed to be “too busy” to vote. 

I don’t buy the “too busy” excuse.

According to the Canada Elections Act, a general election is be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, to elect members to the House of Commons. That is day, every four years, to get yourself to the polling place to voice your opinion. If you cannot make it on Election Day, you have the option of participating in an advance poll which are generally held a week or two in advance.

If you choose to vote on election day, you are entitled to four hours between 8:00AM and 8:00PM to vote, which means if you are working 8:00AM - 5:00PM, your employer can let you off at 4:00PM (the last hour WITH pay) so you can vote before 8:00PM.

If you are 18 to 30 years of age, you are in the age group least likely to vote in a general election.

My Challenge

1.     Do 15 minutes on-line finding out about each of the political parties. Learn something. Find out which party you agree with the most;

2..       If you are conflicted between two parties, write to them (they all have contact pages) in either English or French to find out more information. When you have resolved your questions, make a decision to vote for the local representative of that party;

3.       If you have never voted before, find two friends who have never voted before and all three of you go together to vote;

4.       If you voted in May 2011 you are at least 22 years old. Find two friends who have never voted before and two friends who voted last time, and all five of you go together to vote.

5.       Challenge every other person you know between 18 and 30 years of age to do the same.

See you at the polls!

Christmas Reality

To be sure I have no problem with people who have faith in their own belief systems and for especially for practicing Christians, it takes a LOT of faith if the Christmas story occurred as was depicted in the Gospels of Matthew (Chapter 2) and Luke (Chapter 2).

The premise being that a carpenter and his fiancé needed to travel to their ancestral home - Beyt Leḥem (Bethlehem) from Natz'rat  (Nathereth) to partake in a census ordered by Caesar. Along the way, the young woman was impregnated without losing her virginity, and had a dream instructing her how to name the boy. When they got home, she gave birth in an animal shed because there was no room anywhere else. A star hung over the place where she gave birth, providing directions for the shepherds and Magi to show up shortly thereafter.  The local Roman Governor (Herod) heard that a prince had been born, and ordered all baby boys under two to be slaughtered, so the young Mom fled to Egypt only to return later and raise her son.

Sound about right?

I know, I missed the part about the Angels signing and the Little Drummer Boy, but the essence of the story is there.

It takes LOTS of faith to take that story at face value, and if you have that faith that this is the way things happened as first recorded some 50 years after the boy’s death, then good for you!  Enjoy your fantasy and read no further.

However, there are some historical truths that have come to light over the last century or so that may give you pause to question the reality of the story. These truths come from historians who recorded events much closer to the time of the event, with both Jewish and Roman records agreeing with each other and decrying the stories written two to three generations after his death.

Where to start?

The Census

The Romans kept impeccable records, even if they were often skewed in their favour, but there is no record of a census being conducted outside of Rome itself decades before or after the time of the birth. Even if a census did occur at the time of Yeshua ben Yusef’s (AKA:  Jesus) birth, the people would not have been required to return to their ancestral home. That would be a totally impractical arrangement. If it happened this way, all work throughout the Roman Empire would stop. Some people would have had to travel for months to return to their ancestral home. The transportation infrastructure could not possibly have handled the flood of travelers.
Further, Yusef ben Ya'akov (AKA: Joseph) would not have taken Miriam, daughter of Joachim (AKA: Mary) with him, even if he had to go to Bethlehem to register. Only men were enumerated or taxed, so there was no necessity for her to accompany Joseph. Mary's pregnancy was in its ninth month at the time. She would not have been in a condition to travel.

No Room at the Inn

So why did they even need an inn to begin with? They were going to Joseph’s home, and in the Bible, there is no innkeeper - and probably no inn. That's because inns were only found on major roads, and Bethlehem was the equivalent of a truck stop outside of a rural town in Saskatchewan.

Much of our picture of the story is based on the mis-translation of a single word: the Greek "kataluma" which was translated as "inn," when a far more accurate translation would have been "the guest bedroom." We actually have a pretty good sense of just what a kataluma is, because the only other time the word is used in the New Testament is to describe the room where the Last Supper takes place, which Mark describes as "a large upper room furnished and prepared."

So that's a great description of where they didn't get to stay, but we all know where they did end up, based on the supposition that Jesus was laid in a manger -- i.e., a feeding trough for animals.
However, just because there was a manger doesn't mean they were in a stable.
In the first century BCE and CE the first floor of homes were akin to large kitchens, where animals would be brought inside at night for heat and protection. Consequently, the lower floor of the house would have had a manger -- the Bible isn't saying that innkeepers are jerks and Jesus was born in a barn. It's saying that they stayed with the in-laws and had to crash on the downstairs couch with the pets -- a time-honored Christmas tradition most of us practice to this day.

Timelines
The Bible doesn't provide a precise timeline for all these events, but the gospels make it pretty clear that Mary didn't give birth the night they arrived in Bethlehem. They say "while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered," which strongly implies that the birth takes place days, if not weeks, after their arrival.

Jesus didn't hit the ground running, either. He was circumcised (eight days after he was born) and presented at the Temple, which could only happen after Mary's period of purification was completed -- because according to the laws of Leviticus, a woman was considered ritually impure for 40 days after giving birth to a boy (80 days for a girl).

There are some hints that it's much longer -- perhaps up to two years -- before the wise men even show up: by the time they get there, the family is living in a house, not a stable, and Jesus is referred to as a "young child," not a baby. This makes sense, since the reason Herod kills all the children up to 2 years old is because the wise men specifically told him that was Jesus' age. Now, admittedly, Herod wasn't exactly known for his restraint, so he might have started by killing the infants and then momentum just took over.

Three Wise Men

The gospels don't mention kings visiting young Jesus, only a group of magi from the east. Magi weren't royalty, but rather priests or wise men versed in astrology and magic.
Now, hopefully these were at least royal court magi, because your run-of-the-mill magi were a pretty sketchy bunch -- they're described throughout the Bible as frauds, snake oil salesmen, and swindlers. It's assumed that these weren't lowly street magi based on the luxury gifts they came packing, though one Old Testament verse suggests that they were just as likely to be traveling salesmen as they were wandering nobility -- an interpretation shunned by church authorities, but that was understandably popular with Renaissance businessmen.

The magi's choice of gifts would have raised some eyebrows, too, given how frequently the Bible mentions both frankincense and myrrh as aphrodisiacs. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that the magi began to be described as kings, largely to make the New Testament story better match the Old Testament messiah prophecies, and probably because "kings" sounded better than "magical spice perverts."

The story of the Magi coming to Palestine to give homage to the King of the Jews appears to have been freely adapted from the story of Mithra's birth. He was mythical Persian savior, also allegedly born of a virgin in a cave on DEC-25, who was worshiped many centuries before Jesus' birth.

Herod

According to Matthew (2:7), Herod inquired as to the exact time that the star appeared. This was to learn exactly when Jesus was born, so that he could have all of the male children close to that age in the Bethlehem area murdered. Since he later ordered all of the children less than 2 years of age slaughtered, Jesus must have been living with his parents in Bethlehem for many months by the time that the Magi arrived - perhaps at least a year. If Jesus had been just born, then Herod would have ordered only newborn infants killed. This conflicts with Luke (2:39), which states that when Mary was ritually purified 40 days after the birth, that the family returned to Natz'rat immediately afterwards. It also conflicts with the archaeological record which conclusively shows that Beyt Leḥem was deserted during the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE.

Depression in Rawanda

"We had a lot of trouble with western mental health workers who came here immediately after the genocide and we had to ask some of them to leave.

They came and their practice did not involve being outside in the sun where you begin to feel better. There was no music or drumming to get your blood flowing again. There was no sense that everyone had taken the day off so that the entire community could come together to try to lift you up and bring you back to joy. There was no acknowledgement of the depression as something invasive and external that could actually be cast out again.

Instead they would take people one at a time into these dingy little rooms and have them sit around for an hour or so and talk about bad things that had happened to them. We had to ask them to leave."

~A Rwandan talking to a western writer

Stupidity should be painful

Submitted with permission to reprint, and for other to reprint and post where ever bigots gather.

"Another Sociologist, and friend of mine who works on the Wet Coast, has opined on occasion that "Stupidity should be painful". As a corollary to that point, I might add that "Stupidity plus hate should be fatal". 

Although wishing somebody a painful death is less than human to most of us, accounting for the hundreds of thousands of useless hours trying to reform a bigot is no more productive than a sexual bigot trying to 'reform' a person who is naturally attracted to a person of the same gender.

From a purely "Modest Proposal" point of view, these poor creatures, would no longer have the influence on susceptible young minds, turning their offspring also into stupid hate mongering machines. In a single generation, moronic haters would be nothing but a memory.

Most of the US Republican Party would be dead with the rest of them in significant pain, along with the followers of the KKK (in whatever form to which it has evolved/devolved), the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the founders/followers of the American Family Association and Focus on the Family.

Until we realize that "Stupidity should be painful and Stupidity plus hate should be fatal" is yet just a glorious dream, and the efforts to educate the moronic bigots that inhabit our planet must continue.

Insensitivity

Am I being totally insensitive, or are the people receiving the messages over reacting? 

This is a judgement call at best depending on the gap between the sender and receiver of information.

This exchange with an internal developer earned me a lecture from my boss.

From: B****
Sent: August 13, 2014 14:46
To: D*****
Subject: RE: [Ticket #******] [intranet page]  scroll issue 07AUG14

Hi D*****,

 [Ticket #******] [intranet page]  scroll issue 07AUG14

Please close this ticket.

In that 

- IE is the ONLY browser in which [intranet page] functions, and that;
- IE is a dysfunctional browser at the best of times – therefore;
- IE is the fifth browser of choice behind Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari.
Instead of trying to make [intranet page] function in real browsers, an effort which could be considered a WOMBAT (Waste Of Money, Brains and Time), my solution is to avoid [intranet page] all together until or unless it becomes absolutely imperative to try to make IE work for me.

Ergo: Please close this ticket.

Perhaps “D*****” has a stock portfolio that includes Internet Exploder, or he only develops programs for IE, but he was so upset about these particular comments he took them to his boss who took them to my boss, who landed on me with both feet to provide a reprimand for being “inappropriate and disrespectful” to a colleague.

POLICY that I apparently violated:
Objectionable conduct and behaviour includes, but is not limited to:

-       conduct by words, acts or omissions, which is disrespectful or harmful to an individual and that is likely to have the effect of creating an embarrassing, intimidating, hostile or offensive environment within the organization and /or is likely to prejudice an individual’s performance, self-esteem or dignity. 

At least I did not tell “D*****” to take IE and shove it up his assets - THAT would have been “inappropriate and disrespectful”!

See I do know the difference :-)

Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

 Q: Do all Canadians live in igloos?

A: For starters it is iglu, or more accurately ᐃᒡᓗ. Yes! We all do. Only the very rich here can afford wood and cement and other fancy southern building materials.

The pros; iglus are very eco-friendly, fire insurance premiums are very low (self-extinguishing house) and air conditioning in the summer time is next to nothing!

The cons: every little piece of dirt shows up and when our dog sled puppies pee in the corner you have to stare at yellow snow all winter long and warn the kids not to eat it.

Iglu prices here range from $150K to $200K for a condo, right up to a cool Mill for a big single family iglu on a large ice floe (with a waterfront in the Spring).

That is why global warming scares us so much: Where will we live when our houses all melt?  

USA in Distress

As I reflect on Independence Day it is obvious to the observer that the USA is certainly in distress (unless you have a six or seven figure income) as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich can afford to remain healthy by buying healthy food and regular medical checkups, while the poor get and remain unhealthy because they cannot afford healthy food, thereby relying on cheap heavy starches and sugar laden foods, never mind seeing their doctor for regular body maintenance.

When the poet Emma Lazarus penned The New Colossus, part of the sonnet reads:

… Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!...

It was an invitation to those being subjugated in other lands to come to the USA to seek religious and political freedom, not an indication that they should continue their station and remain … tired, … poor, …huddled masses yearning to breathe free...[or]  wretched refuse of …the homeless.

Indeed many did cast off their political, moral and religious chains and started dynasties of their own, replacing being suppressed to being the suppressors of their own employees. This trend continues today in the USA, the latest barrage to hit the … tired, … poor, …huddled masses, is a ruling by the Supreme Court that allows an employer’s religious beliefs to restrict medical insurance payment of medication and medical procedures, thereby overruling medical decisions by licensed physicians. Without medical insurance, physicians can charge astronomical fees for their services, and pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever the market will bear for medication.

It is sad that President Obama and his Democrats did not have the power necessary to have a social medical system such as Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, or India. At every step, the opposition Republicans raised their Bibles with one hand declaring that certain procedures are against the words of a 1700 year old book, and stock portfolios with the other demanding that the wealthy who could afford insurance had the right to do so, while those working poor who could not afford insurance … oh well, it sucks to be you … get a better job where you can afford insurance.

As I reflect on Independence Day it reminds me of what a great country Canada is by comparison. We don’t wrap ourselves in our flag, but are no less proud of who we are. Universal health care may mean waiting your turn for surgery when there are more urgent cases before you, but until, during and after, there is no cost for medical services. Medical insurance is provided without restrictions based on your employer’s religious beliefs because we have true division between “Church and State” – a concept lost in US corporations.