Earth...absolutely amazing...

Sometimes we forget that we (all of us) exist on this rock. We live on this planet. We share it with one-another. Its small and we are even smaller.

Please take the time to marvel. Its our place in the world. Its all we've got. Its beautiful. Its amazing. Its our home...

Following David Cameron's Argument to its Logical End Leads us to an Unavoidable Conclusion: Its Time to Say Goodbye to the Monarchy

Tradition, in and of itself, carries no philosophical or moral weight. It simply is the continuation of a practice over many generations. To give moral weight to tradition, or to establish a particular tradition's worth, evidence and reasons must be given. And, of course, this evidence, or these reasons given, can be tested to determine their relative value, merit, strength - or weakness.

It is, then, with some humour, that we recently read of the British Parliament's move to change the succession rules for its (our) Crown. Gone are the days of favouring only men, they say. But, to follow Prime Minister David Cameron's argument to its logical conclusion - given the reasons stated for this change - we are led to the wholly different, yet ultimate and unavoidable conclusion, that the very institution of hereditary entitlement ought to be done away with.

Have a look at my most recent letter to the editor. I hope you see the humour in Mankind's blind adherence to tradition - it's pure, unabashed folly.

Let's not Meat

Janey and I have been working on becoming true vegetarians - eating (way!) less meat, cutting back on dairy and processed and refined sugars, and eating fewer eggs. Of course, it has not been easy, and temptation abounds, but we are committed to getting this right, eventually.

Over the past 5 years or so (since I made my first philosophical breakthrough on the ethical reasons for not eating meat) Janey and I have been casually researching the benefits of going green (leafed). To name a few, these are:

1) Animal interests concerns
2) weight loss
3) Cardiovascular health
4) Cancer risk reduction
5) increased vitality
6) Environmental impact decrease and sustainability

And, when my doctor told me last year to cut out meat - and that my cholesterol was too high to be healthy - I added that one to the list too: Cholesterol reduction. Her words: "Stay away from meat". Simple. Straightforward. Doable.

Furthermore, and aside from the selfish reasons to not eat (too much) meat noted above, there are many other-regarding reasons too. Most important, for me, are the benefits that extend to all our global brothers and sisters, and, of course, to our only home, Earth: By choosing meat - always - you are saying that deforestation for farm feedlots is "ok". By choosing another helping of beef, or pork, you are saying its "ok" to use precious resources to feed your appetite rather than feed the bulk of humanity who are hungry, or are poor. By choosing milk over soy, or tuna over tofu, you are saying its "ok" to contribute to an industry that, combined, produces more pollution globally per year than all the world's transportation infrastructure combined.

In this regard, I am reminded of one of my favorite passages in Henry David Thoreau's famous essay on Civil Disobedience, where he states:

"If injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine...let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn...I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live, but to live in it good or bad."

None of us, of course, can avoid all of the inherent contradictions of life. To live, is to use, to some extent, the world around us to our benefit. But what can be done, must be done. And to fail to correct or alter our path in the face of manifest injustice, is to wittingly lend ourselves to the wrong we plainly see.

So, Janey and I will continue, against the grain (for the most part) to forge down  this lonely thankless path - an unlikely one in Modern Western Society - together. We will continue eating our plants, eating our fruits and making our personal choices quietly, though for the most part, consciously. We will continue making what we reason are the best choices open to us - not because they are easy, of course, or because the bulk of society is with us, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Nothing more, nothing less. TDM

Post Script: (I came across a great little article from Earthsave Canada. Click this link to read the article. This article also prompted me to finally get around to writing this blognote.)

John Rawls and distributive justice

(The reader will note that I addressed this issue some three years ago. Since then I have had some more time to reflect on the issue of distributive justice. I have also had the opportunity to re-read John Rawls' book, "A Theory of Justice." What follows here is the reformulated version of my older post - to include some more thoughts on the claims of distributive justice as it pertains to the issue of a natural lottery in the distribution of (dis)advantages.)

To a question posed to the world regarding the claims of distributive justice: Why shouldn't the government redistribute body parts? Since some people are born with physical problems, and others might have physical advantages, why, in the name of fairness, does government not require this kind of redistribution?

My Response:

Your premise misses a fundamental point regarding one of the purposes of distributive justice. One of the great purposes of redistribution is to avoid the artificial (Man-made) pooling of, say, wealth, in the hands of a few persons to the detriment of the many. Without organized redistribution there are few civilized methods for achieving this goal. Redistribution becomes one of the few methods society has of maintaining any sense of merit-based (or entitlement-based) distribution of goods - something a 'pooling' of resources clearly works against. The pooling of physical talents - or as your point suggests, the pooling of inferior physical qualities - does not easily fit into the claims of distributive justice. That is because, unlike the artificial pooling of assets and wealth in the hands of slave owners at the expense of slaves (producing inequalities that may persist for generations to come) it is just as likely that the slave's son, or the slave owner's son, will be born blind. Thus, it might be said: The natural distribution of physical advantages, or disadvantages, is neither just, nor unjust (unlike questions regarding the distribution or pooling of wealth, which will necessarily engage questions of justice). They are, quite simply, matters of fact. What is a matter of justice, however, is how we, and our institutions, deal with the results that flow from the unmerited advantages or disadvantages people derive from this natural distribution. Thus, it is the effects of such distributions and perhaps more importantly, humanity's ability to deal fairly and justly with the unmerited disadvantages and advantages that flow therefrom that distributive justice is most concerned to address.
T.D. Marshall

Dialogue vs. Debate: learning vs. entrenchment

Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal. In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participants point of view. Debate affirms a participant's own point of view. Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth. Dialogue causes introspection on ones own position. Debate causes critique of the other position. Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right. In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs. In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring differences. In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion. Adapted from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR).

Henry David Thoreau

One of my favorite writers and thinkers is Mr. Henry David Thoreau. Please follow the link to his most famous essay on "Civil Disobedience". It's a wonderful expression of the importance of following the Right, rather than the Rule; it being better to garner a respect for what is right rather than merely for the law. Henry David Thoreau

My Niece's Scholarly Award - Carleton - Norway (Masters in Journalism)

Congrats Ora! Your great efforts and hard work paid off - Loved your posts and articles about Norway!!Visit her posts and articles at www.noraway.net

Two Wrongs Don't make a Right - Re: Protests at Mayor's Personal Residence (Caledonia)

Protest of Hamburger Stand may have been legal – but...

The protesters who attended Mayor Ken Hewitt’s private residence on Saturday July 23rd took pains to demonstrate the legality of their protest. As one member of the group expressed it - “[we] actually acknowledge” trespass laws. These statements, among others, were meant to demonstrate the justness and, therefore, righteousness of their actions; they were stand-ins for the implied message that, ‘because what these protesters were doing was legal, it was therefore also right’. But was it right to attend the Mayor’s home to stage such a protest?
As a lecturer in Ethics and practicing lawyer, I often come across those who confuse ‘legality’ with ‘justice’ - but Justice and lawfulness are not interchangeable concepts. As just one example, no one would deny that protesting is lawful, but as recent incidents in the United States have shown - where some protesters have attended the funerals of dead soldiers to shout that death is “payback” for immorality - law cannot be a stand-in for justice. Or, to be more direct – what is legal can still be wrong.
Of course – the obvious question is, “what is wrong with protesting at the home of the Mayor?” One could argue that the Mayor is the Mayor and so ought to receive these protests without complaint. Perhaps. But, can anyone deny that his wife or child isn’t the Mayor, or that this is their private residence and sanctuary? Further, can anyone deny that their neighbours’ peace, privacy, and quiet enjoyment of a Saturday were equally at stake? Can anyone deny that the Mayor is a decent person (as are, I assume, these protesters), doing his best for the good of his County – and that even a Mayor ought to be able to expect some solitude, privacy, and dignity in his own home and neighbourhood? Can anyone deny that there are public places and buildings more intimately tied to the Mayor’s Office and official duties – and that these are more appropriate places to voice discontent?
Of course, one might further argue that the residents of Caledonia have endured many inconveniences (or worse) and so it is only fair that the new Mayor endure his fair share. Perhaps. But does one person’s loss of an eye legitimize the taking of another’s? Does the strength of these protesters’ (perhaps legitimate) anger and discontent negate their obligations to treat Mr. Hewitt, his family, neighbours, and the wider public, with equal concern and respect? Can one legitimize his or her unethical behaviour with the moral equivalent of “feel my pain”?
The fact is that we don’t go to the homes of people we disagree with professionally to voice our discontent; lawyers don’t advise clients to attend the opposing side’s home to argue, and; no one goes to the chef’s home to say last night’s meal didn’t meet expectations. In going to the Hewitt’s private residence these protesters failed to pay heed to their wider obligations - mistaking lawfulness for rightfulness. In so doing, these protesters let their fervency for ‘the cause’ cloud their judgment of right and wrong. In letting the law be their guide, they were misled.

Visit http://www.sachem.ca/opinions/article/239762

Caledonia Ontario - Native Protests - The importance of acting ethically when protesting for a just cause

Re: “Threat of Violence Still Hangs Over Caledonia”

I take issue with one of the allegations lobbed by this writer – that the police are using race as a principle upon which to decide when to enforce the law in Caledonia. This is a refrain that has been heard time and time again, and one against which the police have been unable to defend themselves. While I am not pro (or anti) police I do think some of the more vocal residents of this area have worked hard to unfairly characterise the police as racist – or more accurately, to characterise the exercise of police discretion as somehow based on considerations of race and not on some important societal goal or value. The oft-repeated allegation has been that the OPP is conducting “race-based” policing. Rage and anger naturally ensues.
The story goes like this: The police have failed to enforce the law against the Natives on the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land. The police have not failed to enforce the law when non-Native activists, and others, have attempted to enter this same disputed land. The logical conclusion, so the story goes, is that the police are using reverse discrimination to prefer the interests of Natives over that of non-Natives.
There are at least three problems (two logical and one systemic) with this familiar fable.
First, the person alleging race-based policing is making a leap of faith. He or she is assuming decisions that result in the seemingly different treatment of different peoples must be based on race. The person making this argument assumes the police are making decisions based predominantly on race, to the near total exclusion of justice, security, peace, public order, or other operational considerations.
Second, this allegation treats correlation (the fact that particular decisions seemingly correlate with race) as causation (the motivations or cause of the treatment). This slight-of-hand confuses one into believing that race, and not some other factor, is the cause of the manner of policing, rather than the correlative result.
The third problem is more worrisome. This allegation, based on a party trick and unsupportable assumption, has served to sour relations between the residents of Haldimand and police. People have lost faith in the men and women who, every day, work hard to protect our communities, and right wrongs.
A more likely story, and one that I think has been born out in the process and result of the last six years, is that the police have been charged with the thankless and difficult task of standing between two warring groups. In that middle ground, police have had to take into consideration, in conjunction with the goal of law enforcement, the greater goals of security, peace, stability, and operational viability; all while also trying not to derail a slow-moving political process of negotiation and discussion. In that effort to promote these grander goals and processes, the police have, it appears, acted diligently to maintain an admittedly less-than-ideal status quo pending resolution of this dispute through negotiation.
This more likely story takes into consideration the fact that (unless you are a conspiracy theorist) most police officers are fair-minded individuals who chose policing in order to do good – not evil. It also takes into consideration the fact that police officers are like you or me and therefore not likely to be motivated by the goal of reverse-discrimination. It also takes into consideration the fact that police officers in Caledonia are operating in a difficult situation – many competing values and goals are in play – and making difficult operational decisions about how to maintain law, order, peace and promote resolution to a problem that, in 350 years, has yet to be solved, makes for tough working conditions.
We should all, therefore, take issue with the allegation that the OPP are engaged in race-based policing. It is too facile an explanation to a very difficult and complex issue; its treats police as vapid politically correct monkeys and it takes us for fools. It is towards this uncritical allegation, and not towards the police, that our collective rage and anger should, naturally, be directed.

Visit http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/565045--criticism-of-the-motives-of-police-caught-in-the-caledonia-conflict-are-unfair

What is a Canadian??

I think that we ought to consider the notion that it is our ideas and values that bind us, as Canadians, together.
The problem with a community uniform, or required religion, is that it precludes change based on a prejudice of - or for - historical continuity. But, ideas, or values, based on human notions of justice, or value, or dignity, are more flexible and promote the very foundations and reasons for coming together as a nation in the first place (just look at the American and Canadian Constitutions as examples!): To do things collectively that we, as individuals, could never achieve alone. It is here, deep in the purposes for coming together as a community, that we should look for the "isms" of our national identity - not to constraining gimmicks or superficial badges of membership.

So, the next time you are asked "what is a Canadian" you can say that, far better than an itchy national costume or salty dish, we have a strong sense of community built on ideas of interdependence, independence, justice, equality, and dignity - and that interestingly, these are the same reasons for Man leaving the "state of nature" and entering into civil society! And, unlike so many other places on earth, there is, for example, no ethnic or religious requirement.
In this sense, Canada is a modern nation, built not on historical prejudices but on the triumph of reason and rationality; a people, of diverse makeup, driven by a common purpose that fosters basic human conceptions of the good, the right, and the just.

Indeed, being Canadian is not, cannot, and should not be so narrowly encapsulated in any costume or uniform – this is not “dress up” or “for pretend”. Being Canadian it is not something you wear on your sleeve or pin on your shirt – its complexity is not encapsulated in a slogan, sport or food; it’s not defined by the color of your skin – and it is not something so easily mimicked or feigned. Rather, it is something one feels and quietly practices as a right and obligation of membership. A way of life built on value and purpose - shared and valued by our fellow Canadians, and fellow human beings around the world. It is our ideas that bind us together, as one: The true north strong and free.

More Corporate Tax Cuts - a Good Idea?

With recent discussion surrounding the issue of corporate tax cuts, I thought it best to post this link to a recent Globe and Mail article. It provides a basis for some alternative thinking on the issue.

(If the link, above, does not work, the article can be seen by going to the below-mentioned address)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-more-corporate-tax-cuts/article1886449/