op-eds of the year

I'm a big fan of the New York Times' editorial page. The articles are often written by experts in their respective fields. They are usually insightful and the pieces are consistently well-written.

Here are some of the notable op-eds according to the ny times.

children of war

Can people become accustomed to their surroundings so well that even conflict zones become livable, exacting little to no punishment on their psychological state? I admit I once entertained the thought. I felt that if you grew up in a war-torn region, regularly witnessing violence and unanounced disruptions of even great scale, you would eventually view them as minor inconveniences with no major costs. Well, I was wrong. It turns out Palestinian children in the West Bank (and I'm sure this would apply to those in the Gaza strip as well) and Jewish children in settlements are more susceptible to various anxiety disorders because of the constant state of war they have found themselves in. Read this archived article for more.

The article hints at the effect this would have on future societies. I mean, widespread mental illness is nothing to base a community on.

the eyes of God are not unlike the State's

In China, the Communist Party allows the practice of Christianity as long as it's under their very careful watch. It's an example of extrememly organized religion, you might say. Here's some news on the underground houses of worship littered throughout China and the trouble they've encountered.

peace in the valley

I spent some time today reading about religion, God, and faith. Although I'm not religious, I yearn for the comfort held in religion's promise of attainable redemption and salvation. I want to experience the "oceanic feeling": what Sigmund Frued described as "a sensation of ‘eternity’, a feeling as of something limitless, unbounded", but that he also dismissed as just in our heads. I fear he may have been right, but I'm still open to the possibility.

Here are some pieces (one of which is a poem by William Blake) I came across earlier:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3090488.ece

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d256048a-cbef-4752-a7b2-58d7a68e836a&k=18488

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10015255

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4204/

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson

http://www.bartleby.com/236/58.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=191304

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article2778493.ece

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html

Sunny D, come back to me

Published at Schema Magazine

Non-white Canadians have insufficient amounts of Vitamin D, putting them at greater risk for rickets, cancer, osteoporosis, tuberculosis, and influenza, among other nasty things.

“The research, which is awaiting publication in a medical journal, found that 100 per cent of those of African origin were short of vitamin D, as were 93 per cent of South Asians (those of Indian or Pakistani origin), and 85 per cent of East Asians (those of Chinese, Indochinese or Filipino origin, among other countries).”

This was the grave finding reported in The Globe and Mail’s December 19 cover story: Are you getting enough Vitamin D? Although higher levels of melanin, our natural pigmentation-producing sunscreen, help protect tanned people from being sunburned in hot climates, they impede the production of Vitamin D in colder and darker locales (ie. Canada).

Read the article to find out just why. And then drink some milk or something.

Notes on Mill and multiculturalism

I apologize beforehand for this unorganized post. I wrote this fairly quickly, and I’m sure I’ve sacrificed clarity. Please forgive me Clarity. I didn’t mean nothin’ by it.

In 1859, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty was published. It presented arguments for the very intuitive conclusion that people should be unrestrained in their pursuit of activities that cause no one but themselves (if even that) harm. But this ideal was met by opposition. There were two sources of needless curtailment of freedom, according to Mill. The first had since lost its power: the unlimited rule of the state over its subjects. With rapid political reform, citizens had greater control over the civil rights being legislated. Political democracy had more or less trumped authoritarianism. But the second source still reigned in Mill’s time. This was the oppressive nature of “collective opinion”. The mores and sentiment’s of a public’s majority has a great effect on dissenting individuals. Minority groups not in line with the traditions of the majority can experience a sense of alienation and seclusion; which is not a great thing for Mill, because they are being punished for opinions that, presumably, cause harm to no one. They are compelled to accept a worldview not their own, or pay for it with scorn and derision. Mill’s On Liberty, is therefore very applicable 150 years on considering the very heated debate over “reasonable accommodation” in Canada and the so-called “muslim problem” in the UK. Take a look, for example, at the almost absurd argument over the right of female school children to wear the Jilbab. Now, considering the very obvious relevance of Mill’s work, whether or not you agree with his conclusion that minority groups should be free to do what they like as long as it causes no harm, I was mystified by a review of a new biography on Mill. Here is what the author of the review had to say near the end, ultimately denying the relevance of Mill's work to today's context:

“When Mill wrote, there was a lot to be said for this focus. The mid-Victorian state was one of the least oppressive in the world - at any rate for the respectable classes to which Mill belonged. On the other hand, mid-Victorian society was complacent, conformist and intolerant of deviant opinions and lifestyles. The wheel has come full circle 150 years later. The multicultural, multi-ethnic society of the 21st century is not in the least like an eiderdown; it is a ragged patchwork with huge holes between the pieces. Particular ethnic or cultural enclaves sometimes oppress their own members, but if they go too far, the law can step in; and, in any case, they do not endanger diversity or individuality in the wider society. In a sense, there are no longer any deviant opinions or lifestyles to be intolerant about: there are no fixed standards to deviate from. There is only a cacophony of divergent voices.”

There are in fact fixed standards against which minority groups are judged: negatively, to be sure. They are habitually judged as not-really-Canadian, or not-really-American, because the description of a Canadian and American is based on an unchanging concept. And the evidence seems to disprove the claim that no cultural group (even the majority) endangers “diversity or individuality.”

fly me to the moon

I found an article at LiveScience titled "Is Attractiveness Hereditary?". Is it me or was this question answered a long time ago? Maybe it was just one of those assumptions science had yet to prove definitely.

This, on the other hand, was a bit of new information for me. Apparently attractive people have very "average" faces. That is, if you take a number of faces and then create a composite of them, an average, the result will be quite beautiful. Read the article to see exactly why. It has something to do with the brain's ability to take in information. The more recognizable the shape and features of a face, the easier it is on the brain - and hence, the brain is happier.

What's eating Canada's multiculturalism?

Robert Putnam takes on the issue of multiculturalism in his most recent book, E Pluribus Unum. The sobering conclusion is that with greater ethnic and cultural diversity comes more conflict, less social trust, a decreased willingness to volunteer and engage in cooperative ventures with fellow citizens. But, Putnam is an American scholar and his analysis is based on the research of American cities: 41 to be exact. Would the same conclusion fit Canada?

It turns out it might. Maclean's recently published an article titled: Canada: A nation of bigots?. The article points out that to an increasing number of Canadians (mostly Quebers), "reasonable accomodation" for foreign-born people should be limited as much as possible. The general sentiment seems to be: "if you want to live in our country, you must forget your old practices and assimilate". This feeling expresses itself, in part, in the ways Putnam describes in his book: conflict, decreased social trust, etc. It also alienates ethnic groups, making them feel as if they were trespasers. They consequently sequester themselves, worsening the threat to social trust.

Here are two more articles, from another Canadian magazine, that discuss the same phenomenon: 1, 2

stereotyping

This is a very important article. I was convinced of this aspect of stereotyping before, but now I'm fortunate enough to have some evidence to point to, as support.