Temporary interim? Yes. Today is a rather massive sidenote recapping the events since last week. In truth it seems the week has disappeared on me. After monday, all of a sudden it was thursday and I was working on my Jewellery project. A massive failure that, despite a realistic goal and a set timeline, was not fullfilled to expectations. Shamed, was I when my teacher explained that there was little she could do to help. The entire thing was on my own shoulders, and I dropped it near the intersecting streets. Still, I feel strangely at peace. She likes to reach a sort of conclusion, and my final was anticlimactic at best. So we talked to make up for it. We talked about how and why it was that I could not keep things under control, but we also talked about other things, simpler, baser things I would not have thought would interest an adult. We spoke of maturity and naivete and pride; while it was lack of the former that caused me to fail, it was the latter which wounded me as the curtain closed. She challenged me to let go of the things I work on, to take failure in stride and see past it, and to retain humility, remembering the lessons I had learned while recently shaken. The sad part is that most of that conversation I will not remember and indeed I have already forgotten, which is why I commit it to text. The important part of the conversation in what regards jewellery and my dysfunctional practices is this; I operate in a way that is flawed, and this can be clearly diagnosed. For some reason, I cannot finish projects that are planned in advance on time, and this despite spending a large quantity of my time in the jewellery department. We could not find the reason behind this slowness, but she told me that from my technical skill in smaller, organized assignments, it is apparent that I possess the skills required, and that whatever barrier impedes my progress is undoubtedly self generated, and will continue to hamper my endeavors and prevent me from reaching a fuller potential until I learn to recognize and circumvent or overcome it.
In the short form, I fail because I allow myself to fail. Is it pride? Is it some foolish notion that "everything will be allright?" Is it a lack of self control, and self awareness? Regardless, I was instructed to proceed as I should, but to become more aware of the mental environment I place myself in, and learn to recognize the pattern that leads to my recurring and inexplicable lacunes. I called it lazyness, but it is censorship. Wasting time with pointless pursuits in order to avoid having to ask the big questions that matter should by now be the bane of any aspiring adult, if there ever was such a thing. It is possible to be an adult, and not be mature, unfortunately.
Or something like that. This being the second time that midnight nears since I have last slept, I am off. No politics today, I am afraid.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
We've Only Just Begun
... I haven't finished. And yet some sort of closure is necessary. More questions, more sidenotes, things that have nothing to do with what the question was, things that were somewhat applicable but ended up veering into the abyss and things that were on topic and jumped straight off the thin white line keep cropping up everywhere. Rather than develop a cohesive argument with well fleshed out ideas and explanations, I've more or less created a stream of consciousness along which some more-or-less reasonably formulated ideas have appeared. Along the way I've gone left and right to find things that would further my argument, or ended up proving me wrong, thus forcing me to either fess up or Delete Spam And Rewrite a more suitable progression. I've also stated countless times that I had no idea where I was going. The advantage is that now, I can keep using this to create some kind of personal database... Though I'm unsure of how it works as a conclusion. Usually I would write a whole bunch of ideas for how to wrap up my text and I'd keep writing until an exoskeleton appeared, crop that and stick the good stock phrases in there. But this time the entire project was developped like this, me thinking with my fingers...
At any rate, I did somewhat answer my question. Democracy is, I have to admit, not bad. It's not the best system and internationally the response sucks across the board, but for governing a country, it's pretty close to decent. The only thing it needs to work is public response, to which Monbiot agrees, according to that interview he gave. The challenge here is getting a government to show their cards.
Wait. The school doesn't show it's cards. There was an incident in the JWLY department where they decided to shut off the gas at 10 instead of 12, and the SUNSCAD girl that marched into the studio created such a ruckus that I personally ran up to the Dean's office and asked for an explanation. Not the best way to deal with it. I later learned that they had hired an additional tech to compensate, and explained that there was no choice, that the studio had always created concern but they had simply been waived until the wave of incidents this winter term... Lillian further reassured me by explaining the situation, and the Craft chair came down and explained the situation in detail - though by then we already knew everything... I had asked the Dean why they bothered to tell us if they thought it the advantages outweighed the inconveniences. She said "That's what we do." Though I hated that reply immediately, and dismissed it as condescending, Lillian reassured me that the Dean was a trustworthy woman. My point is this. People across the net and on the boards complain about how all of our leaders suck and we can never get them to change so there's no use in trying. That corruption is rampant in the upper echelons of any corporation and any society, and that's just how things are so we better brace ourselves and take what we can steal because that's all we're going to get. Though I'm more or less one of those people, I think now that's a fairly gray and cynical vision. The main idea is that democracy can work if we can begin to have faith in it, rather than sitting on our laurels waiting for the good things to come. When the people mobilize in the name of democracy, to protest and make some noise so their opinions and views are heard, they are complaining about the system, but their actions show that they are placing their trust in democracy's power to change things. Sometimes it can get the parliament to think about, to talk about an issue when the leaders previously set on, or unaware of. This may lead to change, because ultimately, they are the civil servants, not the other way around. Since their job is to move in the direction they think is best, it would help if we had a bit of faith in their abilities. I'm not a grown man yet, so it's better if I don't get all caught up in fear of what can't be done, and actually do something, say something, when I think it should be so.
Don't you think that's a fairly youthful conclusion? I do think I have some kind of redundant skill at making these sorts of endings. Could come in handy if I decide to make stories. Essays, well I have to hope that the reader is similarly idealistic.
At any rate, I did somewhat answer my question. Democracy is, I have to admit, not bad. It's not the best system and internationally the response sucks across the board, but for governing a country, it's pretty close to decent. The only thing it needs to work is public response, to which Monbiot agrees, according to that interview he gave. The challenge here is getting a government to show their cards.
Wait. The school doesn't show it's cards. There was an incident in the JWLY department where they decided to shut off the gas at 10 instead of 12, and the SUNSCAD girl that marched into the studio created such a ruckus that I personally ran up to the Dean's office and asked for an explanation. Not the best way to deal with it. I later learned that they had hired an additional tech to compensate, and explained that there was no choice, that the studio had always created concern but they had simply been waived until the wave of incidents this winter term... Lillian further reassured me by explaining the situation, and the Craft chair came down and explained the situation in detail - though by then we already knew everything... I had asked the Dean why they bothered to tell us if they thought it the advantages outweighed the inconveniences. She said "That's what we do." Though I hated that reply immediately, and dismissed it as condescending, Lillian reassured me that the Dean was a trustworthy woman. My point is this. People across the net and on the boards complain about how all of our leaders suck and we can never get them to change so there's no use in trying. That corruption is rampant in the upper echelons of any corporation and any society, and that's just how things are so we better brace ourselves and take what we can steal because that's all we're going to get. Though I'm more or less one of those people, I think now that's a fairly gray and cynical vision. The main idea is that democracy can work if we can begin to have faith in it, rather than sitting on our laurels waiting for the good things to come. When the people mobilize in the name of democracy, to protest and make some noise so their opinions and views are heard, they are complaining about the system, but their actions show that they are placing their trust in democracy's power to change things. Sometimes it can get the parliament to think about, to talk about an issue when the leaders previously set on, or unaware of. This may lead to change, because ultimately, they are the civil servants, not the other way around. Since their job is to move in the direction they think is best, it would help if we had a bit of faith in their abilities. I'm not a grown man yet, so it's better if I don't get all caught up in fear of what can't be done, and actually do something, say something, when I think it should be so.
Don't you think that's a fairly youthful conclusion? I do think I have some kind of redundant skill at making these sorts of endings. Could come in handy if I decide to make stories. Essays, well I have to hope that the reader is similarly idealistic.
The Division Bell
To "pause" the time: essentially a trick where I publish a dud page and fill it in after the time has expired. This way I can add an extra bit to my final without it looking like I did it later. As long as it's done on monday, hopefully you won't notice. Naturally if you see this you may have a moment of private celebration, for I have been outsmarted.
-G
-G
Vanishing Point2.0
So what does "preventing the strong from oppressing the weak mean"?
As I see it, what is meant is optionally the regulating of those in a position on power, as corruption within the government's own body; police, judges, ministers, etc... but mostly the weak as in "the helpless" Now I don't know if this applies to Canada, since a good example of weak and strong would be Rwanda. Ideally the government would seek to follow this policy in it's international agendas as well as it's national agenda, but (again, Rwanda) this is not often the case. One might conjecture that this is the case whenever it is profitable or advantageous to do so, but not when there is little payoff and great risk. (In other words, doing it for it's own sake is not good enough of a reason, which is arguable as a claim...Though if Canada had immediately declared war on Rwanda because of the Genocide, just the threat of a developed nation coming in to set things straight, possibly bringing in buddies, might have been enough to stop the entire charade. After all, they had knives, and we all know how good those are in a gunfight.) Come to think of it, why didn't we say something? Did the population know what was going on? I certainly didn't, I was 3 years old. But if there had been a negative public response, perhaps our governments, fearing bad press, would have done something in the two and some months from start to finish...
Two things have just come to mind. Is it out of Canada's league to spot a problem in the world and act on it? The states are not above this, but we are not the states. Would we be liable to trade sanctions? Don't know, but it would seem that trade sanctions are allowed if there is a credible reason, however there is no doubt that Rwanda In The Grips Of Civil War wouldn't give two flying s#its about a country imposing trade sanctions on them, nevermind that country being measly and insignificant Canada which let's be honest has nothing of note to sell except firewood. [Edit: That link brings you to a wiki article that quotes a british constitution paper that's 162 pages long that I decided not to skim through but basically sets a bunch of terms and says that using the threat of force by issuing a declaration of war is no longer applicable.]
Not to mention that in this case Canada would be doing exaclty what Monbiot said; that democracies, as the best or least-bad form of government, shouldn't use force to make people do things. Ogo. I've found something interesting.
The phrase Monbiot uses can be re-worded as "Democratic governments exists to ensure that the strong do not use force to subdue the weak."
As I see it, what is meant is optionally the regulating of those in a position on power, as corruption within the government's own body; police, judges, ministers, etc... but mostly the weak as in "the helpless" Now I don't know if this applies to Canada, since a good example of weak and strong would be Rwanda. Ideally the government would seek to follow this policy in it's international agendas as well as it's national agenda, but (again, Rwanda) this is not often the case. One might conjecture that this is the case whenever it is profitable or advantageous to do so, but not when there is little payoff and great risk. (In other words, doing it for it's own sake is not good enough of a reason, which is arguable as a claim...Though if Canada had immediately declared war on Rwanda because of the Genocide, just the threat of a developed nation coming in to set things straight, possibly bringing in buddies, might have been enough to stop the entire charade. After all, they had knives, and we all know how good those are in a gunfight.) Come to think of it, why didn't we say something? Did the population know what was going on? I certainly didn't, I was 3 years old. But if there had been a negative public response, perhaps our governments, fearing bad press, would have done something in the two and some months from start to finish...
Two things have just come to mind. Is it out of Canada's league to spot a problem in the world and act on it? The states are not above this, but we are not the states. Would we be liable to trade sanctions? Don't know, but it would seem that trade sanctions are allowed if there is a credible reason, however there is no doubt that Rwanda In The Grips Of Civil War wouldn't give two flying s#its about a country imposing trade sanctions on them, nevermind that country being measly and insignificant Canada which let's be honest has nothing of note to sell except firewood. [Edit: That link brings you to a wiki article that quotes a british constitution paper that's 162 pages long that I decided not to skim through but basically sets a bunch of terms and says that using the threat of force by issuing a declaration of war is no longer applicable.]
Not to mention that in this case Canada would be doing exaclty what Monbiot said; that democracies, as the best or least-bad form of government, shouldn't use force to make people do things. Ogo. I've found something interesting.
The phrase Monbiot uses can be re-worded as "Democratic governments exists to ensure that the strong do not use force to subdue the weak."
Need To Be Strong
"Who's primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak..."
You know, I just realized something. This does not mean "in court". Because what happens in court stays in court. I was trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the government sometimes decides to support MNCs and sell canadian assets to foreign companies, and that these companies enter in direct competition with local small business owners who then either sell off their businesses to chains or fight the fight and take what they can. A friend of mine made a similar research project on factory farming, which effectively out-classes traditional farms in terms of production quantity, lowering their demand and resulting in many to sell their lands. She then provided us with a humoorus but instructive video called the Meatrix. (Her father was a traditional farmer, and proud of it.) As I understand it there is a growing market for quality, which will result, if the trend persists, in factory farms raising their standards to better compete with the free run type farms. The interesting thing about this though is that factory farms only exist because of a demand for cheaper meat. Meat is expensive, let's face it, but if you have two identical slices of steak sitting side by side in the supermarket, and one is worth 12$ while the other is worth 4, you have the option of re-examining your priorities. No, more is not always better.
Back to the topic, I realized that what the sentence means is not "support the weak in court" because either party are not referred to as such and the truthfulness of accusations is decided by the court. You could say that what the court decides becomes the truth... Until put into question. So weakness or strength has no merit before the court, though a finacially strong company can pressure a weaker individual regardless of righteousness either by employing an expensive lawyer - the pricier the better, yes? - or they can use threats or bribes to avoid notice. On the other hand, corporations can abuse workers, pay them too little, see "nike" for an past example. The soccer balls are another example, as they sell soccer balls that say "this ball was not made in Pakistan or some such country by children working for shit wages" which suggest that many of those that don't do in fact have children in XYZ country making those...
_____________
Enviropig™ Because pigs are products, they are now being trademarked. Of course the enviro- prefix is just a beautifying add-on, because biopig somehow doesn't sound quite right. Mutapig sounds similarly unappealing. There is nothing environmentally friendly about a pig. Ooh in protest, I'd start a line of enviroshirts. Envirolaptops. Envirocats. (comes with envirocat catlitter. For more information on how to train your Envirocat, visit our tutorial website at www.envirocat/howto.com)
The word granola brings to mind weed smoking hippies with macrame shirts parading about Gaia and making the planet green... Green is not a sustainable business model! Nobody that cares about quality is willing to buy green products
You know, I just realized something. This does not mean "in court". Because what happens in court stays in court. I was trying to wrap my mind around the fact that the government sometimes decides to support MNCs and sell canadian assets to foreign companies, and that these companies enter in direct competition with local small business owners who then either sell off their businesses to chains or fight the fight and take what they can. A friend of mine made a similar research project on factory farming, which effectively out-classes traditional farms in terms of production quantity, lowering their demand and resulting in many to sell their lands. She then provided us with a humoorus but instructive video called the Meatrix. (Her father was a traditional farmer, and proud of it.) As I understand it there is a growing market for quality, which will result, if the trend persists, in factory farms raising their standards to better compete with the free run type farms. The interesting thing about this though is that factory farms only exist because of a demand for cheaper meat. Meat is expensive, let's face it, but if you have two identical slices of steak sitting side by side in the supermarket, and one is worth 12$ while the other is worth 4, you have the option of re-examining your priorities. No, more is not always better.
Back to the topic, I realized that what the sentence means is not "support the weak in court" because either party are not referred to as such and the truthfulness of accusations is decided by the court. You could say that what the court decides becomes the truth... Until put into question. So weakness or strength has no merit before the court, though a finacially strong company can pressure a weaker individual regardless of righteousness either by employing an expensive lawyer - the pricier the better, yes? - or they can use threats or bribes to avoid notice. On the other hand, corporations can abuse workers, pay them too little, see "nike" for an past example. The soccer balls are another example, as they sell soccer balls that say "this ball was not made in Pakistan or some such country by children working for shit wages" which suggest that many of those that don't do in fact have children in XYZ country making those...
_____________
Enviropig™ Because pigs are products, they are now being trademarked. Of course the enviro- prefix is just a beautifying add-on, because biopig somehow doesn't sound quite right. Mutapig sounds similarly unappealing. There is nothing environmentally friendly about a pig. Ooh in protest, I'd start a line of enviroshirts. Envirolaptops. Envirocats. (comes with envirocat catlitter. For more information on how to train your Envirocat, visit our tutorial website at www.envirocat/howto.com)
The word granola brings to mind weed smoking hippies with macrame shirts parading about Gaia and making the planet green... Green is not a sustainable business model! Nobody that cares about quality is willing to buy green products
Here Comes The Sun
[Edit: Okay maybe I'm taking things a little too far... Though my arguments seem valid to me, this is hardly an unbiased opinion.]
A smal note about SUNSCAD. This has nothing to do with the project. Some idiot VP cultural has decided that it would be good to rename the Persons of Color Representative position. This is a good idea, but her suggestion is that we call it the Black Persons Representative. To which I scoff. For many reasons, which may or may not have something to do with my "Elitist" background. I will elaborate, but first I think that having a representative for all minorities being downscaled to blacks simply because there are more blacks than there are other races at NSCAD is rather dumb. What about the others? Further questioning revealed the rationale behind her idea; to attract more aspiring artists from black communities in the Halifax area. This is what she meant by "connecting the school with the community". It is felt that minorities will be unwilling to enter a school if they feel it has no services with which to support them, against which more arguments have been made. "It isn't NSCAD's resoponsibility to recruit students for the school" "The same argument applies for Non-Blacks, if you will. Regardless, it is also likely that the members of these communities, which are - everybody seems to agree on this point, so I will not mince words - poorer, and have less opportunities, or are simply unaware of NSCAD's existance.*I* think that those that do not know about art schools in their own towns do not know because they do not really care, and that if they wanted to do art, then they would do art. That said, art is not an easy calling, providing no stable income and no promise of a career. Only the most insane or creatively deprived persons would even consider attending art school, let alone pay the university 6000$ per year in order to do so. This is where my "elitist" background comes in. I have been well raised, am rather independant, fund my education from my own pocket and am rather proud of this, and try to be as racially blind as possible. This may be because in the past, I was given opportunities others could not afford to take, and learned things differently, and developed a loathing for dependency. Regardless, I don't mean to say "no pity for the blacks" I say "no more pity for the blacks than for the blues."
Obviously I am not allowed to talk in this manner in public, given the unique and awkward position that my race and culture leave me in. The blog is nice, at times. The real issue here is the fact that this post may be seen badly by others, who may wonder if I have some small and lingering amount of racism. Possible, though it is more likely that I am simply bitter at the alleged helplessness of minorities raised in Canada. I would rather see an example of a person who has gotten somewhere regardless of race or wealth, because they wanted to get there, than hear people's concerns about minorities "who are not receiving proper support". I think the koreans at NSCAD are not receiving proper support. Some of them can't even speak english! Then again, this prevents them from asking for help, I suppose...
That said, I don't think of myself as much of an elitist. My mother is a small business owner. But I always wonder at what other people think of this. I don't want them to look down on my successes by saying that I was almost already there.
A smal note about SUNSCAD. This has nothing to do with the project. Some idiot VP cultural has decided that it would be good to rename the Persons of Color Representative position. This is a good idea, but her suggestion is that we call it the Black Persons Representative. To which I scoff. For many reasons, which may or may not have something to do with my "Elitist" background. I will elaborate, but first I think that having a representative for all minorities being downscaled to blacks simply because there are more blacks than there are other races at NSCAD is rather dumb. What about the others? Further questioning revealed the rationale behind her idea; to attract more aspiring artists from black communities in the Halifax area. This is what she meant by "connecting the school with the community". It is felt that minorities will be unwilling to enter a school if they feel it has no services with which to support them, against which more arguments have been made. "It isn't NSCAD's resoponsibility to recruit students for the school" "The same argument applies for Non-Blacks, if you will. Regardless, it is also likely that the members of these communities, which are - everybody seems to agree on this point, so I will not mince words - poorer, and have less opportunities, or are simply unaware of NSCAD's existance.*I* think that those that do not know about art schools in their own towns do not know because they do not really care, and that if they wanted to do art, then they would do art. That said, art is not an easy calling, providing no stable income and no promise of a career. Only the most insane or creatively deprived persons would even consider attending art school, let alone pay the university 6000$ per year in order to do so. This is where my "elitist" background comes in. I have been well raised, am rather independant, fund my education from my own pocket and am rather proud of this, and try to be as racially blind as possible. This may be because in the past, I was given opportunities others could not afford to take, and learned things differently, and developed a loathing for dependency. Regardless, I don't mean to say "no pity for the blacks" I say "no more pity for the blacks than for the blues."
Obviously I am not allowed to talk in this manner in public, given the unique and awkward position that my race and culture leave me in. The blog is nice, at times. The real issue here is the fact that this post may be seen badly by others, who may wonder if I have some small and lingering amount of racism. Possible, though it is more likely that I am simply bitter at the alleged helplessness of minorities raised in Canada. I would rather see an example of a person who has gotten somewhere regardless of race or wealth, because they wanted to get there, than hear people's concerns about minorities "who are not receiving proper support". I think the koreans at NSCAD are not receiving proper support. Some of them can't even speak english! Then again, this prevents them from asking for help, I suppose...
That said, I don't think of myself as much of an elitist. My mother is a small business owner. But I always wonder at what other people think of this. I don't want them to look down on my successes by saying that I was almost already there.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
In retrospect this is a very messy and disorganized format... Not to mention it's volume! It's hard to put myself in the mindframe of the last post because the post is "finished". Onwards, then. I consider the "institutions" part tackled. I would like to talk about the government's responsibilities in protecting the weak from the strong. I wonder... in 1878, were things different? I mean {les enjeux} here. You have to ask; who are the weak, and who are the strong. This system operates under the capitalist system, which is essentially a business plan. Financial terms fit right at home in a world where imaginary persons can be tried through stand - ins and prosecuted as if they were a real person - though they can't be sent to jail, now can they? In a financial system, wealth is power, not to mention that the military is an arm of the government, also more or less a corporation. Of course this doesn' t involve small cases. A poor and hungry man walks down the street, shoplifts a kitchen knife and walks off with food taken by force. He is arrested by the police and charged for whatever crime sounds more official. The strong is punished, the weak roams free. But perhaps this man was poor and hungry because he was fired due to - ah whatever! the important part is
I can't stay focused. I know what I want to say but my hair is in the way. I keep putting my hands through it and finding knots. I *have* to go deal with that! Right now! I'll be back.
And by right back I mean right back after I take a shower and make some lunch and sit outside for an hour in the sunday sun and read a comic and then come back. I also learned that my drawing teacher sneak-assigned me to do a watercolor painting of shells, marbles and a block or brick in a plastic bag filled with water. Shells. Marbles. Bricks. Oh yes, I've got just the thing in my wardrobe. Funny thing, I had a feeling when I left my small Ontario town that I might need to bring along some marbles and a seashell and a brick from the house wall and keep them in my spacious closet. Gee it's a good thing I listened to myself, how would I have been able to complete this assignment otherwise?
Back to business, can the government efficiently prevent the strong from opressing the weak? In other words, is our country just? It's definitely more just than that of a poor war-torn country ravaged by famine, but these aren't necessarily within the state's ability to regulate. And we regard ourselves as being more just than the arab world, especially when it comes to the treatment of our women. Certainly, our cultures are different, but in the less civilized parts of the world, things we consider basic rights here are often unheard of. Obviously, the use of the words "less civilized" arouses some debate; is it politically correct to regard another culture as "less civilized"? What if it is only "less civilized" from our point of view? I would like to use this as an opportunity to draw the line. When I returned to my small town in eastern Ontario I found that the demographics had changed slightly; where previously the town had been almost exclusively composed of white french canadian families from long ago, had already begun to diversify. There was talk of a chilling incident that had happened in a popular local bar; two haitian women were having an argument and a local man stepped in, trying to disperse the fight. The haitian man who was accompanying the two women saw the three arguing, and eventually stabbed the white man, killing him. This I heard in the car while returning home. I had a discussion about this with my family; disregarding that there may have been more to the story, a consensus was reached. We do not, as far as my family is concerned, fight unless provoked, and we do not carry knives, and we do not stab, because we do not wish to kill. However, in Haiti, where "justice" is likely a fairly different concept than what it represents here, taking action yourself in order to settle a dispute quickly and avoid a worse outcome in the future may be the norm. Perhaps in that country, one would not meddle in the affairs of others, but I think that a person with enough guts to step in and prevent others from fighting is worthy of praise.
In any case, the man died, and the other man was sent to jail. Hooray. Most likely believing that his action was justified, and that things are simply different in this country. FOR ONE, THIS COUNTRY HAS POLICE. One could argue that it was the white man's fault, that he should simply have made a report to the police, that his part would have ended there. The problem here is that the situation could have been avoided if Canada could somehow indoctrinate it's immigrants into understanding canadian mentality and culture, as well as the crucial but unspoken social conventions, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill Bystanders. Or anyone, for that usually ends up with you spending a sizeable portion of your life in jail, not to mention having to move to a different town, because in boxed in french communities like those, no one would ever trust you again. And you'd forever have a smear on your crimial record. A pretty big one; 2st degree murder. Perhaps there was a reason, but it seems unlikely as any reason would help the defendant, and none was disclosed to the medi, as far as my reliable source is aware.
The crux of the matter is this. Yes punishments are set in place to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands, it is rather difficult to be the legal posessor of hunting firearms, not to mention handguns and the like, inconspicuous weaponry is illegal, so it's not like the system doesn't already enforce peace, only it allows outsiders who are not, at least not at first, indoctrinated in the same manner as the rest of us, and they, with their inapplicable social norms, are liable to stir up trouble in unforseeable ways, with disastrous results. To return to the original point of this diversion, those cultures, when superimposed upon our own, seem less civilized. Where rights must be fought for tooth and nail, where the infrastructure put in place to protect you doesn't exist, or doesn't really care to ensure your safety, or will gladly look the other way in exchange for "compensation", being civilized is probably the least of your concerns. Alternately, if I were to take my cute imaginary girlfriend to Saudi Arabia and have her stroll around with no regard for their social norms -assuming she could pass for an arab, I would have another thing coming. When in Rome... clearly that idiot murdurer who sullied the reputation of black people in my village didn't get the message.
I did a test, later, walking around the grocery store with my scarf wrapped around my head - as it is meant to be worn, might I add - and got quite a few unpleasant looks from passers-by, though those who talked to me recognized my french accent and knew me as a local. What was I trying to use this example for? Do we have systems in place to prevent people from taking matters in their own hands? Well, yes, we do. Though their effectiveness is questionable, what is most effective is social norm, which is a subtle restraining bolt not unlike that used by the Dollars. But I have mentioned this earlier. Other than that, we certainly could do a better job at preparing immigrants to live in small towns with no services for foreigners.
I can't stay focused. I know what I want to say but my hair is in the way. I keep putting my hands through it and finding knots. I *have* to go deal with that! Right now! I'll be back.
And by right back I mean right back after I take a shower and make some lunch and sit outside for an hour in the sunday sun and read a comic and then come back. I also learned that my drawing teacher sneak-assigned me to do a watercolor painting of shells, marbles and a block or brick in a plastic bag filled with water. Shells. Marbles. Bricks. Oh yes, I've got just the thing in my wardrobe. Funny thing, I had a feeling when I left my small Ontario town that I might need to bring along some marbles and a seashell and a brick from the house wall and keep them in my spacious closet. Gee it's a good thing I listened to myself, how would I have been able to complete this assignment otherwise?
Back to business, can the government efficiently prevent the strong from opressing the weak? In other words, is our country just? It's definitely more just than that of a poor war-torn country ravaged by famine, but these aren't necessarily within the state's ability to regulate. And we regard ourselves as being more just than the arab world, especially when it comes to the treatment of our women. Certainly, our cultures are different, but in the less civilized parts of the world, things we consider basic rights here are often unheard of. Obviously, the use of the words "less civilized" arouses some debate; is it politically correct to regard another culture as "less civilized"? What if it is only "less civilized" from our point of view? I would like to use this as an opportunity to draw the line. When I returned to my small town in eastern Ontario I found that the demographics had changed slightly; where previously the town had been almost exclusively composed of white french canadian families from long ago, had already begun to diversify. There was talk of a chilling incident that had happened in a popular local bar; two haitian women were having an argument and a local man stepped in, trying to disperse the fight. The haitian man who was accompanying the two women saw the three arguing, and eventually stabbed the white man, killing him. This I heard in the car while returning home. I had a discussion about this with my family; disregarding that there may have been more to the story, a consensus was reached. We do not, as far as my family is concerned, fight unless provoked, and we do not carry knives, and we do not stab, because we do not wish to kill. However, in Haiti, where "justice" is likely a fairly different concept than what it represents here, taking action yourself in order to settle a dispute quickly and avoid a worse outcome in the future may be the norm. Perhaps in that country, one would not meddle in the affairs of others, but I think that a person with enough guts to step in and prevent others from fighting is worthy of praise.
In any case, the man died, and the other man was sent to jail. Hooray. Most likely believing that his action was justified, and that things are simply different in this country. FOR ONE, THIS COUNTRY HAS POLICE. One could argue that it was the white man's fault, that he should simply have made a report to the police, that his part would have ended there. The problem here is that the situation could have been avoided if Canada could somehow indoctrinate it's immigrants into understanding canadian mentality and culture, as well as the crucial but unspoken social conventions, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill Bystanders. Or anyone, for that usually ends up with you spending a sizeable portion of your life in jail, not to mention having to move to a different town, because in boxed in french communities like those, no one would ever trust you again. And you'd forever have a smear on your crimial record. A pretty big one; 2st degree murder. Perhaps there was a reason, but it seems unlikely as any reason would help the defendant, and none was disclosed to the medi, as far as my reliable source is aware.
The crux of the matter is this. Yes punishments are set in place to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands, it is rather difficult to be the legal posessor of hunting firearms, not to mention handguns and the like, inconspicuous weaponry is illegal, so it's not like the system doesn't already enforce peace, only it allows outsiders who are not, at least not at first, indoctrinated in the same manner as the rest of us, and they, with their inapplicable social norms, are liable to stir up trouble in unforseeable ways, with disastrous results. To return to the original point of this diversion, those cultures, when superimposed upon our own, seem less civilized. Where rights must be fought for tooth and nail, where the infrastructure put in place to protect you doesn't exist, or doesn't really care to ensure your safety, or will gladly look the other way in exchange for "compensation", being civilized is probably the least of your concerns. Alternately, if I were to take my cute imaginary girlfriend to Saudi Arabia and have her stroll around with no regard for their social norms -assuming she could pass for an arab, I would have another thing coming. When in Rome... clearly that idiot murdurer who sullied the reputation of black people in my village didn't get the message.
I did a test, later, walking around the grocery store with my scarf wrapped around my head - as it is meant to be worn, might I add - and got quite a few unpleasant looks from passers-by, though those who talked to me recognized my french accent and knew me as a local. What was I trying to use this example for? Do we have systems in place to prevent people from taking matters in their own hands? Well, yes, we do. Though their effectiveness is questionable, what is most effective is social norm, which is a subtle restraining bolt not unlike that used by the Dollars. But I have mentioned this earlier. Other than that, we certainly could do a better job at preparing immigrants to live in small towns with no services for foreigners.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
There Was a Time
I remember writing, two years ago, an essay on Global Politics. It was a second year university course. Actually, there was two of them, I took both. The final exam was no big deal, but the essay... I talked about africa a lot, I think. I remember reading about Congo. This man, Mobutu Sese Seko, was the president or some such of the Republic of Congo. He was also affiliated with the CIA. Anyway, it's a long and short story, but the upper echelons of government in congo were corrupt, and in the 90's, when he was exiled, this Seko guy had made the situation in Congo far, far worse that it would have been had the money given to Congo had actually gone somewhere other than his pockets. But I have mentioned this before, in class. This is a classic example of What Happens When Democracy Fails... In many, many cases the western world attempts to implement a System For The Betterment Of All Humans but it falls prey to the opportunistic personalities located helter skelter along the system. With nothing but empty sky above their heads, leaders are free to become What They Are In The Dark. I think that all nations that begin as a democratically - Haha. I just had a flashes-of -light-connecting-the-dots moment.
Our democracy is effectively protected and stabilized by the presence of the Crown. This is a statement. 19th c. France, {who's leaders at the time of the 1st and 2nd republic; Robespierre and Napoleon 3rd were chosen by election or vote within the parliament or commune} had abolished it's monarchy, and for good reason. But the reality of social instabilities, coupled with popular support within the ruling senate/commune/parliament infrastructure could potentially lead - and did, to the establishing of a regime. Alternately, a succession of regimes established by the ruling millitary authority in the region, and challenged by smaller groups inhabiting the more remote areas in that authority's jurisdiction, is common in the third world. Many, like Seko, ally with global powers to cement their rule, and through a mix of backdoor business deals and official restrictions/sanctions/requirements imposed upon the regime, a suitable level of stability is established in the area. Truly, a state ruled by an iron-fisted man can hardly be worse than a country torn apart by war... The problem in both cases is not the means by which an autocracy is established, but that the system doesn't have a means to ensure that the leader is indeed acting in the people's best interests. This of course can lead to civil war, or stigmatization and genocide. Naturally the entire modus operandi of autocracy means that the leader is not serving the people, but that it is them who serve him, and at best he acts upon his perception of what his state is or should be like, and at worst he - or she, really - does not care. My entire point is this; above the ruling authority, another is required that establishes the purpose of the first and maintains the state's course when there is instability, or in democracies like Canada, dissolving of the ruling body. Thus is Canadian democracy brokered by an institution; the Crown and not, as I had originally assumed, the Parliament.
However whether that democracy represents its people accurately is rightfully beyond the authority of the Crown, the institution, or little would separate us and them. The people govern themselves. The crown governs the governors. Paradox! The Crown has no power, and yet it is the base on which a (hopefully) righteous nation is based. Another point was brought up in class; that recycling of governance is preferable, and this to prevent the same response to conflicts. Another reason exists, I think; that is to prevent the leader from spending so much time in office that they can change the country too much: This would be a good thing, but only if the change represented the country's collective vision, not that of one man. Haha! This has led me to an interesting realization: Democracies are inherently conservative! Not strictly in the political sense; but they are slow to change partly because constitution requires it. Of course a man who has changed a nation might take a lifetime to have done so; by which time the -I have no words- issues may have changed, and his policies would be outdated. So shortening the terms ensures a country stays on course. But in case the course changes sharply, the changes will take long to implement, decades, possibly even centuries; it has been roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution, more than 50 years since political leaders became aware that there was an issue, but visionaries are not accepted by their peers, and in a majority vote system, the coolest cat has all the friends. I suppose that's why they are called revolutionaries. Unable to correct the course quickly enough, they either usurp it out of frustration and take control or destroy it and make a new one. Meanwhile countries like Canada are stuck arguing about whether to support the states and oil and the kyoto agreements and militarizing the nation. This is a good and a bad thing, bad when you agree with the leader because he can never move too far too quickly towards something or he'll lose parliament support, and good when you think the leader's a total idiot. Ultimately it is more or less a good thing,, if you think that it prevents us from erupting into civil war or political instability.
When you think about it, perhaps the US have a better system... Unlike Canada, you can't get re-elected for 30 years straight with a majority vote, which is as Quebec demonstrated rather damaging... This is common knowledge where I come from. Should I source it? Yes. What If I've been wrong all this time, in my assumption? I would look quite the fool.
"Everybody's jaded by fame?" Van, you are quite correct.
Our democracy is effectively protected and stabilized by the presence of the Crown. This is a statement. 19th c. France, {who's leaders at the time of the 1st and 2nd republic; Robespierre and Napoleon 3rd were chosen by election or vote within the parliament or commune} had abolished it's monarchy, and for good reason. But the reality of social instabilities, coupled with popular support within the ruling senate/commune/parliament infrastructure could potentially lead - and did, to the establishing of a regime. Alternately, a succession of regimes established by the ruling millitary authority in the region, and challenged by smaller groups inhabiting the more remote areas in that authority's jurisdiction, is common in the third world. Many, like Seko, ally with global powers to cement their rule, and through a mix of backdoor business deals and official restrictions/sanctions/requirements imposed upon the regime, a suitable level of stability is established in the area. Truly, a state ruled by an iron-fisted man can hardly be worse than a country torn apart by war... The problem in both cases is not the means by which an autocracy is established, but that the system doesn't have a means to ensure that the leader is indeed acting in the people's best interests. This of course can lead to civil war, or stigmatization and genocide. Naturally the entire modus operandi of autocracy means that the leader is not serving the people, but that it is them who serve him, and at best he acts upon his perception of what his state is or should be like, and at worst he - or she, really - does not care. My entire point is this; above the ruling authority, another is required that establishes the purpose of the first and maintains the state's course when there is instability, or in democracies like Canada, dissolving of the ruling body. Thus is Canadian democracy brokered by an institution; the Crown and not, as I had originally assumed, the Parliament.
However whether that democracy represents its people accurately is rightfully beyond the authority of the Crown, the institution, or little would separate us and them. The people govern themselves. The crown governs the governors. Paradox! The Crown has no power, and yet it is the base on which a (hopefully) righteous nation is based. Another point was brought up in class; that recycling of governance is preferable, and this to prevent the same response to conflicts. Another reason exists, I think; that is to prevent the leader from spending so much time in office that they can change the country too much: This would be a good thing, but only if the change represented the country's collective vision, not that of one man. Haha! This has led me to an interesting realization: Democracies are inherently conservative! Not strictly in the political sense; but they are slow to change partly because constitution requires it. Of course a man who has changed a nation might take a lifetime to have done so; by which time the -I have no words- issues may have changed, and his policies would be outdated. So shortening the terms ensures a country stays on course. But in case the course changes sharply, the changes will take long to implement, decades, possibly even centuries; it has been roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution, more than 50 years since political leaders became aware that there was an issue, but visionaries are not accepted by their peers, and in a majority vote system, the coolest cat has all the friends. I suppose that's why they are called revolutionaries. Unable to correct the course quickly enough, they either usurp it out of frustration and take control or destroy it and make a new one. Meanwhile countries like Canada are stuck arguing about whether to support the states and oil and the kyoto agreements and militarizing the nation. This is a good and a bad thing, bad when you agree with the leader because he can never move too far too quickly towards something or he'll lose parliament support, and good when you think the leader's a total idiot. Ultimately it is more or less a good thing,, if you think that it prevents us from erupting into civil war or political instability.
When you think about it, perhaps the US have a better system... Unlike Canada, you can't get re-elected for 30 years straight with a majority vote, which is as Quebec demonstrated rather damaging... This is common knowledge where I come from. Should I source it? Yes. What If I've been wrong all this time, in my assumption? I would look quite the fool.
"Everybody's jaded by fame?" Van, you are quite correct.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Opening Suite
This I in fact forgot to mention. The name of the person I took the quote from, officially, and the book. It is deserving of it's own post.
____
"Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
~ Georges Monbiot, Manifesto For A New World Order
This is the source, or the theme that I am writing about. Though in my defense I did put it in the - no, wait, I didn't! I quoted it from the review article which quoted it! Noo!
____
"Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
~ Georges Monbiot, Manifesto For A New World Order
This is the source, or the theme that I am writing about. Though in my defense I did put it in the - no, wait, I didn't! I quoted it from the review article which quoted it! Noo!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
STORYWRITER
I've realized that there is no point in explaining how the government works. I would have to do a resume. If you want a resume of how the government works, see "Politics of Canada" on wikipedia and have fun. I shan't waste my time when someone else has already gone through this very ordeal. On with the show.
Or not, since I'm clearly bored for having spent the last 23 minutes reading up the various entries for the word shit in the urban dictionary.
Okay, okay. back to work. It's not over yet. What's next? I've already decided that I would tackle the institution part later. Next comes the mandated by the people and made accountable to them. Well, the gov't is mandated by the people in the sense that the leaders are put there because of us, though indirectly.
How is the key. How does the gov't prevent the strong from oppressing the weak? Justice. Is the legal system efficient? Uh Oh. This can't be good. This is an essay in it's own. How does it prevent it's citizens from solving their differences through violence? The Police? No. The threat of punishment. That's what the police are there for. Enforcers more than protectors. There was that one Youtube vid...
Problem being that there are many different levels of governance, and the head is too concerned with it's own existential issues to know exactly what the hands are doing, where the feet are, what the heart rate is and what kind of mineral is lacking in the diet. The head isn't even aware of such mundane things, and its the same with any nation. What is needed is diligence, because no amount of management can control everything in any way.. But diligence is unattainable. How do you get everyone to do what they should be doing, as much as they can, honestly and while trying to understand each other? Can you pay them to do this? No, there cannot be a reward, it should be done from the heart. To look at how online communities function.... The Dollars (baccano) have no group leaders, no hierachy. We have an infrastructure. Everything else is spontaneously added by members of the group who act as controls on their own authority, and they seek to represent the group diligently because they have no official authority other than the recognition of their peers... Hey hey wait I have something here... No one wants to be alienated, so most people obey the rules of respect, despite anonymity. Those that do not conform are shunned by the others, not by any figure of authority. Is that a feasible model? Doesn't that sound like a mix of mob mentality and "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down"? Though there is crowd control that occurs with externals seeking to join, or so I've heard. Perhaps Ayanavi knows more about that. Will have to find her sometime this weekend.
[edit: what keeps things civil in the Dollars is the fact that we are so basic that we lack the ability to even make group decisions via polling... All we can do is rally as many supporters as possible and make our opinion known in the maelstrom of other discussions and irrelevant topics flying around. Of course, because we don't manage anything except the site and have no responsibilities, this is unimportant. Though I will have to, I suppose, bring it up now... And find out if the Dollars need a governing infrastructure. it will be an interesting debate, I think.]
Or not, since I'm clearly bored for having spent the last 23 minutes reading up the various entries for the word shit in the urban dictionary.
Okay, okay. back to work. It's not over yet. What's next? I've already decided that I would tackle the institution part later. Next comes the mandated by the people and made accountable to them. Well, the gov't is mandated by the people in the sense that the leaders are put there because of us, though indirectly.
How is the key. How does the gov't prevent the strong from oppressing the weak? Justice. Is the legal system efficient? Uh Oh. This can't be good. This is an essay in it's own. How does it prevent it's citizens from solving their differences through violence? The Police? No. The threat of punishment. That's what the police are there for. Enforcers more than protectors. There was that one Youtube vid...
Problem being that there are many different levels of governance, and the head is too concerned with it's own existential issues to know exactly what the hands are doing, where the feet are, what the heart rate is and what kind of mineral is lacking in the diet. The head isn't even aware of such mundane things, and its the same with any nation. What is needed is diligence, because no amount of management can control everything in any way.. But diligence is unattainable. How do you get everyone to do what they should be doing, as much as they can, honestly and while trying to understand each other? Can you pay them to do this? No, there cannot be a reward, it should be done from the heart. To look at how online communities function.... The Dollars (baccano) have no group leaders, no hierachy. We have an infrastructure. Everything else is spontaneously added by members of the group who act as controls on their own authority, and they seek to represent the group diligently because they have no official authority other than the recognition of their peers... Hey hey wait I have something here... No one wants to be alienated, so most people obey the rules of respect, despite anonymity. Those that do not conform are shunned by the others, not by any figure of authority. Is that a feasible model? Doesn't that sound like a mix of mob mentality and "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down"? Though there is crowd control that occurs with externals seeking to join, or so I've heard. Perhaps Ayanavi knows more about that. Will have to find her sometime this weekend.
[edit: what keeps things civil in the Dollars is the fact that we are so basic that we lack the ability to even make group decisions via polling... All we can do is rally as many supporters as possible and make our opinion known in the maelstrom of other discussions and irrelevant topics flying around. Of course, because we don't manage anything except the site and have no responsibilities, this is unimportant. Though I will have to, I suppose, bring it up now... And find out if the Dollars need a governing infrastructure. it will be an interesting debate, I think.]
Directive?...
So, what is the correct way to go about this? Obviously I can't finish before tomorrow. But I can do it for the 10th. I find answers. I suppose the best place to start is my sentence. Find things that relate to it, post them here. My real question is "Is the system good?" I hadn't realized that that's an irritating question to ask. I need examples of the state being brokered by institutions, proof that it prevents the strong from opressing the weak, that it holds itself accountable for it's people and doesn't act behind their backs... That it prevents its people from using violence to solve their problems... But see, If I go about it this way, I will come to the conclusion that the state is flawed, because it doesn't do everything right all the time. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether it does things right most of the time, and where the line is drawn. I had not considered this. Basically, If I look for dirt, I will realise that there's dirt everywhere. This would turn this essay into a bashfest. Am I ready to take on such a gargantuan project? That question assumes that it's a logical decision to do so. Alternatively, I could use the phrase as a guideline with which to put in question the efficiency of the state, with the eventual goal of writing my own manifesto, more or less a wishlist for our country, and the world.
Oh my. I see what she meant by "this blog will outlive the projet it was created for." How irritating. Wait, haven't I just reformatted what I said earlier? I have. This is the same idea I had a week ago. I wasn't going to discover what's right about the states... I was going at it knowing full well that I would find bad things everywhere. That's the point. Becoming aware of the mistakes. Really, all I need is a few examples of each part of the sentences and ideas found elsewhere on what would be a good way to deal with them. I also need to set a finishing line for the "project" part of it.
Oh what a blunder. Well, no matter. Let's go fishing.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Bibliography, Final Week [On]
"Elizabeth II." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Monarchy of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Politics of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Free Online Dictionary for English Definitions. Web. 06 Apr. 2011.
A definition. It will do for now, but its not the same one as the one used in my phrase. Oh god, this idea was so stupid. couldn't I just have taken, you know, a boring, easy assignment? Thankfully the brokered by institutions part is really easy. I just have to explain how it works to prove it. Government websites here I come!
They. Have. A list. Of All Positions. In The Entire Government. With Links. That Lead. To PDFs. Or More Links. Wonderful. All the information is always too much information. But I've now learned about bills. So government types spend their everyday writing and reading these pdfs, eh? No wonder they're all insane. Also, they're always printed. Wonder if that'll change if the green party takes the house? Probably not. Save the tr- I mean, some trees. Save some trees! Or wait, perhaps they'd use that excuse to buy iPads for everyone in the House of Commons. Like Oprah. Everyone likes Oprah, so why not? I don't know how to cite that page! It's called Legisinfo. Boring. A faq page. I didn't know where else to start.
Shah, Anup. "WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999 — Global Issues." Global Issues : Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All — Global Issues. 18 Feb. 2001. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.
Moffat, Charles. "Privatization in Canada: Education, Electrity, Two-Tier Healthcare and Water Safety - The Canada EZine." The Lilith Gallery of Toronto. Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Ugh. An magazine aimed at women and men, in that order, means that it's targets are women, but they don't want to alienate men. Dunno if this is true in english but in french, "le masculin l'emporte" and thus, they are alienating me anyway. Still, the author's critique, though not cited, seems well informed enough. Not that I'm going to cite him or anything...
Levenson, Eugenia. "As Nike Goes Green, Can It Improve Working Conditions? - Nov. 17, 2008." Business, Financial, Personal Finance News - CNNMoney.com. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Campbell, Elizabeth, Nicola Mayhaff, Dwight Stewart, and Monique Trepanier. "Canada's Approach to Battling Police Corruption." Aug. 2004. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Goodman, Amy, and Juan Gonzalez. "Globalizing Democracy: Manifesto for a New World Order." Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. 30 Apr. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
This is an interview between Georges Monbiot and some journalists, talking about the nonsensical nature of the WTO's decision system in the past years, and how recently, poorer states are challenging what he refers to as "The Quad" Can, Jap, EU and USA in their decisions. It then goes on about issues and ideas that Monbiot talked about in his book. Obviously "les enjeux" are dated to the pre-Obama time period, but still fairly current seeing as nothing moves quickly in politics.
P.S.: I may have used backwards logic in several occasions while collecting this information, using examples of which I have heard of/researched previously and simply needed something to refresh/back me up for this paper. The objectivity of this tactic may be questionable, but hey, it's a blog.
Vinter, Hannah. "Brazil to Impose Trade Sanctions on US | The Argentina Independent." The Argentina Independent. 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
"Declaration of War." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. Specifically a note given to this much more formal, and much less accessible government publication;
"Waging war: Parliament’s role and responsibility" House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution; 27 Jul. 2006. Web. 10 Apr. 2011
For the purpose of this sentence in particular: "developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument." Answering my question that no, Declarations of War can no longer be issued as a threat in many nations, likely also Canada, though a decision made in 1945 on the British constitution would not have affected us.
"Monarchy of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Politics of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Apr. 2011.
"Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Free Online Dictionary for English Definitions. Web. 06 Apr. 2011.
A definition. It will do for now, but its not the same one as the one used in my phrase. Oh god, this idea was so stupid. couldn't I just have taken, you know, a boring, easy assignment? Thankfully the brokered by institutions part is really easy. I just have to explain how it works to prove it. Government websites here I come!
They. Have. A list. Of All Positions. In The Entire Government. With Links. That Lead. To PDFs. Or More Links. Wonderful. All the information is always too much information. But I've now learned about bills. So government types spend their everyday writing and reading these pdfs, eh? No wonder they're all insane. Also, they're always printed. Wonder if that'll change if the green party takes the house? Probably not. Save the tr- I mean, some trees. Save some trees! Or wait, perhaps they'd use that excuse to buy iPads for everyone in the House of Commons. Like Oprah. Everyone likes Oprah, so why not? I don't know how to cite that page! It's called Legisinfo. Boring. A faq page. I didn't know where else to start.
Shah, Anup. "WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999 — Global Issues." Global Issues : Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All — Global Issues. 18 Feb. 2001. Web. 09 Apr. 2011.
Moffat, Charles. "Privatization in Canada: Education, Electrity, Two-Tier Healthcare and Water Safety - The Canada EZine." The Lilith Gallery of Toronto. Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Ugh. An magazine aimed at women and men, in that order, means that it's targets are women, but they don't want to alienate men. Dunno if this is true in english but in french, "le masculin l'emporte" and thus, they are alienating me anyway. Still, the author's critique, though not cited, seems well informed enough. Not that I'm going to cite him or anything...
Levenson, Eugenia. "As Nike Goes Green, Can It Improve Working Conditions? - Nov. 17, 2008." Business, Financial, Personal Finance News - CNNMoney.com. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Campbell, Elizabeth, Nicola Mayhaff, Dwight Stewart, and Monique Trepanier. "Canada's Approach to Battling Police Corruption." Aug. 2004. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Goodman, Amy, and Juan Gonzalez. "Globalizing Democracy: Manifesto for a New World Order." Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. 30 Apr. 2004. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
This is an interview between Georges Monbiot and some journalists, talking about the nonsensical nature of the WTO's decision system in the past years, and how recently, poorer states are challenging what he refers to as "The Quad" Can, Jap, EU and USA in their decisions. It then goes on about issues and ideas that Monbiot talked about in his book. Obviously "les enjeux" are dated to the pre-Obama time period, but still fairly current seeing as nothing moves quickly in politics.
P.S.: I may have used backwards logic in several occasions while collecting this information, using examples of which I have heard of/researched previously and simply needed something to refresh/back me up for this paper. The objectivity of this tactic may be questionable, but hey, it's a blog.
Vinter, Hannah. "Brazil to Impose Trade Sanctions on US | The Argentina Independent." The Argentina Independent. 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
"Declaration of War." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. Specifically a note given to this much more formal, and much less accessible government publication;
"Waging war: Parliament’s role and responsibility" House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution; 27 Jul. 2006. Web. 10 Apr. 2011
For the purpose of this sentence in particular: "developments in international law since 1945, notably the United Nations Charter, including its prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, may well have made the declaration of war redundant as a formal international legal instrument." Answering my question that no, Declarations of War can no longer be issued as a threat in many nations, likely also Canada, though a decision made in 1945 on the British constitution would not have affected us.
The Good, the Bad and the Queen
Once again I post, claiming that I have returned to the matter at hand. Unfortunately for me, I became aware that the entire thing is due on Thursday only the day before yesterday. Oh well. I started reading on Canadian politics. This seems to be the incorrect - or rather, inefficient way to go about this, as I quickly got sidetracked and began to read about the Queen. I have not yet moved past the Wikipedia challenge stage of research. Still, because it was interesting, I shall reveal my findings.
The Queen is the constitutional Monarch of Canada, and is the living embodiment of Canada, and may be referred to simply as Canada. She is the head of 15 independent states, each with their legally distinct monarchical systems. Succession is hereditary and immediate upon the current's monarch death, thus the phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!" Charles, Prince of Wales, is heir apparent. The citizens of Canada pay no dues to the Queen, except when she is on duty representing Canada either internally or abroad. Her reign witnessed the ongoing transition from the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, it being already established upon her coronation that she be the head of independant nations no longer part of the Empire her position being agreed upon by the various nations in something that is similar to a treaty, i.e. one nation may decide to no longer recognize her as monarch, but she will still be the monarch of the other nations. Her role is legal and practical, but not political. The sovereign is given power over the state, but since canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Crown functions as a corporation, with the monarch at the center of a construct which then splits into executive, legislative and judicial branches. Her role, as I understand it, is to regulate stable governance, and safeguard the abuse of power as a representant of the people above government and the political parties. In a way, this suddenly seems incredibly important. If all is well she only observes, and I think her position prevents the commonwealth realms from succumbing to dictatorship. A cleverly designed stratagem where the state directs itself in times of peace, but has a failsafe if things go wrong. I am unsure as to whether or not she has the authority to act, and to what extent, if the constituion is ever threatened. However, her presence forwards the interests of Democracy. Because she holds little political power, she is a non-partisan, which gives her the neutral credibility that party leaders and the MP do not have. In her authority as Queen, she follows the political flow of Canada, and acts in it's best interests.
As it turns out, this was a somewhat fruitful piece of research. Alas, completely [edit: and shamelessly] taken from Wikipedia, so lacking in credibility. Oh well. It seemed researched enough.
[edit: This note is obviously biased. I like the Queen. Still, it is good that she holds little direct political power. The country should decide on matters of the country, so long as the country can agree and things remain civil. Plus there is no denying that the monarch is only human.]
The Queen is the constitutional Monarch of Canada, and is the living embodiment of Canada, and may be referred to simply as Canada. She is the head of 15 independent states, each with their legally distinct monarchical systems. Succession is hereditary and immediate upon the current's monarch death, thus the phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!" Charles, Prince of Wales, is heir apparent. The citizens of Canada pay no dues to the Queen, except when she is on duty representing Canada either internally or abroad. Her reign witnessed the ongoing transition from the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, it being already established upon her coronation that she be the head of independant nations no longer part of the Empire her position being agreed upon by the various nations in something that is similar to a treaty, i.e. one nation may decide to no longer recognize her as monarch, but she will still be the monarch of the other nations. Her role is legal and practical, but not political. The sovereign is given power over the state, but since canada is a constitutional monarchy, the Crown functions as a corporation, with the monarch at the center of a construct which then splits into executive, legislative and judicial branches. Her role, as I understand it, is to regulate stable governance, and safeguard the abuse of power as a representant of the people above government and the political parties. In a way, this suddenly seems incredibly important. If all is well she only observes, and I think her position prevents the commonwealth realms from succumbing to dictatorship. A cleverly designed stratagem where the state directs itself in times of peace, but has a failsafe if things go wrong. I am unsure as to whether or not she has the authority to act, and to what extent, if the constituion is ever threatened. However, her presence forwards the interests of Democracy. Because she holds little political power, she is a non-partisan, which gives her the neutral credibility that party leaders and the MP do not have. In her authority as Queen, she follows the political flow of Canada, and acts in it's best interests.
As it turns out, this was a somewhat fruitful piece of research. Alas, completely [edit: and shamelessly] taken from Wikipedia, so lacking in credibility. Oh well. It seemed researched enough.
[edit: This note is obviously biased. I like the Queen. Still, it is good that she holds little direct political power. The country should decide on matters of the country, so long as the country can agree and things remain civil. Plus there is no denying that the monarch is only human.]
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Change is Gonna Come
Maybe, maybe not. This is a sidenote. Today, I took part in the Student Walk of Shame, when whoever wanted to - perhaps 15-20 students from NSCAD joined a few other students in front of Province House, which is where parliamentary decisions, or something similar to that, is held every year. Our Walk was actually rather well organized, though I can't remember the specifics, and not many people attended, not nearly as many as the Student Day of Action, which I did not take part in. Today was the date for some important meeting, and to have our voices heard we went with banners and slogans and songs to remind the Province's government that we have something we want them to do. We screamed until our voices cracked, and well after. When my sign broke from the constant shaking, I held it in my hand and beat the stick to the rhythm of the slogans. When my hands chafed I switched hands and kept going. We did so for perhaps an hour and a half. At the end of it all, I was spent. But the organizer encouraged us with messages from inside the building, that they could hear us well into the rooms, that they had decided to discuss our issue. We celebrated, and chanted louder, as loud as we could, though really we couldn't speak anymore.
But you know, they listened to some extent, and so that is a nice thought, that our effort was somewhat recognize. Whether we will get anything out of it remains to be seen, but it's better than sitting around and waiting for the axe to fall. They somehow agreed to talk about our complaints. That, perhaps, is a success in itself. I find myself invigorated, remembering that these men are humans too, and that their job being to administrate a province, they can't be totally unreasonable when it comes to listening to those who protest against them. Maybe, if we tell them what we want, and prove to them that we want it badly enough, they will consider our desires. After all, we are their subjects, no? At the very least, we will not be ignored. At the best, we will not be defeated.
But you know, they listened to some extent, and so that is a nice thought, that our effort was somewhat recognize. Whether we will get anything out of it remains to be seen, but it's better than sitting around and waiting for the axe to fall. They somehow agreed to talk about our complaints. That, perhaps, is a success in itself. I find myself invigorated, remembering that these men are humans too, and that their job being to administrate a province, they can't be totally unreasonable when it comes to listening to those who protest against them. Maybe, if we tell them what we want, and prove to them that we want it badly enough, they will consider our desires. After all, we are their subjects, no? At the very least, we will not be ignored. At the best, we will not be defeated.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Get On With The Show
God, I've been doing nothing but jewellery since last week. Should I go read up, or should I head straight to bed and go to cass with nothing to show for it? The bed sounds attractive. My mind isn't really up for it right now. Still I should do something at least, this being the final class before the final class. In other words, I have 1 week to come up with a 2500 word essay. No biggie, really, since I've done that twice before. Its only 5 pages of text, double spaced to look impressive. Well *I* don't double space, because its not fashionable, and because it looks rather scary, before you start writing. But since my handwriting is smaller than TNR 12 font, 5 pages of typed stuff rather invigorates me.. Anyways, back to the point, which is Brainstorming and Organizing My Thoughts In Preparation for the Upcoming Essay. There is a fine line to be walked along here; working alot will get me more or less prepared enough to make tomorrow morning's class useful, but I myself will be unable to directly contribute, or I may conversely not do anything at all, ensuring that I get 7 hours of due rest and that tomorrow's class will be utterly pointless. Really the only feasible alternative is to hurry and find sources to read, download them now, get whatever sleep I can and read them in class, formulating my strategy as I go and sustaining my physical body with processed glucose.. With that in mind, on with the show. Such as it is.
So, first order, repeat the token sentence: "Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
As I have said, I want to evaluate the state of Canada while using this sentence as a template. I will then pass my judgement. Of course this will be an overview of what I should in reality be getting down on my knees to scrape with a toothbrush, but 5 pages really is too small. Small enough that with prior research it could be composed in 2 days, while floating off some tropical island, with all your crewmates diving off the foremast, and yourself cursing your own stupidity for procrastinating until the ship arrived at said island, forcing you to quickly butcher what could have been a rather well done assignment, all for the sake of a few jumps into a shimmering turquoise sea and an afternoon of play. This of course provides a rather suitable motivator of diligence on the student's part. One wonders if all institutions should perhaps keep a campus on some far-off Caribbean island, for use at the end of each term, tempting students to play on it's beaches thus forcing them to try harder, focus, and be efficient with their time.
You'd think some program might do the trick... Let me tell ya, this wall of fog is just too thick. I've thought of everything but the whip, but nobody on my ship is up to it.
"Democracy is unattainable" is an interesting quote in and of itself. I would like to take a moment to ponder Monbiot's wisdom.... Done. "unless it is brokered by institutions" Brokered meaning "deal acheived through a hired agent", as I understand it, the sentence means that Democracy - where the sum of all opinions determine the course of action - cannot deal directly with the people, it requires an infrastructure to manage and mobilize. This infrastructure is the government, obviously, and begs the question; why can democracy not simply be managed by the collective who's power it affects, and whose powers affect it? As it stands, the multiple layers of government ensure that no particularly rebellious ideology can suddenly gain favor and endanger the balance of the system. This is a good thing. It also speeds up the decision process by eliminating the need for referendums for each and every decision - a political system that could, today, with the internet, be feasible, but would require a rather educated populace to be efficient, or would otherwise educate it's populace based on necessity. In that light, education of the masses is a good thing, right? There is another issue, that with the detachment of decision-making from the common folk, those who's ideas are not represented in parliament, or those who feel that they are not represented, may decide that democracy is a useless measure, and by that decision (or rather by the political inaction that follows it) making democracy a slightly useless measure. This may be the case with youth. There is a further complication. A party may make some reasonable decisions, and some that are absolutely and completely retarded. This kind of democracy sort of... seems to degenerates into a "Lesser of two evils." scenario...
Boy am I tired. I need to just read up more on this stuff before I make any more wild theories. Copy paste the Wikipedia articles and then off to bed.
So, first order, repeat the token sentence: "Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
As I have said, I want to evaluate the state of Canada while using this sentence as a template. I will then pass my judgement. Of course this will be an overview of what I should in reality be getting down on my knees to scrape with a toothbrush, but 5 pages really is too small. Small enough that with prior research it could be composed in 2 days, while floating off some tropical island, with all your crewmates diving off the foremast, and yourself cursing your own stupidity for procrastinating until the ship arrived at said island, forcing you to quickly butcher what could have been a rather well done assignment, all for the sake of a few jumps into a shimmering turquoise sea and an afternoon of play. This of course provides a rather suitable motivator of diligence on the student's part. One wonders if all institutions should perhaps keep a campus on some far-off Caribbean island, for use at the end of each term, tempting students to play on it's beaches thus forcing them to try harder, focus, and be efficient with their time.
You'd think some program might do the trick... Let me tell ya, this wall of fog is just too thick. I've thought of everything but the whip, but nobody on my ship is up to it.
"Democracy is unattainable" is an interesting quote in and of itself. I would like to take a moment to ponder Monbiot's wisdom.... Done. "unless it is brokered by institutions" Brokered meaning "deal acheived through a hired agent", as I understand it, the sentence means that Democracy - where the sum of all opinions determine the course of action - cannot deal directly with the people, it requires an infrastructure to manage and mobilize. This infrastructure is the government, obviously, and begs the question; why can democracy not simply be managed by the collective who's power it affects, and whose powers affect it? As it stands, the multiple layers of government ensure that no particularly rebellious ideology can suddenly gain favor and endanger the balance of the system. This is a good thing. It also speeds up the decision process by eliminating the need for referendums for each and every decision - a political system that could, today, with the internet, be feasible, but would require a rather educated populace to be efficient, or would otherwise educate it's populace based on necessity. In that light, education of the masses is a good thing, right? There is another issue, that with the detachment of decision-making from the common folk, those who's ideas are not represented in parliament, or those who feel that they are not represented, may decide that democracy is a useless measure, and by that decision (or rather by the political inaction that follows it) making democracy a slightly useless measure. This may be the case with youth. There is a further complication. A party may make some reasonable decisions, and some that are absolutely and completely retarded. This kind of democracy sort of... seems to degenerates into a "Lesser of two evils." scenario...
Boy am I tired. I need to just read up more on this stuff before I make any more wild theories. Copy paste the Wikipedia articles and then off to bed.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Introductory Research Bibliography - Annotated [On]
A general overview to get my ideas brewing. Hopefully this essay will not be using any of these directly, but rather a synthesis of my opinions on all of these subjects and more.
"Politics of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 23 Mar. 2011
This is an article that describes the political system of Canada, as well as a history of. I'm using it to get a general idea of what our political system is like. My god, I can't believe I'm actually doing this. I hate politics and all politicians!
Shevtsov, Jane. "Manifesto for a New World Order - Beyond Borders Books." World Beyond Borders. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2011.
This text is a simple, two paragraph review of the book mentioned above. Most interesting is the phrase "Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government." The publisher's notes describe the author as a realistic utopian, and reader reviews point out that it is a text meant for people already involved in the anti-globalization movement, and thus likely an undecipherable brick. But, it can be bought on e-bay for 1.59$ plus shipping. I suppose the next target for research should be the anti-globalization movement. Just a basic overview will do, though there appear to be scholarly articles on the subject.
"Anti-globalization Movement." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. As I expected, a movement that is critical of corporate capitalism and MNCs, unregulated trade agreements and free-market fundamentalism, whatever that is. I have done a *very* quick overview, and will have to return to soon.
"Politics of Canada." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 23 Mar. 2011
This is an article that describes the political system of Canada, as well as a history of. I'm using it to get a general idea of what our political system is like. My god, I can't believe I'm actually doing this. I hate politics and all politicians!
Shevtsov, Jane. "Manifesto for a New World Order - Beyond Borders Books." World Beyond Borders. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2011.
This text is a simple, two paragraph review of the book mentioned above. Most interesting is the phrase "Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government." The publisher's notes describe the author as a realistic utopian, and reader reviews point out that it is a text meant for people already involved in the anti-globalization movement, and thus likely an undecipherable brick. But, it can be bought on e-bay for 1.59$ plus shipping. I suppose the next target for research should be the anti-globalization movement. Just a basic overview will do, though there appear to be scholarly articles on the subject.
"Anti-globalization Movement." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. As I expected, a movement that is critical of corporate capitalism and MNCs, unregulated trade agreements and free-market fundamentalism, whatever that is. I have done a *very* quick overview, and will have to return to soon.
And of course, this is supposed to be ongoing. I wrote this much on Wednesday, but forgot to publish it. Oh well.
Other things worth checking out could be found in the book, If I should buy it.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Roadmap
Okay. I need to figure out what exactly it is I'm going to be doing with this project. Obviously the direction phrase is way too broad. Do I want to examine Democracy as a whole, or do I want to critique certain aspects of it- which aspects- I want to examine whether or not our current system protects the strong from the weak, whether it prevents it's people from resolving their disputes through violence, whether the decisions of our government are truly mandated by the people, whether *brokered means resolved through an agent, similar to outsourcing but on a lesser scale, as far as I understand it.* by... institutions... democracy administered by institutions - which ones? The corporations? The political parties? As I see it, everyone has a slice of the pie. No. All I really want to do is complain about how our system works and does not work, I wish to order my thoughts and make them legible, so that we - I - may see - *How dare the government back out of the Tokyo agreement! Do they not care about the environment!? Now I HAVE to vote so I can NOT vote for them! Where did this political diligence come from? I certainly never believed that politics could actually *gasp* do everything right for a change. But the way I see it, we can go by elimination. Liberals suck? Then how about Conservatives... No wait, they suck too, they don't like small businesses, they're into MNC's. What about the NDP? I'm sure they're just as bad, but hey, everyone gets a turn. Failure again? Green Party's next. We could go through all of them if we did that. "You've got *however many years* to prove that you're worth something before we shoo you out and give your power to the underdog. Get real, real fast, bitch.*
Anyway back to the point. So that I may see what it is exactly what it is I think our government is lacking, thus establishing my political stance in a way, and writing down what it is I think we should be like as a country. These would be ideas, far removed from reality and the concept of "affordability" which grown men seem to love so much. But I'm not a grow man, so I'm mercifully exempt from needing to reason conservatively and have no faith. Ooh that's good. Grown men have no faith. Haha. Bashing, in a sense, but of a sensible sort. Finally, the establishing of a wish list, or in fancy, decorative words, a real New World Manifesto. Mine.
Anyway back to the point. So that I may see what it is exactly what it is I think our government is lacking, thus establishing my political stance in a way, and writing down what it is I think we should be like as a country. These would be ideas, far removed from reality and the concept of "affordability" which grown men seem to love so much. But I'm not a grow man, so I'm mercifully exempt from needing to reason conservatively and have no faith. Ooh that's good. Grown men have no faith. Haha. Bashing, in a sense, but of a sensible sort. Finally, the establishing of a wish list, or in fancy, decorative words, a real New World Manifesto. Mine.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Navigation [On]
This Final will function in the same way as my previous, Yukon Art School blog, If You Rise From The Ashes. I will write everything I think is worthy of note, thus this place will function both as my notebook and as the rough draft and as the final, and all of these intermingled. So, to make it readable, I will use a variety of styles, codewords and other such things; these will differenciate the different sections. This concept emerges from my artistic style, which makes sparing use of erasers the same way as I do not like to delete my sentences when composing e-mail; I let the words flow from my mind to the computer, to make the conversation more seamless, and perhaps allow me to use sarcasm more overtly.
[Edit: sections added to a finished post to rectify or add information will be bracketed, bolded and preceded by the code Edit:]
Post Titles followed by the bracketed [On] - such as this one - are ongoing and will contain information compiled over time.. These posts do not follow my usual blog writing style, which is all-inclusive and time stamped. The point is so that readers know that these posts change over time and the ideas represented within them are a resume of other posts and not a part of the essay writing narrative that I want to address.
Small, Italic text represents forethought, the internal preparatory thought process that goes before the writing of my actual points. Similar to the way I dislike erasers, and deleting, this is the nebula of often meaningless or irrelevant data that feeds through my cortex, prepping me to write. I plug in to the blog, writing down thoughts as I think them, and from that raw data, the text emerges. In If You Rise From The Ashes I did not delimit this text, which resulted in huge single-font blocks often pages long, and nigh impossible to wade through. Now I give the reader the option to skip through this text by making it small and unimportant looking. NB: Not wanting to pry is noble, but not caring enough to let others talk when they wish to do so is not.
"Quotes": will always be marked, underlined, and linked to the source article, if such was found online, and will additionally either be indicated as such in context, or will be followed by (author, page) if it is a print article. I may decide, If there are a lot of online notes, to only write down the important ones in the bibliography, and simply link the mundane ones that were found and quoted in a hurry. This I did in my last essay, and it was quite handy for me. In the case of print publications, they will ALWAYS be sourced in the bibliography.
Bibliographies will use MLA formatting style, to the best of my understanding. This is not a particularly important attribute in my books, but is a great source of clarity. Also, I will not refrain from accessing and taking information from online user-edited sources like wikipedia, though these will be traced back to the source article used by the wikipedia user, and both will be sourced. Or, if Karen so desires, only the original article will be present. Bibliographies will be written down in their own posts, labelled as such: " Bibliography; Week X [On] " Each week from now to the end will have the sources used in the respective weeks, with possible overlap.
Also, Entries will be classified weekly. This one is from week one.
-Just So You Know:
Use Of Caps To Demarcate Important Statements is a reference to tvtropes, compiled by basement dwellers everywhere to provide humourous deconstruction of virtually every piece of fiction that exists. (Though I've only looked at tv shows, video games and movies) It's quite fun to zoom through. I suppose that when I do this I'm trying to suggest that whatever is demarcated in this way is an Established Concept, that is, an entry in their website. I may, of course, be using sarcasm, satirizing a pre-established concept, acutally referencing a trope... Teacher's Nightmare apparently, or Maybe Not.
[Edit: sections added to a finished post to rectify or add information will be bracketed, bolded and preceded by the code Edit:]
Post Titles followed by the bracketed [On] - such as this one - are ongoing and will contain information compiled over time.. These posts do not follow my usual blog writing style, which is all-inclusive and time stamped. The point is so that readers know that these posts change over time and the ideas represented within them are a resume of other posts and not a part of the essay writing narrative that I want to address.
Small, Italic text represents forethought, the internal preparatory thought process that goes before the writing of my actual points. Similar to the way I dislike erasers, and deleting, this is the nebula of often meaningless or irrelevant data that feeds through my cortex, prepping me to write. I plug in to the blog, writing down thoughts as I think them, and from that raw data, the text emerges. In If You Rise From The Ashes I did not delimit this text, which resulted in huge single-font blocks often pages long, and nigh impossible to wade through. Now I give the reader the option to skip through this text by making it small and unimportant looking. NB: Not wanting to pry is noble, but not caring enough to let others talk when they wish to do so is not.
"Quotes": will always be marked, underlined, and linked to the source article, if such was found online, and will additionally either be indicated as such in context, or will be followed by (author, page) if it is a print article. I may decide, If there are a lot of online notes, to only write down the important ones in the bibliography, and simply link the mundane ones that were found and quoted in a hurry. This I did in my last essay, and it was quite handy for me. In the case of print publications, they will ALWAYS be sourced in the bibliography.
Bibliographies will use MLA formatting style, to the best of my understanding. This is not a particularly important attribute in my books, but is a great source of clarity. Also, I will not refrain from accessing and taking information from online user-edited sources like wikipedia, though these will be traced back to the source article used by the wikipedia user, and both will be sourced. Or, if Karen so desires, only the original article will be present. Bibliographies will be written down in their own posts, labelled as such: " Bibliography; Week X [On] " Each week from now to the end will have the sources used in the respective weeks, with possible overlap.
Also, Entries will be classified weekly. This one is from week one.
-Just So You Know:
Use Of Caps To Demarcate Important Statements is a reference to tvtropes, compiled by basement dwellers everywhere to provide humourous deconstruction of virtually every piece of fiction that exists. (Though I've only looked at tv shows, video games and movies) It's quite fun to zoom through. I suppose that when I do this I'm trying to suggest that whatever is demarcated in this way is an Established Concept, that is, an entry in their website. I may, of course, be using sarcasm, satirizing a pre-established concept, acutally referencing a trope... Teacher's Nightmare apparently, or Maybe Not.
An Idea is Born
Yesterday I talked for an hour with this girl from the Jewellery department about the state of the country, of education, of our political system. We deplored the inefficiency of high school education, which does nothing to prepare you to the real world, on a religious, psychological, philosophical and ideological level - all big words. We deplored the class differences that occur as a result of this gradated educational system - high school diploma, Bachelor's, Masters and Doctorates, as well as gradated weight that an individual at each level can carry. We talked about revolutionaries, complained about poor governance and compared capitalist systems with communist systems. We discussed the dissonance between the beliefs and values of VIPs in their personal life and experiences, and those values that they take on when they represent the interests of financial and political bodies. - again, big words, but they almost must be used since I mean to include more than just corporations and governments. In brief, this got me thinking back to a thought I had last week, about each individual's political responsibility: How can a government hope to steer a population that is mostly reactionary? We would instead have to tell the government what we expect from them, what our values are, and then tell them to represent and act upon our values, in a way "commissioning" our governments, rather than simply choosing a template from a choice of three or four. In paralell to this thought, I disagree with the notion that political ideology can be represented on a 1D scale. There is light, dark, shades of gray, but also colors - all of which intermingle with each other and the various base light and base dark.
On to the meat of this post; An Idea That Was Born. Today I meandered along this concept, thinking of what I would be doing for my proposal - which is due tomorrow, and for the essay. I had of course, failed to realize that Karen Is Awesome and that the final essay need not be in final essay format. Thinking back to the conversation from yesterday, I typed the words "New World Manifesto" in the google search bar, and sure enough, found a review of a text entitled "MANIFESTO FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER" which appears to discuss ideas such as the establishing of a Fair Trade Organization, an International Clearing Union to regulate the balance of trade - and the establishing of a directly elected world parliament. His audience is the anti-globalization movement, which he renames the global justice movement. I may have to find that book and read it.
Anyway, one sentence is of particular interest:
"Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
I struggle to make sense of that statement. Regardless, I wondered about the accuracy of that statement, out of context; is our democracy accountable to the people? Does it prevent the strong from oppressing the weak? In other words; is this system functional? What are the fallacies that I have observed? This I have chosen because I realized that writing an effective Manifesto for a new system, ideological or whatnot, is more of a thesis project than a 2nd year final.
Thus, this is my idea. An assessment of our current political system, structured around the sentence described above.
On to the meat of this post; An Idea That Was Born. Today I meandered along this concept, thinking of what I would be doing for my proposal - which is due tomorrow, and for the essay. I had of course, failed to realize that Karen Is Awesome and that the final essay need not be in final essay format. Thinking back to the conversation from yesterday, I typed the words "New World Manifesto" in the google search bar, and sure enough, found a review of a text entitled "MANIFESTO FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER" which appears to discuss ideas such as the establishing of a Fair Trade Organization, an International Clearing Union to regulate the balance of trade - and the establishing of a directly elected world parliament. His audience is the anti-globalization movement, which he renames the global justice movement. I may have to find that book and read it.
Anyway, one sentence is of particular interest:
"Democracy is unattainable unless it is brokered by institutions, mandated by the people and made accountable to them, whose primary purpose is to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak and to prevent people of all stations from resolving their differences by means of violence. The collective noun for such institutions is government."
I struggle to make sense of that statement. Regardless, I wondered about the accuracy of that statement, out of context; is our democracy accountable to the people? Does it prevent the strong from oppressing the weak? In other words; is this system functional? What are the fallacies that I have observed? This I have chosen because I realized that writing an effective Manifesto for a new system, ideological or whatnot, is more of a thesis project than a 2nd year final.
Thus, this is my idea. An assessment of our current political system, structured around the sentence described above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)