HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Taking a little break from my mad science.

Democracy in action (sort of)

If this guy showed up on my street, I wouldn't want to vote either. I think somebody should do a study investigating any correlation between eligible voters who don't vote, and eligible voters visited by campaigners on segways. Also, I've just learned how to post pictures to my site so bear with the excessive photo barrage 'til the novelty wears off.

Krabby Keyes

Stephanie points out that Alan Keyes' (a republican senate candidate) derogatory comments about Mary Cheney's sexuality go all but unnoticed by republicans, whilst republicans remain outraged over Kerry's neutral observation that she is homosexual. Not only is this a ridiculous double standard, but the article she cites gives examples showing how deep this runs in the conservative mindset.

Alan Keyes condemns homosexuality as "selfish hedonism". He illustrates his ignorance further: "If my own daughter were a homosexual or lesbian, I would love my daughter, but I would tell her she was in sin." Extra scary because his 19 year old daughter does appear to be a lesbian.

With regards to the Cheneys' attempts to downplay the issue of homosexuality in the upcoming election, Conservative policy analyst Peter Labarbera says "It trivializes people’s deeply held religious convictions by seeking to make homosexuality a ‘non-issue’ in the GOP. And it insults advocates of healthy morality by comparing opposition to homosexuality -- the clear teaching of Christianity and other major religions -- to racism."

Conservative Reverend Jerry Falwell dubs Mary Cheny as "errant".

Mary Mostert, writer at conservative fringe website AmericanDaily.com writes, "Keyes’ sex education lesson to a confused homosexual ought to be required reading in every sex education class in the country."

You get the idea.... but can these people serious? Surely they can agree that some children are born different from their parents. They have different preferences in food, clothing, music, friends. Why is it so difficult to make that last step and see that it's not that unusual for people to have different preferences in partners too? Its paralell to scaling mount everest to devoted conervatives, when in reality it's such a tiny curb to leap over. Not even a leap, hardly even a step! And I sincerely hope that nobody truly believes homophobia is part of 'healthy morality', or that it's anything but synonymous with racism. There are tons of Eurpoean Americans who are thoroughly anti-racism, but straight men & women who can see through the gay issue seem to be in short supply.

I hate to rant, but it just seems like such a kindergarten-level problem to me, and I'm boggled that grown men and women can't figure it out. Maybe it's not them, maybe it's a limitation of mine that Alan Keyes could lecture to me for an eternity and never make me understand why gay people go to hell.

Why do they make it so easy?

US senator Jim Bunning refused to confirm reports that US soldiers in Iraq had refused to accept a fuel delivery mission. Apparantly the group's vehicles were too lightly armored for their liking, and refused to go on a "suicide mission". Good for them I say. From what I can tell the US is hanging it's soldiers out to dry, so why put your neck on the line for such ungrateful leaders. Here's the gold, courtesy of our baseball hall of faming senator Bunning:

"Let me explain something: I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."

Read: "I can't confirm these reports because I have no idea what's happening in my country."

If the news keeps up this way, we can expect some great Daily Show this week.

This week in Cameron

A busy week has kept me pretty much entirely away from blogging & anything else not school or work related. The impoverished student life is getting pretty old, so I've been looking pretty hard the last couple of weeks for work, but haven't had any luck yet. In this city of 375 000 people, I haven't found a single restaurant who's hiring.

One tidbit of "news" that caught my eye is that Ashlee Vanilli er, Simpson, was holding her microphone at her waist at an SNL performance when the audience mysteriously heard her start singing the song. Her story is that a full recording of her song was played by mistake, instead of the pre-recorded percussion track. I for one don't buy it, but I'm oh so glad it happened!

This is such great material for people like me who love to see celebrities' bullshit catch up with them. To me, this is so synonymous with pop culture. Jessica Simpson gets her little sis into the music biz because little Simpson is the sister of a famous singer, and somehow because of this, her credibility with her autience goes up by an order of magnitude. I think I was asleep when a person's credibility began coming from MTV, YM, and People Magazine.

The beauty of all this is that reality finally comes through in such a perfect, public way. The reality is that the way little Simpson got into the business reduces her credibility with me by about ten orders of magnitude. The fact that this is even a pop issue is that pop issues are so totally skewed to begin with. You and I can see this coming from the start. You and I aren't surprised by this. You and I are able to see the irony. These sweet moments of truth are almost worth the whole teeny bopper culture. I say almost, because then I remember that the Simpsons are multi-millionaires. Then I cry.

The Greatest Canadian

The talk of the domestic blogosphere lately has definetly been the CBC's new miniseries on who 'the greatest Canadian' is. Regardless of whether or not trying to name a single best Canadian is a stupid idea to begin with, I think what's not stupid about the whole procedure is that Canadian citizens are spending time thinking about what kind of person the greatest Canadian would be, and what kind of qualities would make him or her great.

As much as I think Dr. Banting and Alexander Graham Bell were great scientists, and made massive contributions to humanity, they don't qualify as 'greatest Canadian' material for me. To me, these two bring what is wonderful about biochemistry, or engineering, not about what is wonderful about Canada in particular. Also, if CBC insists on having somebody from Hockey Night in Canada on their top 10, Ron Maclean would have the reasonable choice. I love Cherry, but honestly. Honestly.

To me, the greatest Canadian is an epitomy of what is great about Canada and Canadians. As much as the nation determines it's greatest, the greatest must have contributed significantly to exactly those characteristics that make Canada great. I could narrow my list down to five Canadians, but I'd have a tough time going any further:

Tommy Douglas
Pierre Trudeau
Lester Pearson
Terry Fox
David Suzuki

I think the first four speak for themselves. As for David Suzuki, I think he belongs on the list, despite what I think a lot of Canadians think of him. To me, he's nearly the personification of my ideal Canada. Over the last twenty years, Suzuki's continuous efforts to make Canadians aware of the sustainability of our society, and of the environmental responsibility we all have has been a great contribution to making Canada the progressive thinking nation I believe we are. I think he's earned his way on there. As Matt points out, since he's still alive it might be premature to call Suzuki the greatest. We may find out in 5 years time that he drives an Escalade, guzzles JD and clubs baby seals, which would severely damage his reputation. I for one, am confident that this won't happen.

The odds seem to be on Terry Fox to win. I think he's very deserving, but if I had to choose I'd vote for Pearson.

Electronic, supersonic

If you're feeling that incredible urge for award-winning music videos that I know you get from time to time, then I can help you.

Electronic, Supersonic - ??? (best line: my blue jeans is tight, so climb onto my love rocket)

Chill Out - Youth of Britain

*Disclaimer* music videos may not be award-winning

Who's surprised?

The HMCS Chicoutimi catching fire, killing a young Canadian naval officer, and being left virtually derlilct off the coast of the UK is not news. Rather, it's the most recent in an ongoing string of equipment failures costing Canadians their lives.

First let me get out of the way that the Canadian military is in such a state that it can't keep its submarines from catching fire. Enough said about that.

Military spokespeople told CBC that Canada wouldn't buy "just any submarine" and that they were all shocked by this latest tragedy, because in testing the sub had originally met all the requirements. Keeping in mind the helicopter crashes that have put the Canadian military in the news over the last several years, equipment meeting Canadian standards doesn't preclude it from later killing its operators. The problem is not that the sub doesn't meet Canadian standards, the problem is that it does meet Canadian standards.

If we value our nation as much as we say, we need to be prepared to defend it with more effective means than our out-of-retirement equipment.

Ice cream that WILL make you scream

From what I've read here, this appears to be an actual website and company. I don't know what I can say about this that won't make me sound like a pretentious bastard, but I think the site speaks for itself.

Not only is that absurd, but so it seems is Ted Nugent. In his book advertised at the aforementioned site, Ted makes such ridiculous claims as then Nugent family, "has not bought domestic flesh sice 1969." Incredible.

NHL update

I listened to Ted Saskin representing the NHLPA on Sportsnet today and I was totally astounded by how little grasp of this lockout situation he really has. Saskin stated that the NHL fans would hold this wasted season against the league, not the players association, and that if the NHL ever tried to replace the NHL superstars, no hockey fan would accept the new roster of players.

I hate to break it to the NHLPA, but I am one hockey fan who feels the league is entirely justified in locking the players out, and if this season is pooched (which I'm confident it's doomed to be) then i'd happily watch an entirely recast NHL.

An independent audit by former Chair of the US Securities & Exchange Comission Arthur Levitt determined that last season the NHL lost nearly $275 million dollars. NHLPA spokespeople are discrediting the numbers which I think is ridiculous. A) Arthur Levitt doesn't give a fuck about the NHL... he certainly won't put his reputation on the line for Gary Bettman. B) even if the numbers are wrong... lets say they're off incredibly by $100 million dollars, the league is still losing $175 million a year, which is still so unsustainable that the difference is negligible.

I'd love to see a televised debate between Bettman and Saskin... possibly followed by a fan vote determining which side had to make the concessions that would get the players back on the ice. If this dispute isn't resolved soon the NHLPA will probably find themselves with no bargaining power seeing as how they'll have no league to speak of.

NHL part 2

Just to follow up my last hockey post, regardless of how quickly NHL hockey returns to us, I predict a return to a 24 or 25 team league. Already the sport is treading water in the US, and I think we can expect teams from Florida, Carolina, Anaheim & Phoenix to be looking to relocate or fold entirely. Anybody from the US reading who can enlighten us on the hockey atmosphere down there?

Also, I've heard rumors of NHL hockey returning to Winnipeg which I think would be awesome. I'm sure Winnipegers (?) feel the same way.

??? how did this post end up below the first one?

The virtue of focus

A weekend away from my stresses & troubles (which are admittedly & thanksfully few) can sometimes do amazing things for my perspective. Thanksgiving's always beautiful for that.

The conversations I had & probably the book (Every second counts by Lance Armstrong) I'm reading got me thinking about how the amazing things that people do make the doers themselves seem amazing. Not meaning to detract from anybody, but I personally don't buy into that, and I think that most prominent figures probably don't either. I think the Lance Armstrongs, Dali Llamas, Nelson Mandelas, and Brian Greenes of the world are people like you and I who worked very hard. Very hard. The point is though, that aside from a bit of genetic predisposition, you and I have essentially the same tools to work with as these amazing human beings. With the right education in how to use them, and the right work ethic, you and I can do these incredible things too.

I don't mean to imply that the leaders in thinking and achieving today aren't doing incredible things, and that they aren't incredible people. What I do mean to say is that every person is equally incredible and has the potential to achieve equally incredible feats. What I see myself struggling with the most, and what I imagine holds back so many others, is focus.

It's so easy in today's environment of constant stimulation to get diverted from your goals. Constantly we're bombarded with easier and more comfortable options to what is truly good for us. Thanksgiving gives us an opportunity to stop, look at what's important to us, think about where we want our lives to go, and to take definitive action. Also I'm unapologetic about any melodrama here because this stuff really fires me up.

More than ever, focus matters in today's world. More than ever, somebody is trying to get rich by selling you something that will distract and destroy you. A person who could take a look at the world objectively and choose to do things that made him or her ultimately more happy, and ultimately more fulfilled would have a huge head start towards fulfillment.

I believe like Lance that 'every second counts' but I'm not sure we agree in the meaning of that. Every second counts away, regardless of what any of us chooses to do with it. It's up to me whether that second counted towards my life, or went unnoticed.

Man that fires me up!... I don't know how I'm ever gonna get to sleep tonight.

Leave Ralph alone

Does it drive anybody else crazy the way it drives me crazy when people bash Ralph Nader for handing Bush the 2000 election? I'll tell you who you should really blame for getting Bush elected, and his name doesn't rhyme with Alph Ader.

I realize that if a few greens had voted democrat then Bush wouldn't have won, but do you know what would have made an even bigger difference? If a few republicans had voted democrat instead! Forget Nader, if a few people had decided not to vote Bush then he definetly wouldn't have won. Also, if you want to rip on a demographic for not representing itself in favor of the democrats in the polls, forget the tiny number that voted green, and lets talk about the 100 million eligible voters who decided to watch Survivor instead of hitting the polls! If even one in a thousand of them had shown up, it would have been enough to put Gore in office.

And to those who harp on Nader that he should keep himself off the ballot for the upcoming election, I would like you to realize that giving the voters options on the ballot is the whole idea behind democracy. In fact, in the spirit of democracy, I say we petition to keep Kerry (who is virtually identical to Bush on all but a select few issues) off the ballot so he doesn't take all Nader's votes... then we'd have a real contest of values on election day. A two horse race is bad enough, but taking Nader off the ballot makes it very nearly a one horse race. It's difficult enough for fringe parties to run for office, lets not make it any more difficult.

Peace, I'm out.

The mind or the molecule

This is a reader response post, so get ready. To set the stage for this post, my roommate is taking a course called 'The Philosophy of Death'. I know, it sounds like a stinkin great course. He was reading a dialogue tonight that presented the following scenario: A child is crossing the road about to be hit by a car, a middle aged male jumps out & saves the child, but is hit by the car. His body is crushed & he's killed instantly. The boy's father sees this all happen from the sidewalk & has a stroke, which kills him too. The doctors realize that they can perform life-saving surgery by putting the stranger's unharmed brain, into the unharmed body of the boy's father. Whose life does the surgeon save? Does he save either of their lives?

At first, I thought that neither were saved. A person's brain & body both contribute to who that person is, so a new brain/body combo would yield a new person. Neither are saved, but a new person is made.

Then I was presented with a different but paralell situation. A woman dying of an incurable disease is offered the option of having her brain put in a new body. She agrees, and the doctor recommends that she take an asprin so she won't have a headache afterwards (I see the problem with that idea, but thats not important to the point). She says that asprin gives her a stomach ache but she'd rather put up with a stomach ache now than a headache after the surgery. If the woman is the one who will have to deal with the headache afterwards (which makes sense to me intuitively), and the person whose body she was in wouldn't have to deal with it, then it seems pretty clear the woman survives, but the donor doesn't. This makes me think I'm my brain, not my body at all.

My roommate then presented me with another side to the problem. If the stranger from scenario one (whose brain now inhabits its new body) were to have a child, whose child would it be? It would carry the boy's father's DNA, as would any of his offspring. More importantly, this person has the boy's father's DNA, so maybe it's the body that surivives, not the brain. It's the body that's able to pass on its genes, which is the ultimate goal of life as we know it. Imagine a crime scene in which this new person leaves his DNA evidence all over the place. All the physical evidence seems to indicate that the boy's father certainly does exist, where there's no tangible evidence that the stranger exists at all.

I think the idea of who we are is pretty important. I think it's pretty murky too, & the murky ideas are always the most fun to discuss... I'd like to hear any ideas all of you have on it.

Turning the tables

Tomorrow morning I start intramural soccer here at school & I'm pretty pumped about it. We practiced together last week & I discovered I'm in a bit of an awkward situation not like one I can remember ever having been in.

Not knowing a team I could play with, I registered as a free agent & was drafted this week... by the Vientamese Club. My name's Cameron Smith... about as white as it gets, so I can't explain why the VC decided to draft me. Anyhow, its wierd to be part of a group in which you're the drastic ethnic minority, are speaking a different language (some of the time), but are still in your home. I expect to feel this way when I travel abroad, but still being at home it's an especially awkard to be the outsider all of a sudden. Also, being a young, white, middle class male I'm pretty used to being in the majority wherever I travel inside Canada.

It's good to have a wake-up call once in a while to bump you outside your comfort zone. I think I'd probably benefit big-time from being shoved into a spot like this on a daily basis.

Some thought for food

This weekend the house is pretty empty. Two of my roommates have gone to Toronto to attend a seminar hosted by nutritionist John Berardi. For those of you looking to improve your diet (that should include most Canadians) there is a whole spectrum of information out there and its tough to decipher what works and what doesn't. If you're looking for the best story science can put together, I suggest you try out John Berardi.

I think thedisparity of mainstream nutrition information is due in great part to the slew of new discoveries in nutrition being made on a regular basis. Nutrition is a fairly new science (the first vitamins wasn't discovered til 1897 & the first protien structures weren't described til 1945) so the information we've complied so far doesn't paint as clear a picture as some would lead you to believe. Many contemporary "nutriiton experts" give bad advice because they don't understand the full picture. The Atkins diet works because it exploits certain aspects of human metabolism, but its an atrocious diet to put oneself on because it's an incomplete theory of nutrition; it ignores many long-understood basics of nutrition. What we need to do with this new information is find a way to marry it with what we already understand to be true.

Basic nutrition is pretty much covered in the old school of thought, but ideal nutritional strategies to achieve specific goals is the target of this new school of thought. If you just want to be relatively healthy & have your bases covered, then look to the Canada Food Guide to Healthy Eating.

If you've got a specific goal in mind like sports nutrition, or fat loss, or are willing to put in some extra effort to be more nourished, then forget you've ever heard of Dr Atkins or Dr. Phil, and check out Dr. John Berardi. He's probably one of the most cutting-edge nutritionists that I've ever read, and he's got a real knack for marrying old ideas with new, and for tying all the soundbites Atkins and Phil throw around into one cohesive picture of how people should really eat.

*UPDATE*
Here's a link to an article on Berardi's website which I think is a perfect intro to his methods. It's a pretty simple set of 7 principles to eat by, but when followed can have a dramatic effect on your health, wellness & appearance.