Hooray for Hypocricy!

Canada's Asbestos mining industry, mainly out of Quebec's Thetford mines, has not only put the people who live around the mines at a great health risk, but has also put the millions of people in developing countries such as India, Thailand and Indonesia, where Canada ships 96% of it's Asbestos, in danger. 

For many years, Australia, Chile, and the European Union, as well as every single other Western democracy, have fought to make Asbestos a substance on the Rotterdam Convention, a treaty governing trade in substances that can harm human health, or are potentially harmful to the environment. Their main opposition? Canada, of course, along with Zimbabwe, Russia, and yes, Iran. The Rotterdam Convention's review board, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) both agree that Chrysotile Asbestos (the main form mined and exported in Canada) is "unequivocally a human carcinogen." Canada's argument is that  "Chrysotile is a less potent carcinogen... and consequently poses a lower health risk" than other forms of Asbestos.

Not only that, but Canada argues that "its export and trade need not be dangerous, if the importing countries practise safe use and put regulations, programs, and practises equivalent to Canada's...in place." Well, the government of Canada has all but banned the substance, as our safety systems were no match for handling it, and I'm sure that developing countries will do a much better job dealing with it.

Last year, Canada even hired an "international committee of scientific experts to study the risks of Chrysotile exposure." The committee finished it's review in march, and the government of Canada still refuses to publish the results. I wonder what conclusion they came to?

With an economic crisis at hand, it is obvious that the Canadian government has decided it is more important to save the jobs of miners than to jeopardize lives of millions of people around the globe.

Synthesis

1. The Hazards of Apathy

2. From about 1450-1700, the Roman-Catholic churches of Europe engaged in the truly heinous crime of witch hunting. Many villages in rural Europe were involved in the burning, drowning, and drawing and quartering of many women in their communities. "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson, reveals a peaceful and tiny village that is able to commit the crime of stoning a woman to death based upon the random chance of her fate being drawn from a box. Similarly, the church used such techniques as floating a person in water, and comparing their weight to that of a duck, to decide whether the women on trial was "guilty," or not. The level of the community involvement with the stoning in the story is equal to the involvement of community that would have been present in a witch burning, and the witch's family and friends would have turned against her in the same way.

3. Elie Wiesel's speech "The Perils of Indifference" directly relates to the story "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson. The townspeople of the story perfectly illustrate Wiesel's point that "for the person that is indifferent, his or her neighbors are of no consequence. And therefore, their lives are meaningless." The meaninglessness of the life that the townspeople take echoes in the beginning of the story, as the many topics of conversation in the town are all superficial, involving the weather, dishes and crops. Not a single person, not the woman's children, not her husband, nor her neighbors or friends, tell her that they will miss her, or love her. Instead, they show a complete apathy towards her situation, and refuse any kind of emotion. Throughout his essay, Wiesel is cautioning against exactly that lack of emotion towards fellow human beings. His essay truly presents the same argument as Jackson's story, that indifference is one of the predominant failings of human nature, and, if left unchecked, will destroy the lives of individuals and societies.

Sporks, better than the average utensil.

The spork, the combination spoon/fork hybrid super-utensil, is obviously one of the most ingenious inventions of the 18th century. Along with the car and the steam engine, sporks have been soaring in public opinion for over 100 years.

Sporks are convenient and easy to use, they provide the stabbing capabilities of a fork with the scooping capabilities of a spoon, and can be used to eat practically any form of sustenance known to man. The spork is especially useful for stews and curries as well as soups and pastas, and is also convenient for that active person on the go, as it eliminates the need to carry more than one utensil.

As the environment comes under increasing pressure from consumerism, items like the spork are needed to decrease our garbage output. If all takeout restaurants in North America switched to sporks instead of spoons and forks, we would reduce our disposal of plastic cutlery by almost 50%! If only sporks were disposed of, with their rounded edges and unique appearance, think about how many cute and furry animals would be saved from stabbing themselves to death on the litter of plastic forks at camp grounds!

Perhaps the only benefit of forks and spoons are their historical significances, and as the world moves into the 20th century, the culture of cutlery needs to take a leap into the future, a future full of hybrids and new traditions. Imagine, a utensil that not only fits the needs of the hectic modern day lifestyle, but also has the class and elegance of a traditional utensil.

The top 3 reasons why objective reality doesn't exist...

When defining "objective reality," we must consider the physical parameters of human being's 5 senses. That is to say, "objective reality" would not include thought/consciousness and/or the "sixth sense," but only our literal perception of physical substances. The evidence against the existence of objective reality is insurmountable. My criteria for judging the top three reasons why are as follows:
-persuasiveness of argument
-use of logic (or lack of logic, used in a persuasive manner)
-proof of theory
-belief by respected scientists


The odds stacked against existence, and here are my top three reasons why:

3. Math: Why in the world do we deal with "imaginary numbers" to predict events and prove theories if, by definition, they do not exist?
One very common mathematical equation is:
pi ^ei + 1 = 0
Not only is pi (3.14159...) an imaginary number, but e (2.71828...) and i (the square root of negative one) also do not exist. This equation is used in proving exponential functions, and given the fact that it cannot in itself exist, we can assume that none of the equations it proves exist, and therefore exponential functions themselves DO NOT EXIST.
Also, pi is used very commonly for trigonometry, and, using the same principle as above, we can easily say that trigonomic functions do not exist, and therefore triangles DO NOT EXIST.
If triangles do not exist, it is impossible to prove the existence of squares, because the bisection of a square into two triangles is impossible. And, if we assume that squares do not exist (as proved above) We can therefore assume that any objects of square or triangular nature (eg. houses, comuter screens, etc.) DO NOT EXIST!
This theory has been proven by the entire mathematical department of Area 51, and is strongly backed by NASA.

2. Philosophy: It could all just be a big trick, and how would you know?
If reality were a rabbit being pulled out of a magician's hat, Philosophers would be the ones to climb up from the comfortable roots of the hair to their tips, and attempt to stare the magician right in the eye. The real question is, who is pulling the magician's strings? Reality could very easily be a matrix, and we could all be controlled by robots. It is the belief of Dr. Raymond Fitzgerald, PhD, that the hit blockbuster movie, The Matrix, is a documentary of actual existence put forth by the government to appear as fiction, so that general society will never believe it exists.

1. Science: It is impossible to disprove anything.
This one is self explanatory. Just try it yourself!

As you can see, it is obvious that proof of existence is FUTILE!

Hot Topic

Personally, I find social and political issues to be my preferencial topic for blogging. I also like blogging on issues of philosophy and morality. Dealing with alternate viewpoints is another subject which would capture my interst. Any open ended topics, such as "Morality," that allow us to choose how we approach them would also be enjoyable. Another gratifying choice would be current political and world events, such as "The War in Iraq," "The AIDS Epidemic," or "The Upcoming Canadian Election."
Any topics that allow for alternate forms of response (eg. poetry, collage, etc.) would also be something I would enjoy exploring. I also enjoy internet scavenger hunts!

The power to change a mind...

Though not generally thought of as a "superpower," I would love to have the power to change people's opinions.
Not only could I cultivate world peace, completely eradicate poverty and hunger, make racism obsolete, and set the world on a path to environmental sustainability, but I could also create a new world order of equality, pacifism, and democracy.
The morality of humanity has been slowly decaying from societal pressures throughout recent centuries, and humankind has reached a level of obsessive self-preservation that is almost sickening. With religious and political extremism reaching an astounding level of control in societal consciousness, and consumerism becoming the main philosophy of life throughout the developed world, we are in dire need of a major shift in thought process, or we will not only destroy our entire way of life, but our planet also.
The ability to change the collective consciousness of humanity would be my choice of superpower.