Merry Christmas

I wrote previously concerning (indirectly) Steve Jobs and the cult of personality that seems to (have) surround(ed) him. I thought it amazing that people were able to look past his faults as a human being all because he gave them something shiny. Then I came across this post from a Christian blogger titled "What Steve Jobs Can Teach The Church." Now he admits that as a person, he can't teach it much, but he looks at one aspect of the way that Steve ran Apple.

Another reason that Apple eschews market research is that in Steve’s opinion, “people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” This to me is a much more telling reason and one that can help inform how the church “does business.” While it may strike some people as elitist, the message of the Christian gospel is exactly the kind of thing that “people don’t know they want until you show it to them.” Perhaps they may feel that something is missing in life, but apart for divine intervention, non-Christians aren’t specifically looking for the truth of the gospel. The gospel simultaneously tells people they are far worse off than they think they are and yet the grace of God is far better than they could ever imagine. It’s just not the kind of message you could “guess” or that any kind of market research would reveal people are looking for.

It is presently three days before Christmas. A time when people look to spend copious amounts of money that they don't have on gifts for the people in their life. Its a time when people look to celebrate by going to as many parties as they can and drinking copious amounts of alcohol. Its also a time when many people are hit by bouts depression the most and suicide rates rise. Christmas, or at least how we in the modern western world have taken to celebrating Christmas, is rather a sad time. We talk a good game about love, joy and peace towards our fellow man, but don't get in the way of that frantic shopper on the hunt for the last 'toy of the year' or the person who's had a bit too much egg nog but still decides to drive.

I have no problem with wanting to share things with your loved ones. I have no problem with the idea of having a drink or two while celebrating Christmas. But Christmas is not about shopping, the headaches of overspending or to focus on what we don't have. These are the things that the world tries to shame us with, to make us feel inadequate and incomplete.

No, Christmas is (supposed) to be about celebrating the fact that God loved mankind so much that he sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to live as a man and then to die for the sins of the world. This is the time when we can remember and rejoice knowing that God has intervened, that he has acted on our behalf and that we are loved by our creator. Christmas is a celebration of Christ and because“people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” I want to show you the Gospel of Christ Jesus, for as the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).

To serve and protect who?

It wasn't surprising to me when the various levels of government in the US and other countries moved in to forcibly remove OWS protesters from the camps that they had established in many major cities. The individual's right to assemble and to speak was little more than a puff of air in the face of armed and armored riot police wielding truncheons and pepper spray.

Government oppression, massive bank fraud - 5
People - 0

After the various bailouts that the people opposed but were forced to pay for, the government's lack of willingness to protect homeowners from illegal foreclosure, the government's complicity in the mass fraud perpetrated by the various TBTF banks by not enforcing regulations or punishing those guilty of crimes and the recent repression of the people, it is nice to see that the people haven't given up. Of course I don't expect a different result.

The Occupy Wall Street protests are moving on to a new target. 

Protesters across the United States are reclaiming foreclosed homes and boarded-up properties, signalling a tactical shift for the movement against wealth inequality. Groups in more than 25 cities held protests Tuesday on behalf of homeowners facing evictions.

It is in no way surprising to see the following response from those on the front lines of the police state:

In Portland, Ore., police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson said he's aware the movement called for people to make a political statement by occupying foreclosed homes, but said police will "treat them all as trespassers." 

In Seattle, police spokesman Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said his department sees squatting in private properties as the same violation of trespassing Occupy Seattle made when it camped in a downtown park. 

"It's no different than when people were trespassing [in the park]," Whitcomb said. "We went nights and days, letting people camp in the park. We relied on education and outreach, rather than enforcing the law to the letter."

So when the banks were illegally forcing people from their homes through faulty foreclosures, the police were there to force people from their homes on behalf of the banks. Now that the people want to reclaim what is theirs, the police will be there to arrest them in order to protect the sanctity of the bank's property.

Its unfortunate that this is what things have come to, but it has been long said that people get the government that they deserve and when people continue to empower a increasingly centralized government, one shouldn't be surprised when it begins to flex its muscle for its own purposes rather than those of the people they are supposed to serve. 

Climate change: bogeyman for the 21st century

Science has taken on a life of its own in modern society. Where once, in the supposed Dark Ages, people looked to clerics and monks for answers and proscriptions for the future, our modern society has empowered the 'scientist' to take over this role. But the human reliance upon faith has not changed. Whereas once the majority of society placed their faith in the wisdom of theologians, now the majority of society places their faith in the wisdom of scientists. Gone are the habits and tonsures, replaced by white lab coats and pocket protectors. But faith remains.

Science is a wonderful tool that seeks to answer questions concerning the natural world and universe. It is a method of investigation that continually seeks to refine its information by constantly questioning itself rather than letting a matter rest. But there is a difference between science and scientists. Science is an idea, a process of inquiry. Scientists are human beings, just as flawed and prone to the foibles of man as any other. Yet the ideal of the former has been bestowed upon the latter, transforming mere humans in the quest for understanding to fonts of knowledge that must always be believed. They are the modern day cleric, leading their flock of believers in the church of Scienthology. 

Just as religious believers in the past lacked the knowledge and ability (literacy, understanding of Latin and ancient Greek) to understand theological texts and so relied upon those 'in the know' as a basis for understanding things not known, so today science believers rely upon scientists as the source of knowledge given their own lack of knowledge and ability (vast sums of money, research laboratories, space craft), placing in the scientist the same reverence as was once placed upon the cleric. 

Faith has not been replaced, simply the receptacle of that faith has changed. 

That is why it is not surprising to see people staging protests concerning Canada's stance on renewing the Kyoto protocols this past week in Durban. They argue that the science is finished. The results are in and there is no room to question the 'science'. 

Really?

Despite the revelations that have come from the leaked emails from East Anglia. Despite the lack of global warming for the past decade. Despite scientists not being able to produce data sets, or having had their data shown to have been falsified. Despite the fact that earlier claims concerning AGW being a result of flawed computer models. Despite the reliance upon computer models rather than the scientific method of experiment and replication. Despite the admission that some scientists have allowed personal views govern results rather than the data. 

Despite all of this and the very fact that science as a process is never finished questioning (for that is the strength of the scientific method), we are continuously bombarded by members of Scienthology to stop questioning climate change science and the very scientists themselves. The matter is settled, if you question it you are to be shamed and abused. Just get on with your life and give us your money.

Science is a tool that works properly when employed properly. It helps us understand a great deal about the universe and its willingness to question, to not rest has been its strength. We didn't rest on the work of Newton and today continue to question the work of Einstein. So why should we stop questioning the work of climate scientists that have proven to be far more questionable than either Newton or Einstein?

Science demands that we question and remain skeptical, for that is what will drive the growth understanding and knowledge. Saying that the 'science is finished' is the ultimate betrayal of science.

Update:

I came across this list of things to watch our for when science is put forth to the public:

I’ve seen a lot of “scientific” panics ginned up from nonexistent or scanty evidence over the last several decades. There’s a pattern to these episodes, a characteristic stench that becomes recognizable after a while. I’ll describe some of the indicia, which I’ve culled from episodes like the Alar scare, the ozone-hole brouhaha, the AIDS panic (are you old enough to remember when it was predicted to become endemic among heterosexuals in the U.S.?), acid rain, and even the great global cooling flap of 1975. 

So. Here is a non-exclusive list of seven eight symptoms to watch out for:

I'll only point to one symptom in relation to my post:

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of moral panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “only bad/sinful/uncaring people disbelieve theory X”, you can be even more sure that theory X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to induce a state of preference falsification in which people are peer-pressured to publicly affirm a belief in theory X in spite of private doubts.

Now compare that to this ad from the 10:10 movement aimed at combating global warming.

NDP: normal is being undemocratic

NDP leadership candidate Peggy Nash recently stated that Canada was not 'normal'.

NDP leadership hopeful Peggy Nash says Canada is no longer a "normal" country under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's direction.

The Toronto MP describes Harper's Canada as a country of growing inequality, record personal debt, hopelessness among youth and a federal government that continually tells people to expect less. 

"I don't think that's normal," Nash told The Canadian Press in a wide-ranging interview Thursday. "I think that's wrong."

Being from the NDP she is obviously left wing politically and while she won't identify herself as being left-left, centre-left or right-left, she likes to see herself described as a "practical radical".

I can only think that she looks to that political left bastion of hope, the European Union as inspiration and hope. If so, that's a bit scary. I mean, its the EU that represses democracy by not allowing the people to vote on inclusion or departure from the Union. It is the EU that forces democratically elected governments to change their budgets to meet the Union's needs rather than the needs of the country in question. It is the Union that forces democratically elected members of government to resign and then replaces them with unelected officials without any say from the people.

If that is what she considers to be normal, I want nothing to do with her.

Bankster Obama

President Obama ran on program of change underscored by the slogan, YES WE CAN.

In retrospect it seems foolish that ordinary people believed that he was speaking to them.

In order to get elected Obama raised $750 million and spent approximately $735 million of it during the campaign. Given the astronomically high amount of money it took to achieve victory and his subsequent actions in protecting Wall Street from rightful prosecution it should come as no surprise that three of the top ten single contributors to the Obama campaign were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.

And so we see this:

A protester handed President Barack Obama a note while shaking hands along a rope line in New Hampshire today. AP photographer Charlie Dharapak smartly zoomed in so you can read the note for yourself.

People aren't stupid. They can understand what is happening. They see a real unemployment rate of nearly 25%, a further economic contraction on the horizon, banks being protected by the government, investment firms stealing from their investors and being protected. They watch as people protesting these things are beaten and arrested while the people that imploded the economy are given bonuses and protection. They watch as the Obama administration tries to pressure state Attorney Generals to keep from prosecuting those responsible. 

When Obama was saying YES WE CAN, people thought he was talking to them. He wasn't, he was talking to the banks and corporations that funded his presidency. YES WE CAN steal from the people. YES WE CAN get away with it. YES WE CAN oppress the masses. YES WE CAN!

Adding my voice: Occupy Wall Street

I'm not the first nor, I hope, am I the last to add their voice in protest against the shameless and criminal actions of the police state currently occurring taking place against those who would peacefully seek a way to have their voice heard by a rapidly unlistening governmental system.

The actions of UC Davis Campus Police Lieutenant John Pike and his ilk are deplorable and criminal. While this incident may have occurred at UC Davis, it is not an isolated incident nor is it solely an American issue. Crimes like this are being committed by governments against their people in the US, Canada, Europe and elsewhere.

The people have gone along with the notion of our democracies actually being democratic long enough. They are tired of the lies, the deception, the corruption, the theft and the abuses of power that have come with increasing regularity by those who are meant to serve the people, not rape and pillage them.

Their criminal actions have not stopped at assault with pepper spray, but have escalated and now include murder.

“I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in,” she says. “I was screaming, ‘I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.’” At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. “Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,” she says.

From Forbes Magazine:

The point is, I think, that the police have been operating pretty indiscriminately in their response to these protests. It doesn’t matter if you’re pregnant,elderly, or just sitting there, the cops have been responding to protests with overwhelming and entirely unnecessary force.

The powers that be don't want to listen to the people and this can be clearly demonstrated by the actions of those in power to the simple actions of those protesting here in this video and elsewhere. The right to assembly, the right to free speech, the right to speak truth to power are all being trampled under the boot of power, greed, and arrogance.

We are increasingly living in a police state, where there is 24 hour video surveillance on every street corner in major cities, where your internet activity is monitored, where your emails and phone calls can be recorded and traced, where censorship is on the rise and where peaceful protest is met with violence.

I think Orwell was prescient when he gave O'Brien these words, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

Whether you agree with Occupy Wall Street or not you should not be able to sit back and calmly see the actions that democratic governments are taking and be okay with it.

These actions are wrong and people of conviction need to make their voice heard that such actions will not be tolerated.

I'll leave you with two quotes. You might be tempted to simply brush them off but don't. Think about them and then think about what is happening. In a world where Muslims in Cairo, Egypt can be protected by Christians while they pray, shouldn't the people of America have their constitutional rights respected by the very powers who are sworn to protect and uphold that very same constitution? Shouldn't the people of any democracy be safe from the oppressive powers of their governments?

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." Desmond Tutu

"In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing." Edward Burke

Technocrat - autocrat what's in a word?

In a move designed to bolster 'confidence' the new premier of Italy, Mario Monti, has named his cabinet which is completely devoid of publicly elected officials, or as he likes to say, politicians.

Mr Monti took on the economy and finance portfolio himself. 

Corrado Passera, CEO of the Intesa Sanpaolo banking group, was named to head the new ministry of development, infrastructure and transport. 

Another key appointment was that of Antonio Catricala, head of the anti-trust authority, who was made under-secretary to the prime minister's office. 

Despite reports that Mr Monti had sought to include politicians in his cabinet, there are none.

So nobody that the people of Italy had elected to represent them in government is part of ruling authority that will lead said government. Instead they get a group of people who are tied to banks, including Mr. Monti himself who has ties with Goldman Sachs (as do the appointees to lead Greece and the European Central Bank). All this was done to restore confidence in the markets, not the people, but the bankers who have raped and pillaged the people for the past decade and more.

I can't help but draw some parallels with China of the early 1990s. After the massacre in Tienanmen Square on June 4, 1989, China's ruling elite were split between continuing economic reform which had helped to bring about the economic disparities that had helped to fuel the movement leading to Tienanmen and a conservative return to more traditional Marxist and Maoist economic and foreign policy. Deng Xio Ping, supreme leader of China at the time wagered that people would basically keep their mouth shut concerning politics and the Communist Party so long as they brought them a better standard of living. It would seem that he was correct. Economic reform continued throughout the nineties and the Communist Party was able to secure its power base, something that was very precarious in the few months following June 1989.

Its not surprising to see the Socialist leaning European Union basically make the same wager, that they can violate the democratic principles that they claim to stand by just so long as the economy improves. I guess its just ironic that it is happening in the birth place of democracy, Athens, as well as that great killer of Republican style government, Rome.

Game: It does work

I remember my first marriage and wanting sex a lot but never getting it very much. Since then I've learned that what a woman says she wants is not always what she truly wants. Some of it might be posturing or playing a part or a way of trying to convince herself but at the end of the day women are women and men are men. If she has any interest in you she will respond to you being a man and not the feminized man that movies, society and even women tell you they desire. What one needs to understand is that when a woman says she wants a man that will spend time with her, buy her flowers, and treat her to expensive dinners is that she means she wants an alpha male man to do those things. She might settle for a beta substitute, but that is like wanting steak and settling for spam.

I am no master of game. I'm not a ladies man. I'm not out there trying to bed as many women as possible. I am a man though and married and I can tell you when I got the balls to do this sort of thing with my wife I got steak.

Also I can't help but think that Elvis knew what he was doing when it came to women.

A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me
Satisfy me baby

Baby close your eyes and listen to the music
Drifting through a summer breeze
It's a groovy night and I can show you how to use it
Come along with me and put your mind at ease
A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me
Satisfy me baby

Come on baby I'm tired of talking
Grab your coat and let's start walking
Come on, come on
Come on, come on
Come on, come on
Don't procrastinate, don't articulate
Girl it's getting late, gettin' upset waitin' around
A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me
Satisfy me baby

For some reason I don't remember anyone ever saying that Elvis had a hard time getting a woman's attention.

Optimism is in the air

I had a rare opportunity to talk with a young Egyptian man the other day. After exchanging the usual pleasantries and some small talk I couldn't resist asking him about the Egyptian uprising which happened earlier in the spring. He said that he had been present for the uprising, that he was proud that Mubarak had been removed from power and that he was optimistic that Egyptians would finally get the government that they wanted.

We talked a bit about the uprisings in Syria and Yemen as well and he was saddened by the actions of those respective governments. He pointed out that on paper each of these middle eastern and north African nations that had and are experiencing revolutions are supposedly democratic nations. Each country has fixed term limits for their leaders and that this has been abused for decades in these countries.

He spoke about how the main stream media in both the west and in Egypt paint a false picture of what is actually happening when it comes to such things as Muslim and Christian violence.

It reminded me of this picture:

The thing that caught my attention the most during the conversation was when he said that the movements that found their culmination in the Arab Spring began with 9/11. He talked about how it was that event that got people thinking and talking and while it took time, the catalyst that brought about this revolutionary zeal was one that I had never heard anyone else link to the events of 2011. 

The willful ignorance of Apple's disciples

Firstly, let me say that Steve Jobs was an effective business man that did for Apple Computers what many if not all thought would be impossible as early as ten years ago.

Secondly, I am not a fan of Apple Computers, Steve Jobs or Apple products. There was a time in my life that I had thought about making the switch from PC to Apple, but I didn't have the money and so never did. That was part of my problem with Apple it was over priced for what was in the box, but of course that didn't matter because Apple is as much (or perhaps more) a brand than it is a computer. They make a quality product, I don't deny that, I just can't stand the posturing that Apple owners partake in by virtue of simply owning an Apple. Far too many think that by virtue of overpaying for an Apple they are somehow smarter, more tech savvy or more socially worthwhile than their PC using contemporaries. It was this unfounded arrogance that really turned me off of Apple in the beginning, their Orwellian style (despite their legendary TV commercial to the contrary) business practices concerning their products just helps to keep me from ever thinking of spending my money on their products.

But this isn't about Steve Jobs perse or about the unthinking cult mentality that has grown around Apple products. Rather this is about the seeming hypocrisy of the cult of Apple.

Recently I was invited to join a boycott of Nestle products due to their harmful business practices, especially as it concerns children working on cocoa plantations. Fair enough. The boycott is not new, it actually began in 1977 and I have to assume hasn't gained the necessary traction to force changes in Nestle's labor or contracting policies. If you do a Facebook search for 'boycott Nestle' you come up with more than thirty groups promoting the idea that Nestle is worthy of boycotting due to their actions.

Today, the BBC posted an article and video report documenting the continuing practice of child labor in the Ivory Coast cocoa farms.

So what does this have to do with Apple Computers and Steve Jobs?

Well, 2010 reports came out that Apple was using some of the same business practices as companies such as Nestle.

At least eleven 15-year-old children were discovered to be working last year in three factories which supply Apple.

The company did not name the offending factories, or say where they were based, but the majority of its goods are assembled in China. 

Apple also has factories working for it in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, the Czech Republic and the United States. 

Apple said the child workers are now no longer being used, or are no longer underage. "In each of the three facilities, we required a review of all employment records for the year as well as a complete analysis of the hiring process to clarify how underage people had been able to gain employment," Apple said, in an annual report on its suppliers. 

Apple has been repeatedly criticised for using factories that abuse workers and where conditions are poor. Last week, it emerged that 62 workers at a factory that manufactures products for Apple and Nokia had been poisoned by n-hexane, a toxic chemical that can cause muscular degeneration and blur eyesight. Apple has not commented on the problems at the plant, which is run by Wintek, in the Chinese city of Suzhou.

Well Apple said they stopped the practice in 2010 and so that was the end of it right? Not quite.  This is from February 2011.

Apple said that 91 children under the age of 16 were discovered to be working last year in ten Chinese factories owned by its suppliers.

By comparison, in 2009, Apple said eleven underage workers had been discovered.

“In recent years, Chinese factories have increasingly turned to labour agencies and vocational schools to meet their workforce demands,” said Apple’s report.

“We learned that some of these recruitment sources may provide false IDs that misrepresent young people’s ages, posing challenges for factory management,” it added.

In response, Apple said it had “intensified” its search for workers under 16, the minimum legal working age in China. In one factory it had found 42 children working on the production line and has now terminated its contract. Apple said it decided that the management “had chosen to overlook the issue and was not committed to addressing the problem.”

Here is an excerpt from an investigative report that was conducted in 2010 concerning the goings on at the factories contracted by Apple to make their famous and costly products.

New recruits at Foxconn are subjected to weeks of military-style drilling in order to build discipline. This is intended, as Gou puts it, to 'agglomerate them to act in unison and in concert' so that he can build a 'unique Foxconnian culture'. 

As well as slogans on the walls, Gou orders staff to wear jackets bearing slogans such as: 'Together everyone achieves more.' 

Strict discipline is enforced, with pay docked for any breaches under a bizarre points system. Points are deducted for crimes such as having long nails, being late, yawning, eating, sitting on the floor, talking or walking quickly. 

During a week-long investigation, which involved dodging the security guards who constantly patrol the Foxconn complex and who beat up a Reuters photographer earlier this year, we spoke to dozens of workers on condition of anonymity. 

On top of the living conditions, they all complained of intolerable pressure to hit targets for booming Apple sales, with managers exhorting what Gou calls his 'family' to work until they are ready to drop. 

'There are just three points to your life when you work at Foxconn,' says Huang, 21, who finally quit last month because of the pressure. 'Going to work, coming-home from work and sleeping.' He added: 'You are totally isolated from the outside world. I walked the same path from dorm to factory and back to dorm. That was my world. 

'There's no entertainment and no TV. There were 12 workers in my dorm, with some doing days, others nights and there was not a single person to talk to.' 

Ma Xiangqian, 18, who killed himself earlier this year after just three months at Foxconn, was too scared to give up his job, despite the pressure, knowing poverty awaited as thousands compete for a single post.

He slowly cracked. First, he was 'fined' from his wages for breaking two tools by accident. After being exhorted to work harder, he was eventually taken off the production line and forced to wash toilets for several weeks as punishment. 

He told his sister he was 'ashamed' of the way he was being treated. On January 23, he was found in a pool of blood at the foot of his dormitory block. His sister, who also worked at Foxconn, was told he had fainted and was recovering in hospital. 

In reality, her brother was already in the morgue. She was then told that Ma was a victim of unexplained 'sudden death'. 

After she took the highly unusual step of protesting and demanding a post mortem, Foxconn officials later changed the cause of death to 'falling from a great height'. 

Like Jobs, Gou dismisses claims that working conditions at the complex are to blame, saying the spate of suicides were due to ' personal' reasons' such as broken relationships.

In the wake of Steve Jobs' death, the media has been heaping praise on him like few others in recent memory. He had an impact to be sure, but don't we owe it to ourselves at least to be honest about those we hold up as worthy of public and societal praise?

A bit skewed to be sure but there is an distinct element of truth there. Steve Jobs was a very complex individual who did both good and bad things while leading a company that did good and bad things. It's my contention that if we are going to hold up a person for societal praise, as a role model for people everywhere shouldn't there be some sort of vetting process beyond the fact that he made computers shiny and smaller?

In the immediate aftermath of his death many were passing around a video of Steve's 2005 commencement speech from Stanford University. 

He offers up good advice to be sure, but at what point does Marshall McLuhan's famous "the medium is the message" take over or get ignored? At what point does who Steve Job was affect how we perceive him? This isn't pointed out to needlessly denigrate Steve, nor to simply bash on his products, but rather to prompt people to look deeper than the veneer of popular media and to put in their proper context those who we would idolize. I'm not going to argue that there is nothing in Steve's life that people can't learn from, but we shouldn't pick only those things we see as positives as examples, but rather his faults as well.

Indeed there were things Jobs did while at Apple that were deeply disturbing. Rude, dismissive, hostile, spiteful: Apple employees—the ones not bound by confidentiality agreements—have had a different story to tell over the years about Jobs and the bullying, manipulation and fear that followed him around Apple. Jobs contributed to global problems, too. Apple's success has been built literally on the backs of Chinese workers, many of them children and all of them enduring long shifts and the specter of brutal penalties for mistakes. And, for all his talk of enabling individual expression, Jobs imposed paranoid rules that centralized control of who could say what on his devices and in his company. 

[...] 

The internet allowed people around the world to express themselves more freely and more easily. With the App Store, Apple reversed that progress. The iPhone and iPad constitute the most popular platform for handheld computerizing in America, key venues for media and software. But to put anything on the devices, you need Apple's permission. And the company wields its power aggressively. 

[...] 

Before he was deposed from Apple the first time around, Jobs already had a reputation internally for acting like a tyrant. Jobs regularly belittled people, swore at them, and pressured them until they reached their breaking point. In the pursuit of greatness he cast aside politeness and empathy. His verbal abuse never stopped. Just last month Fortune reported about a half-hour "public humiliation" Jobs doled out to one Apple team: 

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Having received a satisfactory answer, he continued, "So why the fuck doesn't it do that?" 

"You've tarnished Apple's reputation," he told them. "You should hate each other for having let each other down."

Jobs ended by replacing the head of the group, on the spot. 

[...] 

Jobs had his share of personal shortcomings, too. He has no public record of giving to charityover the years, despite the fact he became wealthy after Apple's 1980 IPO and had accumulated an estimated $7 billion net worth by the time of his death. After closing Apple's philanthropic programs on his return to Apple in 1997, he never reinstated them, despite the company's gusher of profits. 

[...] 

Steve Jobs created many beautiful objects. He made digital devices more elegant and easier to use. He made a lot of money for Apple Inc. after people wrote it off for dead. He will undoubtedly serve as a role model for generations of entrepreneurs and business leaders. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on how honestly his life is appraised.

We live in a global world where our actions can have global consequences. Just as purchasing Nestle products tells the company that their business practices don't matter to you (whether that is true or not, that is most likely the message that they take from your continued patronage), so does the continued idolization of Steve Jobs and the continued purchases of Apple products.

It isn't enough to simply remember

November 11th is Remembrance Day. A time when we are to pause and think upon the sacrifice that those in uniform have sacrificed in our name so that we could live in peace and security. This day of remembrance may have begun with the ending of world war one, but it encompasses all those who have fought and died in war from then till now. It is to be a symbol that we who benefit from their sacrifice will not forget their struggle or needlessly and ignorantly ask that they sacrifice all that they have on our behalf. Remembrance Day is  both a time of reflection and promise. "Lest we forget" and "never again."

I've been fortunate enough to have never had to put my life on the line. I've never been in war or had to suffer its effects. I have an ancestor that won the Victoria Cross. When I was young I met a man who won the Victoria Cross. I had a grandfather who suffered the effects of war. Hearing their stories is a powerful experience. One should never be asked to sacrifice so much if there isn't a dire or urgent need. We should not abuse their willingness to sacrifice on our behalf. We should not betray their trust.

Which is why Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is a shameful reminder of how we too often fail our soldiers. 

We've heard it said that the commitment was driven by the military. But Bercuson and Granatstein reveal that Foreign Affairs and CIDA were enthusiastic hawks and that there was a strong desire in cabinet both to please the U.S. and elevate Canada's international influence. 

The study also has a hint of something more sinister. 

Some months before the then Liberal cabinet discussed sending in a force of any size — and this was a minority government, remember — at least one senior U.S. general in NATO told a Canadian liaison officer that Ottawa had told Washington it would send in a battle group. 

Where exactly did that promise originate from, and on what basis could it have been made? These are just some of many mysteries crying out for investigation. 

The big one, of course, is why the Paul Martin government in 2006, and then the Stephen Harper one just months later, failed so spectacularly to recognize the risks they were allowing our troops to face. 

As these two historians point out, Ottawa was gambling that our soldiers would be well supported in Kandahar by NATO, even though senior Canadian officers attached to NATO were already warning that our European allies were putting "caveats" on their troops. 

These were restrictions that would limit their ability to fight and make them dangerously undependable, as events quickly proved. 

In short, Ottawa put great faith in an alliance that its own military distrusted, and Ottawa was dead wrong.

As we now see, Canada committed itself to Kandahar, home of the Taliban, without even conducting a serious intelligence study of the area and, incredibly, without taking into account Kandahar's long undefended border with Pakistan, which proved to be a sanctuary for insurgents. 

The report quotes an early Canadian commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Fraser, saying "Nobody was collecting information on Pakistan. Pakistan was a black hole. I went to various agencies in Ottawa and said can you help me and they said no, but we'll change our collection plan" and try to find you more intelligence. 

Still, Ottawa did not hurry. According to U.S. officials, Canada didn't increase its intelligence effort in the region for two more years, when CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, became involved. 

Even military intelligence that resourceful officers were able to pick up from their U.S. colleagues was often ignored. 

The first Canadian commander to go in, Col. Ian Hope, had been briefed by his U.S.  colleagues to expect a Taliban surge that first summer. Yet a blasé Ottawa refused to give Canadian troops their own helicopter support for medical evacuation, something that had to be begged from the Americans.

The full report can be read here.

And people wonder why

Its amazing that there are still people who wonder why women are having a harder and harder time getting men to marry.

The Philadelphia-based Pew Research Centre study, published in The Atlantic magazine, suggests female graduates are being put in similar situation to that faced for some time by black women. In America, 70 per cent of black women have no husband and there are twice as many black women as black men with university degrees.

Of course there are those who have an idea.

History shows, and hypergamy explains, that civilized society requires men with higher wages and more advanced education than women. So it should come as no surprise to anyone with any knowledge of either history or Game that structurally modifying society to ensure higher wages and more education for women will tend to significantly destabilize society and solidify trends leading towards its eventual collapse.

For me, I think that this helps to explain things a bit as well.

Where do I sign up for a lifetime of that?

Choice

The people of Mississippi have taken to the polls to see how the citizens of that state would define a person.

Mississippi is voting on a proposed constitutional amendment that would make it the first US state to define a fertilized human egg as a person. 

The measure would confer rights on an embryo from the moment of conception, effectively outlawing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. 

A survey found that that 45% of voters in Mississippi backed the measure, 44% were against, and 11% undecided.

Abortion is a very touchy issue with passionate supporters and wing-nuts on both sides of the issue. I am personally against abortion. I do believe it is murder and that a human fetus is still human and therefore a person deserving of protection.

But there are many who believe that this is an erroneous view to hold.

In having discussed the issue with a few people (its hard to have a civil discussion concerning abortion) a lot of the justifications for abortion that I've encountered have come down to the notion that if the fetus was left on its own it would not survive and therefore is not a person.

I find this logic to be very flawed. 

For instance, if we were to take this as the measure for how we determine who is and who isn't a human being, then there are vast swathes of people that would have no legal protections. A new born infant, whether one second or one year after birth cannot support itself. A person who is in a coma cannot support it his/her-self. These are just two examples, but should these people be denied legal protection as persons? Of course not, to do so would be absurd, and so we get to the crux of the matter. 

When is a person a person?

There are varying thoughts on this. For some its the moment of conception. For others its the moment that the baby is 'born' (this is the case in Canada). For still others its the moment that a woman decides that what is growing in her is a person (if a pregnant woman is murdered and her baby dies often the killer is charged with two crimes, one for the woman and one for the baby she was carrying). For still others its "the point of fetal viability" (this is the case in the US).

Which is it?

At what point do we decide that a human fetus is a 'person'?

For me, its the moment of conception. Human life is sacred and it deserves protection. 

Contentment

The world searches for meaning, for happiness and contentment but comes up lacking time and again. What we once thought was the solution turns out to be fleeting at best and then we are looking for something new to solve the age old problems. It is unfortunate but too many people choose to escape rather than persevere in their search for meaning or contentment. Living here in Korea, suicide is an all too common occurance with a suicide rate in 2009 of 31 per 100,000 people (the OECD average is 11.1 per 100,000 people). Its a very real and pressing problem.

The call-centre for Seoul's emergency services is a windowless bunker, buried alongside the forested slopes of Namsan hill. 

It used to be the home of South Korea's spy agency. Now it is where the city's emergency calls come in: reports of traffic accidents, crimes, and - increasingly - suicides. 

According to the government, more than 40 South Koreans a day are taking their own lives - five times as many as in their parents' day. 

Unsurprisingly, the operators here say calls from people wanting to commit suicide - or witnesses to it - are increasing. 

Giant screens flash details of all the calls coming in to the rows of operators. They sit surrounded by dashboards of coloured lights and communications equipment. There is a constant blur of noise. 

It does not take long before the first suicide call flashes up. 

"There's a person trying to jump off a building," the caller says, "and he has a knife in his hand." 

One of the team, Ki-jong Gwan, says the operators have had no formal training in handling these kinds of calls, but that staff often share tips amongst themselves. 

"I think there's a limit to what we can do," he said. "Some of the calls I remember were from people who'd already decided to take their lives and just wanted to ask that their bodies be taken care of. 

"Others call up seeking advice on the best way to commit suicide. There are some situations where we've intervened and helped stop the person taking their life. But I think there needs to be a more fundamental solution." 

[...] 

But the real question is why this is happening at all in a country that is richer, more stable and more influential than at any time in its history? 

[...] 

"From the beginning of childhood, the importance of money and achievement are emphasised by their parents, so they feel that unless you are successful in school grades and a good job, good prestigious college, you're not successful, and the parents behave as if 'you're not my child'," Dr Hong said.

A Korean blogger has taken up the issue and tries to explore why its so high in Korea.

Although over a century old, Durkheim's initial insight about the social causes of suicide is still valid for the most part. Durkheim believed that essentially, suicide is a disease of modernity. Durkheim formulated his thoughts by observing France of the late 19th century, which -- along with the rest of Europe -- was witnessing both a spectacular economic growth and an astonishing rise in suicide rate. (In earlier 1840s, France's suicide rate was around 10 suicides per 100,000 people. By mid-1890s, the same rate was around 24 suicides per 100,000 people.) And regardless of the significant diversity among various European states, suicide rate rose in almost all European countries. Moreover, again across most European countries, suicide rate rose more dramatically in the cities while remaining stable in rural areas. 

What is it about economic development that leads to suicide? Durkheim noted these factors: individualism, spirit of free inquiry, diversified economy, freedom of choice and greater wealth. At a first glance, these reasons make sense -- suicide is a highly individual act, and is often a result of a rational calculation. And Durkheim's insight has been proven to be broadly correct. In late-developing countries such as India and China, suicide rate rose like a clockwork, particularly in cities where the economic development was the most vibrant. In case of India, the suicide rate rose from 6.8 to 9.9 per 100,000 between 1985 and 1995. The highest suicide rates appeared Bangalore (30.3), Indore (30.1), Nagpur (22.1), and other cities with the most dynamic industrial revolution. In 2000, Indian people with high school degrees committed suicide at a rate more than twice of illiterate Indians. (19.8 versus 8.4 per 100,000) 

A lot of Durkheim's more specific insights proved to be correct as well. Durkheim believed that the deterioration of the traditional family contributed to suicide. Sure enough, there is a clear negative correlation between the number of children and the rate of suicide. Likewise, there is a fairly clear positive correlation between the rate of divorce and the rate of suicide.

It seems weird that what many point to as being the solutions to life's problems (individualism, the spirit of free inquiry, a diversified economy, freedom of choice, greater wealth and education) tend to increase the suicide rate. Of course as a Christian I'm struck by how this contrasts with what the Apostle Paul has to say in Philippians 4:11-13.

I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

The Bible has been telling us for nearly two thousand years that money is not the solution, that self indulgence and narcissism are not the answer, but rather humility and self sacrifice. Luke 9:23-25

Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

Is it any wonder that when people buy into the materialist mantra of more is better never achieve contentment, and that he who has the most wins leaves everyone feeling like a loser.

Choked out

As of last week the world is said to have reached seven billion people and as such the media has done their bit to keep us all informed about what this may or may not mean.

The CBC produced some interesting little factoids exploring what seven billion people means.

If everyone on Earth joined hands to form a human chain, it would stretch about 7 million kilometres. The chain would circle the Earth at the equator about 175 times, stretch to the moon and back about nine times, and reach about one-fifth of the way to Mars when it's at its closest point to Earth.

Another CBC article talked about how people are generally able to keep it together concerning the population milestone.

But there has been no drumbeat of panic about overpopulation, as it was called in the 1970s and '80s, when the UN hosted regular conferences on reproductive rights and tried to come up with a 20-year plan to keep the number of humans in check.

The BBC points out that perhaps we aren't at the seven billion level yet due statistical and demographic realities.

And he says the UN recognises that its own figures come with a 1-2% margin of error. Today's population could actually be 56 million higher or lower than seven billion, Mr Heilig says. 

"There is a window of uncertainty of at least six months before and six months after the 31 October for the world population to reach seven billion," he told the BBC.

So it would seem that reaching seven billion people (whether we have or will) is not causing widespread panic the way that anthropogenic global warming has.

Unless of course if your this person:

In reality I think that the AGW panic and some panic concerning over population have basically come together under the general umbrella of environmentalism.

Even though the rapid growth of the human population is such an obvious concern, very few people outside of the academic world and some dedicated NGOs are willing to discuss the issue. The earth’s population is projected to rise an astonishing 40% to 9.2 billion people by 2050! This level of increase will put tremendous strain on a wide range of already-stressed resources, including food stocks, fresh water, precious metals, and of course fossil fuels.

It has gone so far as to produce groups such as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

The primary motivation of VHEMT as a movement is the belief that the biosphere of the planet Earth would be better off without humans. In VHEMT's view, the human race is akin to an "exotic invader", whose population is out of control and threatens other species with extinction, and only removal of the human race can restore the natural ecological order. VHEMT's primary goals are to influence people to choose to not reproduce and to advocate ready access for all human beings to methods of birth control.

Or spawned articles such as this:

There are three, and only three, ways by which population growth will be reduced to zero and/or made negative. The ways are--a) by war, with or without weapons of mass destruction, rape, murder, disease, predation, starvation, concentration camps, and other horrors beyond the imagination when humanity has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth (and if population continues to grow humanity will shortly exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, if humanity already has not exceeded it). The carrying capacity of the Earth, no matter how carrying capacity is defined, cannot be infinitely large and must reach a finite number; b) by the voluntary action of all of humanity for as long as humanity inhabits the Earth, before humanity has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth; and c) by coercive population control before humanity has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth.

Its not surprising to see the author finally get to the point: emphasis mine

If humanity desires to survive on this planet for any reasonable length of time at a reasonable standard of living for even a relatively small number of human beings our species must consider and evaluate coercive population control.

I had pointed out before that there is a world of haves and have nots and right now its the haves telling the have nots to stop producing children all as a way of protecting their own have status. They might wrap it up in shiny packages of environmentalism but really its just about protecting their standard of living. Sustainability is a very real factor in all of this.

As you can see from the map, portions of the world consume vastly more than other areas and so the writer of the above article is correct. If we want a world where everyone can live at US levels of consumption then two billion is a good target. If, however, we as a human population consumed at a rate akin to India, then the planet could support as many as 10 - 12 billion people.

 So what do we take from all of this? Simply that there are a growing number of people out there that would rather restrict your rights to procreate and would look to forcibly reduce the population rather than cut down their personal consumption.

 Its a brave new world we're living in, to be sure.

Identity

In a previous post I commented on a person's lack of understanding concerning God. Here is a good example of how God is perceived by many.

You are loved

I came across this recently on Post Secret.

It seems strange to me that this person doesn't believe in something that they have already formed an opinion on.

In reality they believe in God and their hatred has turned to denial.

I just wonder about what there is to hate.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 

This leads me to believe that the person doesn't hate God, because they don't know God. They hate a conception of God that has been constructed by them or for them. They believe a lie and so hate the truth.

Representing the people

Abraham Lincoln ended his famous Gettysburg Address with the line "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Many cite this as the epitome of what modern democracy is all about. A government made up of the people, chosen by the people and working for the people. It is the ultimate of political representation, expression and responsibility.

Unfortunately too often our modern governments, while claiming democratic hearts, shy away from such principles. One might look to the current situation in the European Union.

Greece will hold a controversial referendum on a European bailout plan in early December that European leaders said Wednesday will determine whether or not it stays in the eurozone. 

Greece won't get any new international loans until then, European leaders said after heaping pressure on Greece's prime minister at emergency talks Wednesday. "The referendum ... in essence is about nothing else but the question, does Greece want to stay in the eurozone, yes or no?" said German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a press conference. 

The statement, echoed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy at her side, was the clearest acknowledgement to date that pulling out of the eurozone is a possible outcome.

How dare Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou give the people of Greece the right to say whether or not they support a plan that would provide the Greek government with money at the cost of extensive and long lasting austerity measures that the people of Greece will need to bear?

What the leaders of France and Germany are saying is that if we give you money then we call the shots not the people of Greece. All this in the birth place of democracy. How ironic, but I guess it should come as no surprise that it is France and Germany leading the un-democratic charge as both countries have a history of autocratic regimes seeking to impose their will on other countries.

In Canada "a private member's bill that seeks to ban Members of Parliament from crossing the floor is being debated Wednesday." This is, in my opinion, a good thing and helps to support democracy as Lincoln famously espoused it.

Controversial floor-crossings have taken place on Parliament Hill in past. Notably, Belinda Stronach made waves in 2005 when she ditched the Conservatives for the Liberals and received a cabinet post in Paul Martin's government. 

A year later, David Emerson outraged many after he made his defection from the Liberal party known when he appeared at the ceremony for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new Conservative government.

In Canada's 'first past the post' parliamentary system of governance featuring five major national parties, one candidate getting the majority of the vote is uncommon if not unheard of. In addition, Canadian's don't get the opportunity to vote directly for who will lead the nation. That is determined by the individual parties in selecting a party leader. If their party wins the majority of seats, that party's leader is the new Prime Minister. So it is not uncommon for people to vote for a particular party in order to influence who will be the Prime Minister of Canada.

Canadian democracy has enough problems without having people running for election under one party and then changing parties while elected. There are rarely any free votes in the House of Commons and so the people's elected representatives are encouraged through the auspices of the party whip to vote along party lines even if it might conflict with the will of their constituents. One is forced to place the will of the people at odds with their own political ambitions. So in effect its simply four people, the heads of the parties holding seats in the House of Commons, that can and often do dictate the policies and actions of the Canadian government.

Very undemocratic.

However, I do think that there should be a way for a person who is at odds with their party to leave and if so desired switch parties.

If a person elected (for the sake of this scenario) as a Liberal wants to leave the Liberal party while serving a current term in office, they should have two options.

The first option is to declare their intention to leave the Liberal Party and sit as an independent. This would trigger a referendum in their riding with a simple question to determine whether or not the people of their riding support the switch. If the vote is in favor, the move is made and the person sits out the rest of their term as an independent. If the vote is against, then it would trigger a by election.

The second option is to declare their intention to leave the Liberal party and to switch to a different party (for the sake of this scenario), the Green Party. This would automatically trigger a by-election with the incumbent running for election under their new Green Party banner. This would ensure that the people's will is protected and enforced, at least when it comes to the party affiliation of the riding.

Democracy is dying and we must struggle to keep it alive as best we can.


Aside:

His announcement also sparked a rebellion among his governing Socialist lawmakers. A crucial test of party loyalty will come during a vote of confidence on Friday in parliament, where the Socialists have a two-seat majority.

Shocking that the socialists in the government would be against the referendum. They have worked so hard to invest power in themselves and their socialist brethren in the EU, to have it so flippantly given away is absurd. Don't worry they are looking after the people's interests, they simply know better than the people themselves what is best for them.

Update: Wow, those on the left simply hate democracy it would seem.

Two Thunder Bay-area New Democratic Party MPs have been punished for voting in favour of the abolition of the long-gun registry. 

Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Bruce Hyer and Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP John Rafferty will not be allowed to make statements or ask questions in the Commons chamber. They were also removed from their critics' roles. 

The term of their discipline is unknown but Rafferty said it will last until the gun registry issue has been dealt with in Parliament. 

The two went against the NDP's official position and voted with the government this week during the second reading of the bill to abolish the controversial long-gun registry.

Is PETA un-American?

Recently PETA announced that it would be suing Sea World on behalf of five Orca whales at the park, arguing that the whales should be set free.

In the first case of its kind, PETA, three marine-mammal experts, and two former orca trainers are filing a lawsuit asking a federal court to declare that five wild-caught orcas forced to perform at SeaWorld are being held as slaves in violation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The filing—the first ever seeking to apply the 13th Amendment to nonhuman animals—names the five orcas as plaintiffs and also seeks their release to their natural habitats or seaside sanctuaries.

Now I'm all for publicizing the potentially (I'm not a marine biologist and can't make such a definitive claim) harmful conditions under which these Orcas were acquired, maintained and treated but that does not mean that anyone should try to undermine the US Constitution in this manner.

 To be honest, I see this as being a frivolous law suit and one that will do more harm than good for the cause of the whales and PETA. As most people will look at this as a stunt rather than a meaningful issue deserving of their consideration. I base this on the notion that PETA is trying to equate whales with humans. Now, PETA states that this is not the case.

The suit is based on the plain text of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits the condition of slavery without reference to "person" or any particular class of victim. "Slavery is slavery, and it does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on gender, race, or religion," says general counsel to PETA, Jeffrey Kerr.

The 13th Amendment states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 Slavery is defined as: the practice of owning slaves.

Slave is defined as: a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property.

It seems very clear that the intention of the amendment related only to people as by definition only people can be slaves. To extend this to things that are not people is a corruption of the language and intent of the amendment.

The power to enforce the 13th Amendment was given to Congress and can be found in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, formally titled: An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication.

So to have the 13th Amendment apply to whales would require that whales be given the legal status of person.

 I'm sorry, but a whale is not a person.

A game by any other name

The idea of Game has, in my opinion, made many inroads in popular culture. I came to it rather late in my social education and at first was hesitant to acknowledge the veracity of its underlying principles.

When I was first introduced to it it was by a friend who had come to it from pick up artist websites and the like. As a Christian I was hesitant to understand the underlying principles due to the ends that people on such websites were using them. Promiscuity was not on my personal agenda.

 Then I was introduced to the concept in a slightly different form; ladder theory. It laid out some of the core principles without all the bravado of pick up artists detailing their conquests. It was through that that I came to a slow understanding of Game.

What surprised me at first was that rather than trying to force the concepts onto social reality, once I had an understanding of the concepts, when I was able to sit back and watch social situations the concepts were verified.

 As one blog writer I read says, he's not writing the rules of the game, but merely reporting on what he sees. Time and again the basic principles of Game have been reinforced as I watch and experience social situations.

I've had my brushes with the red pill, as another blog writer terms it, and have come to a point where I can recognize those moments in my life when I have been able to display alpha or beta traits to my gain or detriment.

One of the things that has helped to really reinforce the notion of Game or Ladder Theory has been by watching children of various ages interact with one another.

 Young children, boys and girls, before they recognize their sexual difference, play as virtual equals. You can see the beginnings of what would be termed alpha and beta behavior that seems to be ingrained in certain people, but the sexual motivations just aren't there. They are simply interacting with each other as they are. 

As they grow up and begin puberty you can see these ingrained traits come to the fore as they interact with members of the opposite sex. When I was growing up, adults would always joke about how a young boy who pulled on a young girls pig tails, would do so because he liked her. He was displaying interest in her in a way that for some reason came natural to him. The adults would see it as innocent and playful. They might even chuckle over the incident.

 As children grow up though, pulling on a girls pig tails is wrong, or so boys are told. Only assholes would do such an act of egregious effrontery. Boys are told that they need to be nice, to be complimentary, to treat the girl of their desire as a princess. Yet as the boy longs and yearns for the girl of his dreams, it seems to him that there is something wrong with the world because as he is doing everything 'right' but the girl seems to always end up with the boy who does everything 'wrong'; the asshole.

Rather than questioning the advice they were given, they redouble their efforts and either live a life of distant longing or grow to dislike the girl and eventually women. Its either that or he sees reality as working differently than how he was told it would work and changes himself accordingly.

As I watch children interact you can see the differences in how boys act towards girls and how the girls in turn react to the boys. The cocky kid who pulls a girls hair, hits her books or buts in front of her in line is looked on admiringly by girls when the boys back is turned. When the boy is roughhousing with another boy and winning, the same girls are looking on admiringly.

The other boys off to the side or getting the short end of the stick in the roughhousing look on the boy as an asshole. The girls look on him as something they want.

The alphas and the betas.

Many adults and other children look down at the Alphas as being jerks or worse.

Some children recognize something in the Alpha and attach themselves to him.

Many adults will actively fight this, but its natural. Its how people naturally act and function when left to themselves. They are Alpha or they are Beta (or worse) and no amount of telling the Beta how special he is, or how lucky a girl would be to have him, will change reality.

Girls and women want an Alpha male.

Game is the tool that non-Alphas can use to demonstrate Alpha qualities to the opposite sex as a means of gaining success in the social market place.

Reality is a cruel mistress.

You can hate the game but you shouldn't hate the player that plays by the rules.

Nothing new under the sun

Yesterday I commented on the state of the earth's population as it is set to reach seven billion in about three days. In that post I voiced the opinion that the desire for a sustainable population is a good thing but that the methods that would be required to truly bring it about would be of a rather bloody nature.

 Today the BBC posted a decent article detailing the history of population control. Beginning with Thomas Malthus in the early 19th century and continuing on till the present day. One of the main thrusts of the article was to point out the fact that much if not all the major efforts at population control had been imposed on poor people and nations by richer people and nations. It's always been a top-down situation where those without say suffer the most. For much of the past two centuries the main focus of population control has been to protect the economic hegemony of the West.

Massive populations in the Third World were seen as presenting a threat to Western capitalism and access to resources, says Professor Betsy Hartmann of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, in the US. 

"The view of the south is very much put in this Malthusian framework. It becomes just this powerful ideology," she says. 

In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson warned that the US might be overwhelmed by desperate masses, and he made US foreign aid dependent on countries adopting family planning programmes. Other wealthy countries such as Japan, Sweden and the UK also began to devote large amounts of money to reducing Third World birth rates.

As I stated yesterday, the best way to help reduce the populations of poorer countries is to raise the economic realities of those countries. This isn't my idea, and its not new.

Critics of population control had their say at the first ever UN population conference in 1974. Karan Singh, India's health minister at the time, declared that "development is the best contraceptive".

This coming from the country that forcibly sterilized millions of its poor people in the mid 1970s.

In June 1975, the Indian premier, Indira Gandhi, declared a state of emergency after accusations of corruption threatened her government. 

Her son Sanjay used the measure to introduce radical population control measures targeted at the poor. The Indian emergency lasted less than two years, but in 1975 alone, some eight million Indians - mainly poor men - were sterilised.

Another famous example of enforced population control is China's famous One Child Policy.

The One Child Policy is credited with preventing some 400 million births in China, and remains in place to this day. 

In 1983 alone, more than 16 million women and four million men were sterilised, and 14 million women received abortions.

Of course, it was not without its faulty consequences.

But modern technology allows parents to discover the sex of the foetus, and many choose to abort if they are carrying a girl. In some regions, there is now a serious imbalance between men and women.

Some point to these examples as a means of learning from the past in order to improve population control efforts going forward. Of course the term 'population control' was deemed to have negative authoritarian connotations and so they adopted such terms as 'women's rights and reproductive rights'. Some see women as being the magic silver bullet to end the world's population problem.

According to Adrienne Germain, that is the main lesson we should learn from the past 50 years. 

"I have a profound conviction that if you give women the tools they need - education, employment, contraception, safe abortion - then they will make the choices that benefit society," she says.

I'm a bit skeptical of this.

So lets look at what would be an ideal situation; Canada. A place of vast economic prosperity where women's and reproductive rights are protected.

If a country wanted to simply maintain their population growth at zero (simple generational replacement - two parents have two children - population does not grow or decrease) then the birth rate for the country should be 2.33 per woman. Its been noted that economic prosperity helps to bring down fertility rates as does the protection of women's and reproductive rights.

So Canada, an economically and socially healthy country could be see maintaining the status quo as being sustainable. The Canadian birth rate is 1.58. Canadians are breeding themselves out of existence. How is that a benefit to society?

 At some point a tipping point will be reached when economically rich nations can't make up their lack of numbers by bringing in people from impoverished nations to meet the societal need for workers. As was seen during the immediate aftermath of the black death, as the population fell, there were less workers who were able to earn higher wages due to the decrease in the labour supply.

If economic prosperity reduces fertility rates and lower fertility rates reduce the labour supply pushing up wages, it would seem that rich nations could see a demographic downward spiral that could place their societies in peril.

Lets hope that the women in such societies recognize this pattern and alter their birth rates accordingly. So it would seem that the solution for the world's population problem is the leveling of the economic playing field that would help to decrease the fertility rates of those impoverished nations driving world population growth.

In 1968, the American biologist Paul Ehrlich caused a stir with his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, which suggested that it was already too late to save some countries from the dire effects of overpopulation, which would result in ecological disaster and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970s. 

Instead, governments should concentrate on drastically reducing population growth. He said financial assistance should be given only to those nations with a realistic chance of bringing birth rates down. Compulsory measures were not to be ruled out. 

Western experts and local elites in the developing world soon imposed targets for reductions in family size, and used military analogies to drive home the urgency, says Matthew Connelly, a historian of population control at Columbia University in New York.

That was then. Now they are trying to get away from such heavy handed control mechanisms and its perhaps not surprising to see where they are looking for solutions.

Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich has also amended his view of the issue. 

If he were to write his book today, "I wouldn't focus on the poverty-stricken masses", he told the BBC. 

"I would focus on there being too many rich people. It's crystal clear that we can't support seven billion people in the style of the wealthier Americans."

Economic redistribution.

Its not the poor that are the problem. Its the rich.

 I think that Chairman Mao and Brother Stalin would be happy to see the West finally see the light.

 Of course they both already did their part for reducing the world population by murdering tens of millions.

That's a big number

So according to the UN the world's seven billionth resident is due to be born on October 31st. Statistics show that the world's population grows at a rate of 200,000 a day. There is talk that the earth's population could grow to be ten billion by the end of the century or even as high as 16 billion, with much of the growth taking place in poor countries.

 In 2011, the population of Ethiopia is approximately 80 million. In the next 50 years the country could see its population grow to 145 million.

 In contrast is Germany, with a 2011 population of approximately 80 million but rather than grow over the next 40 years, Germany could see its population decline to 75 million people over the next 40 years.

 There is a scenario from the UN in which the world's population in 2100, rather than being higher, is actually lower than it is today due to the decrease in fertility rates. Since 1950 the fertility rate has nearly halved, falling from 6.0 children per woman in 1950 to 2.5 children in 2011. If this trend was to take hold in places such as Ethiopia and other sub-Saharan African countries, which are said to drive the population growth, then the world's population would decrease by the end of the century.

"The world's population is going to continue to grow and we may as well be prepared for it, " says the editor, Richard Kollodge. "We may as well make sure that as many people as possible are healthy, that as many people as possible have access to education." "We have a chance right now in our world of seven billion to build a more stable, more socially just world by the time we reach 10 billion but that requires us to act now," he says.

So we need to act now or something is going to happen and I'm sure that according to them it will be disastrous. So what to do? One of the things that need tackling is fertility:

"Sex education has an impact in delaying the age at the first sexual intercourse, in increasing the use of contraception methods and condoms," says Gabriela Rivera from the Mexico City offices of the UN's population agency.

This is a fairly easy first step. It can be done for relatively low costs and can have an immediate impact. So women start having fewer children. Okay. Great. So, who looks after them when they are old?

Caring for the increasing number of elderly people will also present many challenges, says the report.

The rate in fertility in the West has declined as a result of economic prosperity. Modern Western countries have government programs that help to look after people when they are old and combine with a person's personal savings and pension to ensure that a large portion of the population is looked after by fewer and fewer children. This can't be said of the world's poor countries where people rely on their children to look after them when they are old. Children are their pension plan. So it would seem that in combination with sex education efforts and access to contraceptives the economic prosperity of these people needs to increase.

The UN has expressed concern that in many poor countries, such as in sub-Saharan Africa, the speed of population growth could hold back economic development and trap future generations in poverty and hunger.

But apparently this is a catch-22. They are too poor to be able to give up having children to look after them in their old age, but having more children keeps them poor. So in some way this cycle needs to be broken.

The challenges from the growth in population include the massive inequalities between different countries in access to food, water, housing and work.

The West and parts of Asia are far richer than vast portions of Africa, Asia, and South America. According to the CIA World Fact Book the world's GDP in 2010 was $74.54 trillion.

Here are the top ten in the world:
1 European Union $ 14,820,000,000,000
 2 United States $ 14,660,000,000,000
 3 China $ 10,090,000,000,000
 4 Japan $ 4,310,000,000,000
 5 India $ 4,060,000,000,000
 6 Germany $ 2,940,000,000,000
 7 Russia $ 2,223,000,000,000
 8 United Kingdom $ 2,173,000,000,000
 9 Brazil $ 2,172,000,000,000
 10 France $ 2,145,000,000,000

 This totals $59.593 trillion or 79.95% of the world's wealth. Of the 227 nations listed in the Fact Book, this translates into 4.4% of the countries controlling nearly 80% of the world's wealth.

 So if the economic realities of the poorer nations need to increase in order to combat population growth which will (insert something scary) allow them to ease up on having babies which will reduce the fertility rate of those nations driving the world's population growth which in turn will avoid (insert something scary). So what needs to happen is for the wealth of the richest nations to be diverted to the poorest nations.

 -insert thought bubble- I wonder what the UN would do with all the money that they gained from the carbon tax that has been proposed? -end of thought bubble-

 So you take a country like the US which had a GDP per capita of $47,200 in 2010. Then compare that to the GDP per capita for the world of $11,200. A big difference there. Heck, even China as the world's third largest economic entity had a GDP per capita of only $7,600 in 2010. India's was even worse at $3,500. 

As an aside, the US ranks 11th in terms of GDP per capita with Qatar being first at $179,000 and with the Congo and Burundi tied for last at $300. The number of countries equal to (St. Lucia) or above the $11,200 mark is 99, meaning that there are 128 countries below it.

 The point of the matter is that you will have a hard time convincing people living in countries like Qatar, the US, Canada, France, etc. to voluntarily give up their standard of living in terms of improving the standard of living of people in Burundi or Lesotho. It would either take a massive amount of robbery and collusion (hmmm, global warming is what again?) or violent and bloody conflict. You think that the world is a bloody place now, wait till you try and reduce the GDP per capita of the people in places like America or Germany or Kuwait to less than half of what they are used to and see what happens.