with wolves

It turns out Misha Defonseca's Holocaust memoir was mostly fabricated. Here's a little summary:

"Defonseca wrote in her book that Nazis seized her parents when she was a child, forcing her to wander the forests and villages of Europe alone for four years. She claimed she found herself trapped in the Warsaw ghetto, killed a Nazi soldier in self-defense and was adopted by a pack of wolves that protected her."

This is such an improbable series of events, and yet the publishers and the general public believed it. There are probably a few reasons why. In part, it may have to do with the feeling that a Holocaust-survivor would not lie about her experiences. The Holocaust was in many ways stranger than fiction and therefore to embellish a story taking place during the Holocaust would be a fruitless effort. Another reason it was accepted may be that it was simply too improbable to be untrue. The thinking goes: "This has to be true! If you were lying about your past and wanted people to take your word, why would you say you lived with a pack of wolves?"

K.A. Dilday's piece on why "black" is better than "African-American".

antidepressants

They don't work. Read on.

America the beautiful

I read this summary of the United States of America at The Onion:

"United States
The Land of Opportunism
The Unites States was founded in 1776 on the principles of life, liberty, and the reckless pursuit of happiness at any cost - even life and liberty."

on Africa

Throughout the world, a great number of people live in extreme poverty. Mostly in Africa, Asia, Central America, and South America, about one billion people make due with less than a dollar a day. Imagine that: everything they have and everything they consume is purchased with their savings from a dollar-a-day wage. Of course, nothing can really be purchased and consumed with such paltry provisions. They are on a dead end street, along which they can’t possibly meet their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, water and health care. It’s a sad situation. But, luckily, crushing poverty of this magnitude is universally considered worthy of attention. Most agree this is an issue that cannot be ignored. But exactly what should be done?

The Columbia University economist, Jeffrey Sachs, wrote a book recently called The End of Poverty. In it he argues the prosperous nations of the world can reduce, and perhaps eliminate, extreme poverty by increasing their current level of foreign-aid spending. Put simply, the west should give poor countries more money. Because Africa is the region hardest hit by extreme poverty, Sachs is primarily interested in donations directed there.

The work of Sachs and similar economists has become the norm in the international community. The United Nations Millennium Project, created in 2002, has concluded that the goals of alleviating poverty, hunger, and disease in Africa, can be attained with sufficient levels of foreign-aid, i.e. donations from rich countries. With greater political will, we can transfer more money to those in less favorable positions than us; and with that money, they can lift themselves out of the darkness of poverty and into the light of economic development. It’s a very neat solution to a widespread set of problems - a thing of beauty, really. And along with Bono of U2, Africa’s self-proclaimed benefactor, I have been under its spell. But now its magical power over me has weakened. I began to suspect it couldn’t be this simple; that some problems would have to arise from this strategy; and that perhaps something was fundamentally paternalistic about this system.

The United Nations’ Food Program and similar programs directed by individual countries have been confronted by the criticism that they do more long-term harm than good. According to James Shikwati, a prominent Kenyan economist, when food is requested it “often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign.” This, of course, is simply a problem of logistics that could be solved with better coordination and tracking; and thus doesn’t knock down foreign-aid and goods transfers as a good solution. Yet, the real problem is what happens with the rest of the food the corrupt politicians were given. The food ends up flooding the local market at prices far below their value. This makes it near impossible for local farmers, and the like, to make a decent living because their goods suddenly can’t compete in the face of much cheaper, foreign, goods. So, they quit working, reducing the area’s supply of locally produced goods, therefore perpetuating its dependence on foreign-aid.

This is a system that can’t be sustainable. Another reason why is that it doesn’t tap into the potential for local innovation. As long as ideas on what development constitutes are imposed externally, locals will not have the voice and power to use their deep knowledge of their home region to innovate. Rather than enforcing standards of development, aid agencies could do well to harness the knowledge of locals and therefore take the latter’s lead.

Another problem is the rigidity of the kinds of loans given to African nations. They are stifling, impede production, and reduce the kinds of options required for real development. Shikwati illustrates the situation in this way:

The problem in Africa has never been lack of money, but rather the inability to exploit the African mind. Picture a banana farmer in a rural African village with a leaking roof that would cost $100 to fix. If one purchased $100 worth of his bananas, the farmer would have the power and choice to determine whether the leaking roof is his top spending priority. On the other hand, if he is given $100 as a grant or loan to fix the roof, his choice would be limited to what the owner of the big money views as a priority. Out of 960 million Africans in 53 states, there are innovators and entrepreneurs who, if rewarded by the market, will address the challenges facing the continent.

In my eyes, this appears to be a much more sustainable practice than the old set. The perpetual transfer of foreign-aid is essentially self-defeating and should be cast aside. This doesn’t mean all foreign-aid is bad, but that it should be less systemic. Africa should be helped in such a way that it could come to help itself. It’s capable of doing so. Let’s drop the latent paternalism of constant aid transfer and create a world of equal partners.

eastside

Of late, I've been reading reports on homelesness in Canada and different approaches on combating it. The complexities involved are increadible and the challenges great. But it's a good sign that many are considering it a situation no person should find themselves in. I'll be writing something on this shortly, but for now read this to get a sense of the problem in Vancouver, specifically it's downtown eastide.

we cover the blisters in flannel

Here's a review of a great new book by Christopher Lane - Shyness: How Normal Behaviour Became a Sickness.

The opening lyrics to Andrew Bird's, A Nervous Tic Motion of the Head to the Left:

Over prescribed / under the mister / we had survived to / turn on the history channel / and ask our esteemed panel / why are we alive / and here's how they replied / you're what happens when two substances collide / and by all accounts you really should've died

biofuel's dark side

The development and use, especially in Europe, of biofuel was seen as a great advance. Biofuels reduced our environmental footprint and seemed without sideffects. But things have changed for the fuel composed mostly of plants. Read here to see what its use has done to food stocks, prices, and its effect on the rainforest.

more on facebook

Here's an increadibly interesting article on the people behind facebook. This social-networking site is starting to look uglier than John C. Reilly. One day it'll be worse than an episode of Family Guy. Or an R.L. Stine book.

But sadly I'm still on our beloved facebook.

big pharma comedy

Bill Maher




Chris Rock

if this is leadership, who needs it?

Africa is burning, and if we want to put the fire out we'll have to start with its leaders. The presidents and prime ministers African states have appointed since colonialism have been some of the worst ever. They are at best incompotent and unfit to rule, and at worst corrupt, stealing from innocent people who deserve much better, and murderous, going as far as genocide in some cases.

One of the worst offenders has been Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe. Read this review of some new studies of Zimbabwe, the failed state, and the role Mugabe and his party have had in its slow death.

notes on facebook

Facebook is helping to alter our idea of privacy, according to this article from The Nation. I found this piece to be very interesting, and just a little scary. Perhaps we have become less discerning over who knows the previously private aspects of our lives, and how much they should know. The article suggests there are overwhelming pressures to become a part of the new culture: one of weakened inhibitions, and lowered guards. We are asked to open up and reveal as many things about ourselves as possible, and to an ever growing network of "friends". The article also suggests this is, in part at least, for business purposes. Companies need information to determine exactly what the people demand. So, they encourage this new culture of information dissemination, and use it to tailor their marketing to our supposed needs.

kenya

Is there yet another genocide in Africa? Some are calling the recent killings in Kenya over a disputed election just that. Read this news alert for details.

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.