Saturday, September 22, 2007
SOME FASCINATING FIRST FACTS
Personal matters have kept me away from this site for several months. But I am back now.
The following is a quiz about some important U.S. 'firsts'. See how well you do. (Try not to peek at the answers below!)
1. Which State was the first in the U.S. to give women the vote?
2. In which State was the first woman elected to state-wide office?
3. In which State was the first female Justice of the Peace appointed?
4. Which State was the first to elect a woman to the State Legislature?
5. Which State had the first woman Governor?
6. Which State first empanelled women to serve on a jury?
7. In which State was the first County Public Library law enacted?
8. In which State was the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress?
9. In which City and State was the first all-woman municipal government elected?
10. Which U.S. university was the first to appoint a woman as Head of an academic Department?
Here are the correct answers.
1. Wyoming was the first State in the U.S. to give women the vote - in 1869. This was done when it was the Wyoming Territory. But even if we use the date when Wyoming became the 44th State in 1890, it was still the first to give women the vote. The second State to do so was Colorado in 1894. The XIXth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving women the right to vote in all national, state and local elections was not ratified until 1920, more than a half century after Wyoming first gave women the vote.
2. Wyoming was the first State in which a woman was elected to statewide office. Estelle Reel was elected Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1894.
3. Wyoming was the first State in which a woman was appointed as a Justice of the Peace. Esther Morris of South Pass City was appointed in 1870, twenty years before the Wyoming Territory became the 44th State.
4. Colorado was the first state to elect a woman to the State Legislature – in 1894. Three women were returned in the first State election in which women voted: Clara Cressingham, Carrie Holly, and Frances Klock.
5. Wyoming was the first State to have a woman Governor. Nellie Ross succeeded her husband in 1925.
6. Wyoming was the first State in which women were empanelled on a jury. It happened in Laramie in 1870, twenty years before the Wyoming Territory became the 44th State.
7. Wyoming was the first State to enact a County Public Library law – in 1886. The legislation was enacted in the Territorial Legislature, four years before the Wyoming Territory became the 44th State. The first public library opened in Cheyenne later that year.
8. Montana was the first State to elect a woman to the U.S. Congress. Jeanette Rankin was elected in 1916. Incidentally, a devoted pacifist, she voted against U.S. entry into both World War I and World War II, the only member of Congress to vote against entry into both of these Wars.
9. Jackson, Wyoming was the first City to elect an all-woman municipal government. The election of 1920 returned a woman Mayor, all women Councillors, and a woman City Marshall.
10. The University of Wyoming was the first U.S. university to appoint a woman as Head of an academic department. Dr. June Downey was appointed Head of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology in 1915.
Am I the only one who finds the answers to these questions both deeply satisfying and immensely sad? Satisfying because they show just how progressive the Mountain States (especially Wyoming) were in promoting the civic and political rights of women at a time when the nation as a whole and the vast majority of individual States were steadfastly opposed to women's involvement in political affairs. Sad because these facts are not readily taught in U.S. schools by liberal educators nor acknowledged by a liberal media intent on painting the Mountain States as the refuge of constitutional reactionaries and political Neanderthals.
The following is a quiz about some important U.S. 'firsts'. See how well you do. (Try not to peek at the answers below!)
1. Which State was the first in the U.S. to give women the vote?
2. In which State was the first woman elected to state-wide office?
3. In which State was the first female Justice of the Peace appointed?
4. Which State was the first to elect a woman to the State Legislature?
5. Which State had the first woman Governor?
6. Which State first empanelled women to serve on a jury?
7. In which State was the first County Public Library law enacted?
8. In which State was the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress?
9. In which City and State was the first all-woman municipal government elected?
10. Which U.S. university was the first to appoint a woman as Head of an academic Department?
Here are the correct answers.
1. Wyoming was the first State in the U.S. to give women the vote - in 1869. This was done when it was the Wyoming Territory. But even if we use the date when Wyoming became the 44th State in 1890, it was still the first to give women the vote. The second State to do so was Colorado in 1894. The XIXth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving women the right to vote in all national, state and local elections was not ratified until 1920, more than a half century after Wyoming first gave women the vote.
2. Wyoming was the first State in which a woman was elected to statewide office. Estelle Reel was elected Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1894.
3. Wyoming was the first State in which a woman was appointed as a Justice of the Peace. Esther Morris of South Pass City was appointed in 1870, twenty years before the Wyoming Territory became the 44th State.
4. Colorado was the first state to elect a woman to the State Legislature – in 1894. Three women were returned in the first State election in which women voted: Clara Cressingham, Carrie Holly, and Frances Klock.
5. Wyoming was the first State to have a woman Governor. Nellie Ross succeeded her husband in 1925.
6. Wyoming was the first State in which women were empanelled on a jury. It happened in Laramie in 1870, twenty years before the Wyoming Territory became the 44th State.
7. Wyoming was the first State to enact a County Public Library law – in 1886. The legislation was enacted in the Territorial Legislature, four years before the Wyoming Territory became the 44th State. The first public library opened in Cheyenne later that year.
8. Montana was the first State to elect a woman to the U.S. Congress. Jeanette Rankin was elected in 1916. Incidentally, a devoted pacifist, she voted against U.S. entry into both World War I and World War II, the only member of Congress to vote against entry into both of these Wars.
9. Jackson, Wyoming was the first City to elect an all-woman municipal government. The election of 1920 returned a woman Mayor, all women Councillors, and a woman City Marshall.
10. The University of Wyoming was the first U.S. university to appoint a woman as Head of an academic department. Dr. June Downey was appointed Head of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology in 1915.
Am I the only one who finds the answers to these questions both deeply satisfying and immensely sad? Satisfying because they show just how progressive the Mountain States (especially Wyoming) were in promoting the civic and political rights of women at a time when the nation as a whole and the vast majority of individual States were steadfastly opposed to women's involvement in political affairs. Sad because these facts are not readily taught in U.S. schools by liberal educators nor acknowledged by a liberal media intent on painting the Mountain States as the refuge of constitutional reactionaries and political Neanderthals.
| Comments 
Saturday, May 19, 2007
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
There was a time (and not that long ago) when a police officer could not stop a vehicle on a public street or highway without probable cause. The officer had to have reasonable grounds for believing that a law was being broken: the driver was weaving all over the road and likely under the influence of alcohol, or was speeding, or the vehicle was being driven dangerously, or it had no visible registration, or some other demonstrable violation was occurring.
Then Canada came up with the CHECKSTOP program - allowing the police to set up random roadblocks to check all drivers for signs of alcohol consumption. When challenged, the courts ruled that this is lawful and does not contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In effect, the social good (taking potentially intoxicated and dangerous drivers off the road) trumped individual rights. While most citizens would probably accept this particular restriction on their individual freedom for the greater good, I remember at the time wondering what would be next. Now I know.
I live in a small town (about 10,000 people). A couple of days ago, I drove downtown during the lunch hour to visit the post office (a five minute trip). Returning home a few minutes later, I arrived at a police roadblock. A friendly and polite RCMP officer (I have no complaints here) informed me that they were doing a documents check. He wanted to see my driver's licence, vehicle registration, and insurance certificate. There were no reasonable grounds for suspecting that I was intoxicated, or driving a stolen vehicle, or driving without using a seatbelt, or visibly breaking any other law: they were simply making a documents check.
This causes me great alarm. The underlying implication here is that the police have the right to stop me at anytime and anywhere for no observable cause. I do not know if anyone has challenged this in court - and I certainly cannot afford to do so myself. But if it is judged to be legal, then how long before a police officer can stop any pedestrian at random, with no observable cause, and demand to see ID? How long before we will all be required to carry ID at all times and must produce this whenever asked to do so by a police officer, with or without justifiable cause?
George Orwell's 1984 society is just another step closer.
Then Canada came up with the CHECKSTOP program - allowing the police to set up random roadblocks to check all drivers for signs of alcohol consumption. When challenged, the courts ruled that this is lawful and does not contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In effect, the social good (taking potentially intoxicated and dangerous drivers off the road) trumped individual rights. While most citizens would probably accept this particular restriction on their individual freedom for the greater good, I remember at the time wondering what would be next. Now I know.
I live in a small town (about 10,000 people). A couple of days ago, I drove downtown during the lunch hour to visit the post office (a five minute trip). Returning home a few minutes later, I arrived at a police roadblock. A friendly and polite RCMP officer (I have no complaints here) informed me that they were doing a documents check. He wanted to see my driver's licence, vehicle registration, and insurance certificate. There were no reasonable grounds for suspecting that I was intoxicated, or driving a stolen vehicle, or driving without using a seatbelt, or visibly breaking any other law: they were simply making a documents check.
This causes me great alarm. The underlying implication here is that the police have the right to stop me at anytime and anywhere for no observable cause. I do not know if anyone has challenged this in court - and I certainly cannot afford to do so myself. But if it is judged to be legal, then how long before a police officer can stop any pedestrian at random, with no observable cause, and demand to see ID? How long before we will all be required to carry ID at all times and must produce this whenever asked to do so by a police officer, with or without justifiable cause?
George Orwell's 1984 society is just another step closer.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
COPS OR ROBBERS?
I have been away for a month, organizing and chairing a conference with over 200 delegates. This explains why I have not been online, but I have not ignored what is going on around us.
For more than a century, Canadians have had a love affair with their national police force. The redcoats have been an object of popular adoration - the police force that can do no wrong. Well, we are now in wake-up mode - and, for many, it hurts! The accusations of fraud and abuse in the management of the RCMP pension and insurance plans, finally made public by a group of officers last Wednesday, appear to be just the tip of the iceberg.
I want to be clear about this. I do not believe corruption, fraud and criminal activity are epidemic throughout the RCMP. As is the case in most police forces in democratic countries, the majority of officers are likely honest and doing the best they can in a difficult job. But the myth of the force's purity is shattered.
It is ironic that an internal scandal is the trigger here. The public's belief in the integrity of the RCMP has withstood some major shocks in the past decade: the APEC incident in Vancouver in 1997 where citizens engaged in a legitimate political protest were pepper-sprayed, detained and illegally strip-searched; the dubious tactics employed to subdue protesters at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001; the unconstitutional intimidation of dissenters brilliantly exposed by David Pugliese and Jim Bronskill in their five-part series on the Criminalization of Dissent (Ottawa Citizen, August 2001); a series of bungled and prejudiced investigations of crimes that led directly to the convictions of persons later proven to be innocent; and more. The RCMP survived these shocks. They could be - and were - put down to the wayward actions of a few individuals.
Not so the current scandal. It appears that the elite of the force, senior officers at the very top of the organization, have made corrupt and illegal use of their own members' pension and insurance monies. And, apparently, they hid it by threatening the careers of officers who protested this. Nothing hurts more than betrayal within the family. The lid has been taken off - and it will not prove easy to put it back on.
And what of the broader implications? Like the FBI in the U.S., the RCMP is a federal police force. But unlike the situation in the U.S., it also operates as a "State Police force" in seven of our Provinces, under contracts between the federal and provincial governments. This has always presented a problem because, when push comes to shove, the force will take its orders from federal authorities - even in matters that come under provincial jurisdiction.
One of the principal candidates in the Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership contest last December called for an end to this arrangement and for the creation of an Alberta Provincial Police force. Perhaps the time for this has come.
For more than a century, Canadians have had a love affair with their national police force. The redcoats have been an object of popular adoration - the police force that can do no wrong. Well, we are now in wake-up mode - and, for many, it hurts! The accusations of fraud and abuse in the management of the RCMP pension and insurance plans, finally made public by a group of officers last Wednesday, appear to be just the tip of the iceberg.
I want to be clear about this. I do not believe corruption, fraud and criminal activity are epidemic throughout the RCMP. As is the case in most police forces in democratic countries, the majority of officers are likely honest and doing the best they can in a difficult job. But the myth of the force's purity is shattered.
It is ironic that an internal scandal is the trigger here. The public's belief in the integrity of the RCMP has withstood some major shocks in the past decade: the APEC incident in Vancouver in 1997 where citizens engaged in a legitimate political protest were pepper-sprayed, detained and illegally strip-searched; the dubious tactics employed to subdue protesters at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001; the unconstitutional intimidation of dissenters brilliantly exposed by David Pugliese and Jim Bronskill in their five-part series on the Criminalization of Dissent (Ottawa Citizen, August 2001); a series of bungled and prejudiced investigations of crimes that led directly to the convictions of persons later proven to be innocent; and more. The RCMP survived these shocks. They could be - and were - put down to the wayward actions of a few individuals.
Not so the current scandal. It appears that the elite of the force, senior officers at the very top of the organization, have made corrupt and illegal use of their own members' pension and insurance monies. And, apparently, they hid it by threatening the careers of officers who protested this. Nothing hurts more than betrayal within the family. The lid has been taken off - and it will not prove easy to put it back on.
And what of the broader implications? Like the FBI in the U.S., the RCMP is a federal police force. But unlike the situation in the U.S., it also operates as a "State Police force" in seven of our Provinces, under contracts between the federal and provincial governments. This has always presented a problem because, when push comes to shove, the force will take its orders from federal authorities - even in matters that come under provincial jurisdiction.
One of the principal candidates in the Alberta Progressive Conservative Leadership contest last December called for an end to this arrangement and for the creation of an Alberta Provincial Police force. Perhaps the time for this has come.
| Comments
Monday, March 5, 2007
WHOSE SHAMEFUL AND CHILDISH LIES?
My local newspaper recently started a weekly feature, a column written by Gwynne Dyer described as "a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries". To date, we have seen four columns from Mr. Dyer.
The first, about how many walls and fences are being built around the world to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants was informative. Plenty of facts about the location and nature of these barriers. Some speculation about where the next ones might be built, and why. All in all, an interesting and thought-provoking feature.
The following three columns have all been, in one way or another, diatribes against the Iraq War. One posed the possibility of US senior generals refusing to follow lawful orders, even encouraging them to do so. Another took nasty snide shots at Australia's Prime Minister (dubbed 'the deputy sheriff') for his support of the US in Iraq. The latest, however, has sunk to a new low.
Entitled "Somebody must be to blame - blame the Iraqis", it quite simply accuses Americans of shifting the blame for what he perceives as unbridled terror in Iraq simply because some Americans have pointed out that members of different groups of Iraqis - Shia and Sunni - are murdering each other! He selects quotations from several US commentators that point to the intersectoral strife in Iraq as his evidence. He even drags in a Doonesbury cartoon to 'prove' his thesis. He concludes that Americans are manufacturing "racist fantasies about the victims in order to salve their pride". He calls it "a shameful, childish lie".
The column is long on polemic, short on substance. Yes, there is internecine terrorism being practised by both Islamic groups in Iraq. Nowhere, however, does Dyer provide any factual information - or even an argument - that this has been caused by the US and coalition forces. His assumption appears to be that this didn't happen before the war and, therefore must be the result of the invasion.
May I suggest a few facts for the 'independent' Mr. Dyer? Saddam Hussein's government, composed primarily of minority Sunnis, carried out systematic torture and extermination against the majority Shias and Kurds on a massive scale - or have you forgotten the mass graves found in Kurdish and Shia regions of Iraq? Have you noticed that, outside Baghdad and the Sunni region, much of Iraq is currently quiet and progressing well with democracy? Have you checked figures detailing the genocide that characterised Saddam's reign of terror?
That two religious factions of Moslems do not trust each other, and that both are engaged in mutual terror and murder is sad and perplexing - and, to my view, completely contrary to the teachings of Mohamed. But do not try to pin it on the Americans. Doing so, simply proves that you, Mr. Dyer, are promoting a shameful and childish lie yourself.
The first, about how many walls and fences are being built around the world to keep out terrorists and illegal immigrants was informative. Plenty of facts about the location and nature of these barriers. Some speculation about where the next ones might be built, and why. All in all, an interesting and thought-provoking feature.
The following three columns have all been, in one way or another, diatribes against the Iraq War. One posed the possibility of US senior generals refusing to follow lawful orders, even encouraging them to do so. Another took nasty snide shots at Australia's Prime Minister (dubbed 'the deputy sheriff') for his support of the US in Iraq. The latest, however, has sunk to a new low.
Entitled "Somebody must be to blame - blame the Iraqis", it quite simply accuses Americans of shifting the blame for what he perceives as unbridled terror in Iraq simply because some Americans have pointed out that members of different groups of Iraqis - Shia and Sunni - are murdering each other! He selects quotations from several US commentators that point to the intersectoral strife in Iraq as his evidence. He even drags in a Doonesbury cartoon to 'prove' his thesis. He concludes that Americans are manufacturing "racist fantasies about the victims in order to salve their pride". He calls it "a shameful, childish lie".
The column is long on polemic, short on substance. Yes, there is internecine terrorism being practised by both Islamic groups in Iraq. Nowhere, however, does Dyer provide any factual information - or even an argument - that this has been caused by the US and coalition forces. His assumption appears to be that this didn't happen before the war and, therefore must be the result of the invasion.
May I suggest a few facts for the 'independent' Mr. Dyer? Saddam Hussein's government, composed primarily of minority Sunnis, carried out systematic torture and extermination against the majority Shias and Kurds on a massive scale - or have you forgotten the mass graves found in Kurdish and Shia regions of Iraq? Have you noticed that, outside Baghdad and the Sunni region, much of Iraq is currently quiet and progressing well with democracy? Have you checked figures detailing the genocide that characterised Saddam's reign of terror?
That two religious factions of Moslems do not trust each other, and that both are engaged in mutual terror and murder is sad and perplexing - and, to my view, completely contrary to the teachings of Mohamed. But do not try to pin it on the Americans. Doing so, simply proves that you, Mr. Dyer, are promoting a shameful and childish lie yourself.
| Comments
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
THE CANADIAN NANNY STATE MARCHES ON
I have cable television, which means I have the opportunity to watch many of my favorite shows on either US or Canadian channels. I find I generally prefer to watch the US channels, for several reasons.
Partly, it is my modest personal protest against the content rules of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which require that private television stations must show a "yearly Canadian content of 60% over the course of an entire broadcast day, and at least 50% between 6:00 p.m. and midnight" - regardless of its quality!
Partly, it's because I can get US channels from both the Eastern and Pacific time zones, so I can watch shows at times that are most convenient for me.
And partly, it's because I find I generally enjoy US commercials more than Canadian ones!
Sometimes, a show I want to watch is featured on a Canadian and US channnel at the same time. When this happens, the US channel is pre-empted, with the Canadian channel being shown even if my television is tuned to the US channel. This itself is a denial of my freedom to choose - and probably an infringement of my personal rights (except that Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows a government to legally limit an individual's rights anyway!). Worse, however is the fact that I am then subjected to the latest exercise of Canadian paternalism. (As if the Canadian content rules aren't enough!)
Last night I watched Heroes while tuned to a Spokane, Washington NBC station (KHQ). Unfortunately, the show was being broadcast on a Canadian Global network station (CICT) at the same time - so, of course, this was what I got. After every commercial break, CICT posted the same notice:
Partly, it is my modest personal protest against the content rules of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which require that private television stations must show a "yearly Canadian content of 60% over the course of an entire broadcast day, and at least 50% between 6:00 p.m. and midnight" - regardless of its quality!
Partly, it's because I can get US channels from both the Eastern and Pacific time zones, so I can watch shows at times that are most convenient for me.
And partly, it's because I find I generally enjoy US commercials more than Canadian ones!
Sometimes, a show I want to watch is featured on a Canadian and US channnel at the same time. When this happens, the US channel is pre-empted, with the Canadian channel being shown even if my television is tuned to the US channel. This itself is a denial of my freedom to choose - and probably an infringement of my personal rights (except that Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows a government to legally limit an individual's rights anyway!). Worse, however is the fact that I am then subjected to the latest exercise of Canadian paternalism. (As if the Canadian content rules aren't enough!)
Last night I watched Heroes while tuned to a Spokane, Washington NBC station (KHQ). Unfortunately, the show was being broadcast on a Canadian Global network station (CICT) at the same time - so, of course, this was what I got. After every commercial break, CICT posted the same notice:
The following program contains mature subject matter and scenes of violence. Viewer discretion is advised.
While this was on-screen a solemn voice-over read it aloud.
Now, I am quite happy to have television programs rated for such contents as violence and nudity. And it makes sense to indicate the rating at the beginning of a program. But do I have to be subjected to statements of this kind six or more times in one hour? Am I so dumb that I must be repeatedly reminded, both visually and by voice, that I am watching a show with this type of content?
Or is this just another example of my dear old paternal government doing what it believes is good for me - whether I want it or not? I'm guessing that's it!
| Comments
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
WHAT NEXT FOR THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS?
Today I am writing about a difficult subject - smoking in public places. Currently, there is a move afoot to ban smoking in all public places throughout Alberta, spearheaded by Dave Hancock, recently appointed Minister of Health and Wellness.
First things first: I do not smoke. The last time I had a cigarette was 45 years ago in 1962 when it was cool to smoke while at college. I was an occasional smoker. I never inhaled (I choked if I did so accidentally!). I had no interest in filling my lungs with smoke. I still feel this way. Nevertheless, I am deeply disturbed by the current campaign. Smoking is not illegal. Tobacco is not a banned or controlled substance - though (rightly) its sale to minors is prohibited, just as the sale of alcohol and pornographic magazines to minors are both prohibited.
What disturbs me is the tenor of the campaign. People who smoke are portrayed as evil monsters, unwitting victims, or just plain selfish bastards. The campaign presumes the ban will be good for people's health and is not a limitation of individual freedoms. One protagonist (www.ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2007/1/heat-is-on-over-smoking-in-public.html) has said: "It is not a human right or an individual rights issue". I do not agree. So long as society allows smoking as a legal activity, any restriction on it is a limitation of an individual right. Now, I am the first to admit that freedoms and rights can be limited: that society can regulate how, where and when a legal activity like smoking may take place. But don't pretend that this doesn't limit personal freedom when it does.
The argument is, of course, that others - non-smokers - suffer from secondhand smoke in public places where smoking occurs. I find the argument disingenuous. I inhale more secondhand smoke walking in Downtown Edmonton or Calgary during the working day than I do from sitting in a well-ventilated lounge where someone nearby is smoking. Diesel fumes from trucks are particularly nauseating. But the government is not moving to ban driving diesel-powered vehicles in downtown!
But, for me, the issue is far more worrisome than this - because I wonder what will be next. Already I am bombarded daily with messages about how to live my life. What I should eat (and, of course, what I should not). How much exercise I must take daily. (I am so irritated by the holier than thou attitude of Bodybreak on television!) What I should not drink. Safety precautions I must take daily to avoid the .0001% chance I may run into a terrorist or fall down the stairs. And so much more.
As I noted in an earlier Post on this site, Big Brother is alive and well and watching over us. I was concerned in that Post about the lack of controls on private information gathered by CCTV cameras in our communities. But the same underlying concern is here. Already, health authorities in New York City have enacted a ban on restaurants serving food with transfat levels above a specified amount. (No doubt, they will hire an army of culinary bureaucrats to enforce it!)
What next? Will the Alberta government pass a law requiring that we each engage in 30 minutes of adrenaline-pounding exercise daily, on pain of prosecution? Will it move to ban the sale of chocolates, coffee (an acknowledged drug and stimulant), alcohol, cookies, candies, and anything else that doesn't meet a designated healthy content standard? Will it limit how many steaks I can buy weekly because too much red meat is not good for me? I'm surprised they haven't already banned my beloved single malt scotch - except that they derive significant tax revenue from allowing me to buy it. (True also for the sale of tobacco products!)
I am reminded here of a comment by G.K. Chesterton: "If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals."
I am 65 years old. I have no intention of taking up smoking - though I admit I am occasionaly tempted to do so just to make a point! But I would appreciate it if the social engineers would stay the hell out of my personal life.
First things first: I do not smoke. The last time I had a cigarette was 45 years ago in 1962 when it was cool to smoke while at college. I was an occasional smoker. I never inhaled (I choked if I did so accidentally!). I had no interest in filling my lungs with smoke. I still feel this way. Nevertheless, I am deeply disturbed by the current campaign. Smoking is not illegal. Tobacco is not a banned or controlled substance - though (rightly) its sale to minors is prohibited, just as the sale of alcohol and pornographic magazines to minors are both prohibited.
What disturbs me is the tenor of the campaign. People who smoke are portrayed as evil monsters, unwitting victims, or just plain selfish bastards. The campaign presumes the ban will be good for people's health and is not a limitation of individual freedoms. One protagonist (www.ken-chapman.blogspot.com/2007/1/heat-is-on-over-smoking-in-public.html) has said: "It is not a human right or an individual rights issue". I do not agree. So long as society allows smoking as a legal activity, any restriction on it is a limitation of an individual right. Now, I am the first to admit that freedoms and rights can be limited: that society can regulate how, where and when a legal activity like smoking may take place. But don't pretend that this doesn't limit personal freedom when it does.
The argument is, of course, that others - non-smokers - suffer from secondhand smoke in public places where smoking occurs. I find the argument disingenuous. I inhale more secondhand smoke walking in Downtown Edmonton or Calgary during the working day than I do from sitting in a well-ventilated lounge where someone nearby is smoking. Diesel fumes from trucks are particularly nauseating. But the government is not moving to ban driving diesel-powered vehicles in downtown!
But, for me, the issue is far more worrisome than this - because I wonder what will be next. Already I am bombarded daily with messages about how to live my life. What I should eat (and, of course, what I should not). How much exercise I must take daily. (I am so irritated by the holier than thou attitude of Bodybreak on television!) What I should not drink. Safety precautions I must take daily to avoid the .0001% chance I may run into a terrorist or fall down the stairs. And so much more.
As I noted in an earlier Post on this site, Big Brother is alive and well and watching over us. I was concerned in that Post about the lack of controls on private information gathered by CCTV cameras in our communities. But the same underlying concern is here. Already, health authorities in New York City have enacted a ban on restaurants serving food with transfat levels above a specified amount. (No doubt, they will hire an army of culinary bureaucrats to enforce it!)
What next? Will the Alberta government pass a law requiring that we each engage in 30 minutes of adrenaline-pounding exercise daily, on pain of prosecution? Will it move to ban the sale of chocolates, coffee (an acknowledged drug and stimulant), alcohol, cookies, candies, and anything else that doesn't meet a designated healthy content standard? Will it limit how many steaks I can buy weekly because too much red meat is not good for me? I'm surprised they haven't already banned my beloved single malt scotch - except that they derive significant tax revenue from allowing me to buy it. (True also for the sale of tobacco products!)
I am reminded here of a comment by G.K. Chesterton: "If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals."
I am 65 years old. I have no intention of taking up smoking - though I admit I am occasionaly tempted to do so just to make a point! But I would appreciate it if the social engineers would stay the hell out of my personal life.
| Comments
Sunday, January 21, 2007
THE MYTH OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION
For years now, the whiners on the Left have been parroting the idea that women are victims of massive discrimination in Canada and the U.S. Most recently, Sheila Copps, the tired old Liberal hack from the 1980s and 90s, complained that Canada " ... is trailing on women's equality" because it ranks 47th in the world in the numbers of women elected to Parliament (Calgary Sun, January 14, 2007).
Reinforcing this view are seemingly endless numbers of courses in just about every Canadian and American university that perpetuate the claim, often implying that just about the only group not facing discrimination today is made up of males - or, at least, white males! We are increasingly bombarded with statements such as: fewer women are members of legislatures; on average, women earn less than men (a figure frequently cited is 79 cents to every male dollar); women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence; and more!
First, let's look at a different set of numbers for women: they represent more than half the population of both Canada and the U.S., make up more than half of all university and college students in both countries, own more than half the wealth, obtain child custody in 90% of divorces, and have greater high school graduation rates. Do I conclude from these figures that women are favored - that they are, in fact, beneficiaries of affirmative action? Of course not!
Two points come to mind. First, these kinds of figures are almost always selective - and, usually, incomplete. In a recent article in the Calgary Sun (January 21, 2007), Ian Robinson took one of the figures - the claim that, on average, women earn less than men - and explored it further. Citing the work of the Independent Women's Forum (a think tank set up by women who are tired of being portrayed as victims of perennial discrimination), he found that, when adjustments are made for the fact that women work fewer hours on the whole than men, they actually earn 98 cents to every male dollar - statistically, an insignificant difference! What do I conclude? The difference is not a result of discrimination, but a consequence of differing life choices!
Second, let's look at another set of figures, this time about men. Using some of Robinson's examples and adding a couple of others produces the following picture.
More men die of prostate cancer each year than women die of breast cancer! For every 100 bachelor' degrees held by women, men hold 79. Five times as many men than women commit suicide each year. A large majority of high school dropouts are male. A large majority of drug addicts are male. Males are, by far, the most common victims of all types of crimes, including murder. Males account for 94% of all job-related fatalities. And, on average, the male lifespan is at least six years shorter than the female lifespan in both Canada and the U.S. Do I conclude from this that men are victims of discrimination? Of course not!
We would do well to remember Disraeli's famous dictum. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Numbers, in and of themselves, are not evidence either of discrimination or affirmative action (which, whatever its motivation, is quite simply legally sanctioned discrimination). To be evidence of a condition requires that numbers demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. In Robinson's words: "An unequal outcome does not presuppose an unequal opportunity." (I now call this Robinson's Law.)
It's high time the apologists for the Left - the academic leftovers of the 1960s, the perpetual whiners, and the totalitarian socialists hiding behind a facade of equality - learn to put reasoned arguments in place of mindless slogans! They would do well to start with Robinson's Law.
Yes, there are some women who are victims of discrimination. And yes, there are some men who are also victims. And some African Americans, Asians, Whites, Disabled People, Children, and more. It may even be possible to demonstrate that some of these people face consistent discrimination - as a group. But let's not prolong the myth that women are one such group!
Reinforcing this view are seemingly endless numbers of courses in just about every Canadian and American university that perpetuate the claim, often implying that just about the only group not facing discrimination today is made up of males - or, at least, white males! We are increasingly bombarded with statements such as: fewer women are members of legislatures; on average, women earn less than men (a figure frequently cited is 79 cents to every male dollar); women are more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence; and more!
First, let's look at a different set of numbers for women: they represent more than half the population of both Canada and the U.S., make up more than half of all university and college students in both countries, own more than half the wealth, obtain child custody in 90% of divorces, and have greater high school graduation rates. Do I conclude from these figures that women are favored - that they are, in fact, beneficiaries of affirmative action? Of course not!
Two points come to mind. First, these kinds of figures are almost always selective - and, usually, incomplete. In a recent article in the Calgary Sun (January 21, 2007), Ian Robinson took one of the figures - the claim that, on average, women earn less than men - and explored it further. Citing the work of the Independent Women's Forum (a think tank set up by women who are tired of being portrayed as victims of perennial discrimination), he found that, when adjustments are made for the fact that women work fewer hours on the whole than men, they actually earn 98 cents to every male dollar - statistically, an insignificant difference! What do I conclude? The difference is not a result of discrimination, but a consequence of differing life choices!
Second, let's look at another set of figures, this time about men. Using some of Robinson's examples and adding a couple of others produces the following picture.
More men die of prostate cancer each year than women die of breast cancer! For every 100 bachelor' degrees held by women, men hold 79. Five times as many men than women commit suicide each year. A large majority of high school dropouts are male. A large majority of drug addicts are male. Males are, by far, the most common victims of all types of crimes, including murder. Males account for 94% of all job-related fatalities. And, on average, the male lifespan is at least six years shorter than the female lifespan in both Canada and the U.S. Do I conclude from this that men are victims of discrimination? Of course not!
We would do well to remember Disraeli's famous dictum. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Numbers, in and of themselves, are not evidence either of discrimination or affirmative action (which, whatever its motivation, is quite simply legally sanctioned discrimination). To be evidence of a condition requires that numbers demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. In Robinson's words: "An unequal outcome does not presuppose an unequal opportunity." (I now call this Robinson's Law.)
It's high time the apologists for the Left - the academic leftovers of the 1960s, the perpetual whiners, and the totalitarian socialists hiding behind a facade of equality - learn to put reasoned arguments in place of mindless slogans! They would do well to start with Robinson's Law.
Yes, there are some women who are victims of discrimination. And yes, there are some men who are also victims. And some African Americans, Asians, Whites, Disabled People, Children, and more. It may even be possible to demonstrate that some of these people face consistent discrimination - as a group. But let's not prolong the myth that women are one such group!
| Comments