Another of my pastimes, in addition to assessing supermarket checkout lines, is searching for the perfect parking spot (PPS). It has three characteristics: it is a ‘drive-through’, the possibility of a door-ding is small, and it is convenient.
. . . . not the concept, which has some redeeming qualities, but the term itself.
There was a kerfuffle in the Canadian media last summer (link, link, and link) about Cultural Appropriation. I knew almost nothing about the subject, other than everyone thought that it was a bad thing that white people did, and they should stop, and somehow pay for their transgressions.
I remember being confused about the whole thing. Most examples seemed very minor to me, like celebrities having their hair in corn rows. The outrage died down but my confusion lingered. I finally got around to taking a closer look. Hence this blog post.
Spoiler 1: The term Cultural Appropriation (CA) is incoherent, incomprehensible, and useless.
Spoiler 2: The term Cultural Appropriation discourages discussion about how Individuals or groups of one culture can negatively affect another culture.
Continue reading Cultural Appropriation – A Bad Idea . . . .
In a previous post I argued that I was not represented in Canada’s Parliament, and neither was anyone else. There is a solution — Direct Representation, modified for Canadian Circumstances (DCR)! DCR addresses all the criticisms that have been directed towards our current system, First Past the Post; it is proportional, no vote is wasted, there is no vote splitting, it allows marginal voices to be heard, it increases accountability between voters and their representatives, and it results in a Parliament that accurately reflects the diversity that Canadians think is important.
Continue reading Canadian Federal Electoral Reform – Direct Representation
. . . and neither is anyone else!
According to Canada’s Public Policy Forum, “an ideal election would be one where the portrait of the House directly reflects a portrait of all Canadians” (link). Thus, 50% of our Members of Parliament (MPs) would be female (instead of 25%), their average age would be 40 years old (instead of 50), 23% would be members of visible minorities (instead of 12%) and so on. On the other hand, 1% of our MPs would be lawyers, (instead of 13%), 1% would be activists (instead of 12%), and 6% would have a graduate degree (instead of 14%).
The internet is an ocean of articles/predictions/opinions/factoids all written by complete strangers. How does one determine if a particular item is credible, and worth basing future decisions on? Did Trump really mock a disabled reporter? Or was it taken out of context? Is there really a link between vaccines and autism? Or was the initial study retracted? How can one decide which side of the argument is more credible?