revenge of the nerds

"F*** you and your H2!"

"How to honour the Sabbath in space"

The Globe and Mail (5 Dec 06, page B7) printed this article written by Jonathan Saul in Jerusalem (through Reuters). I have no idea what his particular background, beliefs or motives are, but he wrote about the Institute for Science and Halacha, and all the solutions their scholars have found for observant Jews to use today's technology without disrespecting the Torah. Examples range from using disappearing ink for doctors to write prescriptions on the Sabbath (forbidden to make permanent markings) to doorbells that work on air pressure rather than electricity (forbidden to make a fire), to wrapping coffins in thick corrugated cardboard prior to takeoff so they can be considered "enclosed" and therefore "unable to spread impurity" during a flight (the Kohanim (members of Judaism's priestly caste) are banned by ritual law from coming in close proximity to the dead).

"The Torah was given to us 3,500 years ago in the desert," says 73-year-old Rabbi Levi Yitzchack Halperin, the institute's executive director and chief theological scholar. "Each generation takes up the challenge to apply it."
[...]
Rabbi Halperin dismisses any notion of theological cheating in the workarounds. "If there are loopholes in the Torah they are there for a reason," he says, stroking his flowing white beard.

Now I'm far from being a scholar, but I've always believed these religious laws originated as practical sense: basic rules to protect public health and thus ensure strength and survival, even under the harshest of conditions. So I can't help but wonder if Rabbi Halperin and others at the institute have somehow profoundly missed the point?
Another thing I can't help but wonder, aren't the Kohanim one of the groups in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings?

Why top government officials should read newspapers more often

thanks to Treck for bringing this shameful (if true) interview transcript to my attention.

inquiring minds want to know

There's a glove sizing chart on top of a filing cabinet in the hall near my cube. As I walked past it for the nth time today, resisting the temptation to see if my hand size changed, I began contemplating the number of people that must have done the same, and how it could be an amusing webcam project. I'm just not sure that anybody would perceive that as valuable...

(perceived?) value for money

Expanding on the "what gets measured gets done" idea, one of the inherent weaknesses with the current economic system is the reward system (since the only things that ever get measured are those that get rewarded, because they are perceived to be valuable):
I just don't see how anybody can think this is sustainable.

I (heart) Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements

Consider the sentence "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history."
[...] There are millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history. Instead, it would be better to eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely, in favor of the facts that support the assertion: "The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team." This fact suggests that the Yankees are a superlative baseball franchise, rather than simply the greatest baseball team in history.
The idea is to let the reader draw their own conclusion about the Yankees' greatness based on the number of World Series the Yankees have won.
Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias.

(contented sigh)

view of society

The conservative trend in society is nothing short of driving in the rear-view mirror: distorted views of where you've been with no idea of where you're heading.
To me, this indicates people have either (a) lost their faith in their ability to collectively control where they're going (a failure of our "democratic" system) and/or (b) become aware of something terribly awful, given up hope, and chosen to revel in media-romanticized memories on their way to the equivalent of an elephant graveyard.

As usual, I am in neither of these camps. I firmly believe it is in our power to influence where we are going - and how we get there. (I just don't know how or where to start.)

fact-pushing vs emotion-tugging

I sent the following comment to this excellent editor's year-end review earlier today (with minor edits): http://www.cbc.ca/news/about/burman/letters/2006/12/the_five_big_media_moments_of.html

My interest in straight unbiased facts is the reason I keep coming back to CBC for news. Kudos for continuing to push facts (despite the rising trend of tugging emotions) and recognizing how important it is to enable the electorate to make its own informed decisions in order to maintain a healthy democracy.

peace my way, or no way!

WARNING: The following story involves some inexplicable human behaviour.

From The Ottawa Citizen, 2006.12.21, page A6
SOURCE: The Associated Press

Monks battle with crowbars, sledgehammers: 7 injured in Greece
THESSALONIKI, Greece - Rival groups of monks wielding crowbars and sledgehammers clashed yesterday over control of a 1,000-year-old monastery in a community regarded as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity, police said.
Seven monks were injured and transported by boat to hospital to receive treatment. They were released after several hours, police said.
No one was arrested, but three monks were banned from re-entering the Orthodox sanctuary Mount Athos, located on a self-governing peninsula in northern Greece.
Esphigmenou monastery is the scene of a long-running dispute between Orthodox authorities and rebel monks who occupy the facility. Both Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, leader of the Orthodox Christian church, and Greece's highest administrative court have ordered their eviction, but the monks have refused to budge.
The rebel monks vehemently oppose efforts to improve relations between the Orthodox church and the Vatican.
The fighting yesterday broke out between the rebel monks and a group of legally recognized monks who were outside. The outsiders attempted to force their way into the monastery's offices in Karyes, the administrative centre of the monastic community, to begin construction of a new building.
Occupying monks attacked those outside with crowbars and fire extinguishers.
Esphigmenou's rebel abbot, Methodius, said his monks had been provoked.
"We were attacked and had to respond," he said. "They should be ashamed to call themselves men of the cloth."
In October, a court in the nearby city Thessaloniki handed down two-year suspended sentences against nine monks and former monastery members for illegally occupying Esphigmenou's offices.

Evolutionists would expect the religious gene to be extinct in humans by now, with all the wars and such that have been fought over millenia... Darwin must be rolling in his grave!

which counts more: the destination or the journey?

According to accounting folk, there is a very important difference between investing for "cost avoidance" and investing for "pursuit of potential profits." (I'm sure it's a tax thing.) So, since hearing that lottery/casino paybacks hover around 40% (give or take 20% given local competition etc), I decided that I could afford the "social" cost of bowing out of the office lotto pool and avoid the two dollar cost every week. Nonetheless, I heartily encouraged them to continue subsidizing my taxes. :)

information

Something (well, one of the things) I have to remember to keep in mind:
The absence of information is information, in and of itself.

another one i want to see

Children Of Men, the latest film from Oscar-nominated director Alfonso Cuarón (Y Tu Mama Tambien, Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban) and set in a semi-totalitarian Britain in the year 2027, examines a world where mankind has become infertile and the extinction of the human race is imminent.
I can't wait! :)

The meaning of it all

I must now see this movie for myself:

-----Original Message-----

Two of my favorite scenes in any recent movie comes from "Kingdom of Heaven" (Director's Cut), in which Orlando Bloom (as the knight defending Jerusalem) and the older English actor playing the patriarch of Jerusalem look out over the plains and see the enormous army of Salah-ud-Din preparing to assault the city. The knight (who was NOT a religious firebrand) starts making practical decisions for the defense of the city (as he did in reality); the patriarch counsels that the defenders should convert to Islam to save themselves, and then convert back later on the grounds that the conversion to Islam was done under duress and therefore invalid. Orlando Bloom's character looks at the patriarch, says "You have taught me much about religion," and then proceeds to continue planning the defense of the city. Simple, and priceless.

Toward the end of the movie, after the Crusaders surrender to Salah-ud-Din on the promise that the inhabitants would be spared (which they were), Orlando Bloom's character asks Salah-ud-Din, "What is it about this city that drives men crazy? What does Jerusalem mean?" Salah-ud-Din's character (an incredibly authentic Arab actor) smiles, looks at the ruined walls, and says "Nothing." He walks away, turns around, smiles again, crosses his arms. "And everything."

To me, that captures the lunacy of it all very well.

FW: News Release / Communiqué

WRT yesterday's post about the Mirabel airport land being sold back to private hands amid first nations land claims: apparently there are wetlands there too that also need to be protected somehow... I agree it might have been excessive, but gee, do you think these might have been contributing factors the Trudeau government considered to go ahead and expropriate all this land, supposedly (or at least primarily) for an airport?

Regardless, how many people think the government will actually set an accessible price for the farmers to buy back their land? Or will it be so expensive only (Tory-friendly?) big developers will be able to afford it, so they can lease it to the farmers for twice the price until the construction permits are approved? Government has not shown itself to be a cost-effective custodian, but at least it has ethics and answers (more or less) to the public for its custodial duties.

(emphasis mine)

PROMISE MADE, PROMISE KEPT: CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES SALES PROGRAM FOR THE 11,000 ACRES OF LAND IN MIRABEL, QUEBEC
December 18, 2006, Mirabel
Prime Minister Stephen Harper fulfilled a longstanding commitment today by announcing the establishment of a sales program for the 11,000 acres of farmland in Mirabel. In November 2004, while in opposition, Prime Minister Harper tabled a motion in the House of Commons calling on the government to sell these acres, which were "needlessly" expropriated in 1969. "I'm pleased to announce today that our new government is going to allow Mirabel farmers to buy back the land they are currently leasing," said Prime Minister Harper. "We made a promise and we kept our word."
"Today's announcement finally gives Mirabel farmers the chance to own the land they have worked for so many years," added Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure, and Communities Lawrence Cannon. "For some, this means a chance to reclaim the land that has been in their family for generations, as well as an opportunity to close one chapter and open a new one."
A transition committee made up of representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles, tenants, Transport Canada, and Public Works and Government Services Canada will be set up within the next few weeks to develop the details of this sales program.
The transition committee will be responsible for recommending the terms of the program implementation for selling land to farmers and for proposing solutions to any issues that may arise. Daniel Picotte, a lawyer with a thorough knowledge of issues related to the airport's transactions and acquisitions, will serve as chair of the body.
In accordance with the government's commitment to the environment, a management partnership between Transport Canada and Environment Canada will also be created to protect wetlands located within the 11,000 acres.
The 11,000 acres of land are now part of a lease between Aéroports de Montréal and Transport Canada. Discussions between the department and Aéroports de Montréal to remove these lands from the lease are already underway.

Nationhood - explained clearly

Here is what Dion said in the Commons on November 27, 2006 speaking to the motion: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada":

Mr. Speaker, the motion that the Prime Minister has put before us reads as follows: Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation au sein d'un Canada uni.

In English, that this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

Before voting on a text that some of our fellow citizens believe will be of great significance, we have a duty to tell them clearly what that text means. In French, according to Le Petit Robert, “nation” has at least three meanings.

First, “Group of men presumed to have a common origin”, the ethnic sense of the word nation; second, “Group of people constituting a political unit, established in a defined territory …, and personified by a sovereign authority”, the state sense of the word nation; and third, “Group of people, generally large, characterized by awareness of its unity and a desire to live together”, the sociological sense of the word nation.

The sociological sense of the word “nation” is also found in Webster's Dictionary. In the first sense, the ethnic sense, Quebec and Canada are not nations, but French-Canadians are a nation, one that is concentrated primarily in Quebec but is present everywhere in Canada.

There are several other groups of people in our country that can also be considered to be nations in ethnic terms. I would therefore vote in favour of a motion that said: In Canada, including in the province of Quebec, there are several nations in the ethnic sense of the word.

In the second sense of the word “nation”, the state sense, the only sense that confers legal existence in international law, Canada and Canada alone is a nation. I would therefore vote for a motion that said: Canada forms a single nation which holds a seat at the United Nations.

In the third sense of the word “nation”, the sociological sense, we, the Québécois, are a nation, because we form a large group—nearly a quarter of the population—and we have an awareness of our unity and a desire to live together. In that sense, it is correct to say that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. I will therefore vote for the motion that is before us.

However I add that the entire Canadian population is also a nation in the sociological sense of the term. As Canadians, we have the sense of our unity and the will to live together, and there is nothing that prevents the same individual to be part of different nations in the sociological sense of the term.

So I say, in this House, that I am a proud member of the Quebec nation and a proud member of the Canadian nation. I say that these identities are cumulative and indivisible, and that I will fight with every resource that democracy gives me against anyone who wants to make me choose between these two wonderful identities: Québécois and Canadian.

I know all too well the game that the independentist leaders want to play. They want to persuade us that we cannot be part of the Canadian nation because we, the Québécois, form a nation. In other words, they want to slide from the sociological to the state sense of the word “nation” : from the “community” sense to the “country” sense. As usual, they want to conflate the meaning of words in order to sow confusion in people’s minds.

Well, as usual, my country and my 33 million fellow citizens can count on me to counter confusion with clarity.

I know all too well that in the politics pursued by some people there is little regard for dictionary definitions.

Facing this motion, two quotations come to mind.

The first one is from the great Lebanese poet, Kahlil Gibran:Pity the nation divided into fragment, each fragment deeming itself a nation.

This is why the Bloc will vote for this motion. They hopes that it will help them to fragment Canada, but there is another interpretation of this motion, which is not only in accordance with the definition of the dictionary, but also noble and generous. It comes from José Carreras:

[Member spoke in Spanish as follows:] Cuanto màs catalàn me dejan ser, màs espanol me siento.

In other words, in proclaiming my identity as a proud Quebecker today, I am proclaiming my identity as a proud Canadian. Let us work together to make sure that this noble and generous interpretation of the motion that we will vote on today will prevail.

Thanks to New Quebec for posting this and bringing it to my attention.

Greenwashing their dirty ligerie in public

Victoria's Secret Catalog Goes Green
Finally, hairy treehuggers everywhere can order their catalogs with a clear conscience! :)

more deconstruction

Five Halifax women have started a campaign to decry funding cuts to a program important to them. "We don't want our government making decisions that reverse strides that have been made over the last 20 and 30 years" one of the founders states.
The most surprising thing about this story is that it appeared at the top of page A2 of the 20061204 edition of the Medicine Hat News (from the CP wire). Whodathunk this would've been printed in an Albertan paper, and not in the funnies section?

visionary, or deconstructionist?

The PM announced today that "Canada's New Government" (cringe) is initiating the transfer of land expropriated for the construction of Mirabel airport some 35 years ago back to the affected families (despite some Mohawk land claims still pending for the same land). I was impressed at how politically correct he was during the official announcement, but he let loose and generously derided Trudeau and Liberals in general during the ensuing Q&A.
One of the questions he was asked was to confirm if this meant that the government was closing the door on Mirabel airport for good. Harper replied (paraphrased): "Some think that in 40 years we will need to expand this airport again. The only thing I know for sure is that in 40 years, I'll be dead" to which the audience chuckled.

His self-deprecating humour resonates with his audience and is a respectable trait. However, I am not much of a fan of his brazen desire to rub every single genie-bottle (that the Liberals managed to cork despite the PR cost of the occasional scandal required to get it accomplished) that he can get his cold little fingers on.

public relations logic, or cynicism?

If for every truth there is an equal and opposite marketing spin, does every PR campaign indicate inherent weakness?

true north strong and free to toe party line - or else!

Hockey player fired for not signing flag for troops

I'm sure the troops are pleased to learn that the people back home are being forced to show their support. Where will this fascism end?